Archive | Libya

The UN Losing Poker Hand in Libya

Featured image: Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar

In poker, smart players know that the best thing to do with a weak hand is dump it.

Not so the United Nations. Libya is doubling down on backing the failing Government of National Accord (GNA), hoping that by reopening its UN base in the capital, the previously fortified “Palm City Complex,” things will improve.

They are also sending some sending in Gurkha “Security Guards,” but nowhere near enough to actually make a difference against the Tripoli-based militias. For two hundred years the Gurkhas have been the most feared force in the British Army. If anyone can destroy the Tripoli militias, they can, but what’s the point? Why shore up an unelected five-man government?

The GNA was created by the UN two years ago to unite the country and end the civil war. Instead, the GNA’s cabinet is unable even to unite Tripoli, which is “controlled” by various militias. Hence the need for Gurkhas to stop militias overrunning the ostentatious UN compound, “Palm City,” which is itself a provocation to the Libyan people.

The elected parliament in Tobruk, rival to the GNA, is increasingly calling the shots. Thanks to the increasingly popular Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, Tobruk now controls the majority of the country and its oil infrastructure and ports. The idea that the GNA will ever rule over areas held by Tobruk is laughable. But, having created the GNA, the UN remains determined to back it. Last week Haftar banned GNA personnel from visiting the East — so much for the alleged French July détente efforts.

What makes the UN case so hopeless is that outside powers are split and at odds – in particular France and Italy — over who to support.

One European country is even pondering supporting the son of the late Colonel Gaddafi — that is how desperate the situation has become.

Italy supports the GNA because militias in western Libya are in a position to stop people-smuggling. Italy faces parliamentary elections in 2018 and politicians are aware the electorate will focus on the immigration issue.

Most migrants from Libya end up in Italy, not France, and for Paris migration is less important than combating terrorism. Haftar is already combating Islamist terrorists in Libya, making France a natural ally.

“Serraj leverages off of Italian support,” said Jalel Harchaoui, a doctoral candidate in geopolitics and Libyan commentator, adding “and you can be sure Haftar makes use of the prestige of France’s apparent support for his military campaign. On the ground, the inability of foreign states to coordinate among themselves on Libya has always generated more chaos.”

In July, Fayez Serraj, the UN-designated prime minister from the Government of National Accord, met with Haftar in Paris to sign a peace deal between the two sides. But neither leader actually signed the document. In an interview with France 24, Haftar later stated,

“Serraj is a good man, but he cannot implement what he agrees to.”

Russia showed its support for Haftar by inviting him aboard an aircraft carrier earlier this year. It has since hedged its bets, insisting it is working for reconciliation by talking to all sides, including the Misrata-based Al-Bunyan Al-Marsoos (BMB) militia.

Yesterday the BMB militia surprisingly pledged its support for an unknown multi-millionaire businessman Basit Igtet, a Swiss based Libyan with alleged links to Israel and designs on becoming President of Libya!

One thing must be made clear: The BMB Militia are enemies of Haftar’s LNA.

Lev Dengov, head of the “Russia’s Contact Group for a Libyan settlement,” recently stated,

“Tripoli and Tobruk personnel share the same embassy building in Moscow, engineered by us, to bring them closer to each other.”

Britain is trying to have it both ways. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who presumably facilitated the Gurkhas’ deployment, visited Serraj to show support, flying east to see Haftar on the of 24th August at his headquarters, urging the field marshall to keep to the “unsigned” agreement announced in Paris. But why should Hafter do so? It’s farcical.

The United States has kept a low profile thus far. Though rumour has it there has been a shift in policy in the last few days. Expect Rex Tillerson to get involved in the near future.

With the big powers so divided, and the GNA experiment having failed, the new UN envoy, Ghassan Salame, a Lebanese politician, said by some to be distrusted by the Russians, would have done better to dump the GNA.

Instead Salame is planning to send UN staff and “British Gurkhas,” disguised as “guards,” into the Tripoli cauldron, putting many lives needlessly at risk to support a failed and unelected government.

When will the UN throw in its losing hand? And when will Russia return to the aces it had when it supported Haftar?

Posted in Libya0 Comments

Mossad agent who infiltrated Daesh arrested in Libya

NOVANEWS

Image of Ephraim Benjamin, a Mossad agent [masralarabia]

Libyan security forces have arrested a Mossad agent who held a leading position in Daesh in the north-eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, the Israeli website Inian Merkazi reported.

The Hebrew website whose name translates to “Central Issues”, added that Ephraim Benjamin is a Jewish spy and that he mingled with Libyans following the 2011 revolution that resulted in the ouster of Leader Moammer Ghaddafi.

Masr Alarabia website described him as one of Mossad’s “Arabists” who are characterised by Arab features and who speak Arabic fluently in local dialects.

Nazi Mossad Arabists are known for infiltrating Palestinian protests and arresting demonstrators, as well as assassinating anti-occupation Palestinian activists, according to Masr Alarabia.

Nazi spy Benjamin had reportedly become a prominent imam of a large mosque in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, then he became a Daesh leader who commanded 200 fighters from the militant group.

Read: Hundreds of Daesh corpses await repatriation from Libya

The spy, who was known in Libya as Abu Hafs, was arrested two months ago and accused by the Libyan authorities of gathering intelligence information on Daesh for Mossad.

The Zionist website cited the incident as evidence used by Arab media to justify the common conspiratorial argument propagated in some Arab circles about the Jewish Nazi regime being behind the rise of Daesh in the region.

Libyan media outlets describe Benjamin as the “Mossad sheikh” who was arrested by local authorities.

Daesh began to operate in Libya in 2015. Many believe that the video posted by the group on 12 February of the same year from the city of Sirte, featuring the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians, as the official announcement of the militant group’s emergence in the north African country even if militant operations were believed to have been committed by Daesh prior to that date.

Posted in Libya0 Comments

Still Spinning On Libya

NOVANEWS
By James W. Carden 

In recent weeks, the Washington Post’s Cairo bureau chief Sudarsan Raghavan has published a series of remarkable dispatches from war-torn Libya, which is still reeling from the aftermath of NATO’s March 2011 intervention and the subsequent overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

On July 2, Raghavan reported on what amounts to Libya’s modern-day slave trade. According to his report, Libya is “now home to a thriving trade in humans. Unable to pay exorbitant smuggling fees or swindled by traffickers, some of the world’s most desperate people are being held as slaves, tortured or forced into prostitution.”

The numbers help tell the tale. “The number of migrants departing from Libya is surging,” writes Raghavan, “with more than 70,000 arriving in Italy so far this year, a 28 percent increase over the same period last year.”

On August 1, Raghavan returned to the pages of the Post with a disturbing portrait of life in Tripoli, reporting that: “Six years after the revolution that toppled dictator Moammar Gaddafi, the mood in this volatile capital is a meld of hopelessness and gloom. Diplomatic and military efforts by the United States and its allies have failed to stabilize the nation; the denouement of the crisis remains far from clear. Most Libyans sense that the worst is yet to come.”

Raghavan notes that “Under Gaddafi, the oil-producing country was once one of the world’s wealthiest nations.” Under his rule, “Libyans enjoyed free health care, education and other benefits under the eccentric strongman’s brand of socialism.” It would be difficult not to see, Raghavan writes, “the insecurity that followed Gaddafi’s death has ripped apart the North African country.”

Taken together, Raghavan’s reports should come as a rude shock to stalwart supporters of NATO’s intervention in Libya. Yet the embarrassing fervor with which many embraced the intervention remains largely undiminished – with, as we will see, one notable exception.

An Upside-Down Meritocracy

Anne Marie Slaughter, who served as policy planning chief at the State Department under Hillary Clinton, emailed her former boss after the start of the NATO operation, to say: “I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have never been prouder of having worked for you.”

Five months after the start of NATO operation against Gaddafi, Slaughter went public with her approval in an op-ed for the Financial Times titled “Why Libya Skeptics Were Proved Badly Wrong.” Proving, if nothing else, that the foreign policy establishment is a reverse meritocracy, Slaughter holds an endowed chair at Princeton and is also the well-compensated president of the influential Washington think tank New America.

President Obama’s decision to intervene received wide bipartisan support in the Congress and from media figures across the political spectrum, including Bill O’Reilly and Cenk Uyghur.

Yet the casus belli used to justify the intervention, as a U.K. parliamentary report made clear last September, was based on a lie: that the people of the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi were in imminent danger of being slaughtered by Gaddafi’s forces.

The report, issued by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, states that “Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

The report also noted that while “Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi … this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as ‘an intelligence-light decision.’”

Even as it became clear that the revolution had proved to be a disaster for the country, the arbiters of acceptable opinion in Washington continued to insist that NATO’s intervention was not only a success, but the right thing to do. It is a myth that has gained wide purchase among D.C.’s foreign policy cognoscenti, despite the judgment of former President Barack Obama, who famously described the intervention as “a shit show.”

Still Spinning

A full year after the commencement of NATO’s campaign against Gaddafi, former NATO Ambassador Ivo Daalder and NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stravidis took to the pages of that reliable bellwether of establishment opinion, Foreign Affairs, to declare that “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.”

According to Daalder and Stravidis, “the alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime.”

In 2016, a Clinton campaign press release justifying the ill-starred intervention, claimed “Qadhafi and his regime made perfectly clear what their plans were for dealing with those who stood up against his reign, using disgusting language in urging his backers to cleanse the country of these rebels. This was a humanitarian crisis.”

Astonishingly, the campaign “Factsheet” goes on to assert that, “there was no doubt that further atrocities were on the way, as Qadhafi’s forces storming towards the county’s second biggest city.” Yet there is, as both the U.K. parliamentary report and a Harvard study by Alan J. Kuperman found, no evidence for this whatsoever.

“Qaddafi did not perpetrate a ‘bloodbath’ in any of the cities that his forces recaptured from rebels prior to NATO intervention — including Ajdabiya, Bani Walid, Brega, Ras Lanuf, Zawiya, and much of Misurata — so there was,” writes Kuperman, “virtually no risk of such an outcome if he had been permitted to recapture the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi.”

Nevertheless, the myth persists. Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid, the author of Islamic Exceptionalismcontinues to insist, against all evidence, that the intervention was a success.

“The Libya intervention was successful,” says Hamid, “The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.”

In this, Hamid is hardly alone. Left-activists in thrall to a Trotskyite vision of permanent revolution also continue to make the case that NATO’s intervention was a net positive for the country.

In a recent interview with In These Times, Leila Al-Shami claimed that “If Gaddafi had not fallen, Libya now would look very much like Syria. In reality, the situation in Libya is a million times better. Syrian refugees are fleeing to Libya. Far fewer people have been killed in Libya since Gaddafi’s falling than in Syria. Gaddafi being ousted was a success for the Libyan people.”

 

 Full article

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Still Spinning On Libya

The Khazarian Bankster Cult That Destroyed Libya

NOVANEWS

The Neocons and AIPAC treat us all, including the Libyan people, as subjects or sub-humans. You can say that this is the premise upon which they build their entire ideology. The Neocons used America to dispose Gaddafi because they thought that he was basically challenging the Neocon hegemony in Libya.

Vladimir Putin with Gaddafi.

Mariam Alfatah graduated from the London School of Economics. She is a Libyan and has witnessed how the Powers That Be and their marionettes obliterated her country. You may disagree with just about everything Alfatah is going to say, but try to understand some of the arguments and evidence that she is going to put forth and interact with them responsibly.

We agree that ideas should be proved or disproved by reason and logic, not by emotion or name calling. If what she is saying lacks logical consistency, explanatory power, explanatory scope, and historical context, then readers are welcome to provide serious evidence to the contrary. The interview is a little long largely because Alfatah had to explain a number of issues and present evidence to support her claims.

Jonas E. Alexis: You said that there was a “Holocaust” and “a genocide” in Libya in 2011. Virtually everyone knew that the invasion was a Neocon war.[1] In fact, long before the war got started, thirty-seven Neocons sent Obama a letter saying that Gaddafi must go.[2] Neocon talking-head Bill Kristol himself said on eve of the invasion:

“Our ‘invasions’ have in fact been liberations. We have shed blood and expended treasure in Kuwait in 1991, in the Balkans later in the 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq—in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.”[3]

More importantly, virtually every serious scholar knows by now that the Neoconservative movement is a Jewish ideological enterprise which has never been good for America.[4]

Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke, themselves philo-Semitic scholars, declare that the Neoconservative movement is “in complete contrast…to the general cast of the American temperament as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.”[5]

Jewish legal scholar Stephen M. Feldman argues that the Neocons got their political and intellectual position “by leading an assault on the hegemonic pluralist democratic regime that had taken hold of the nations in the 1930s.”[6]

What Feldman is implicitly or reluctantly saying is that the Neocons essentially attacked the moral and political fabric of America and progressively turned the country into an empire that always looks for monsters to destroy in the Middle East and elsewhere.[7] This came into full bloom during the Reagan administration.[8]

These warmongers have told us ad nauseam that they were trying to establish “democracy” and “freedom” in places like Libya. Obviously Libya has been in chaos ever since these “geniuses” landed in the country. Describe for us why these warmongers were and still are worse than psychopaths. You can also talk about what really happened when they invaded Libya.

Mariam Alfatah: First of all, it must be stated that the Neocons and AIPAC treat us all, including the Libyan people, as subjects or sub-humans. You can say that this is the premise upon which they build their entire ideology, and I will prove that throughout this interview.

The Neocons used America to dispose Gaddafi because they thought that he was basically challenging the Neocon hegemony in Libya. This is an important point. One of the writers at VT, David Swanson, talked about this in one of his articles, which was published by the Guardian itself.[9]

Keep in mind that Libya, under Gaddafi, controlled its own oil. I agree with Swanson completely when he said that “The Libyan government controls more of its oil than any other nation on earth, and it is the type of oil that Europe finds easiest to refine. Libya also controls its own finances.”[10]

What was more interesting was that Gaddafi challenged African countries to follow his lead![11] He helped establish satellites in many African nations. Some of those nations used to get their satellites from the French, which cost them millions of dollars. Now they were getting them at a fairly reasonable price from Gaddafi. To the warmongers and psychopaths, that was a dangerous move.

There is more: Gaddafi challenged African nations to stop importing what one may call GMO food from the West. He also said that Italy should compensate the Libyan people for their colonization from 1911 until 1945. Finally, Gaddafi had a plan to transform Libya into a second Dubai, where tourists would flock there by the millions. In his view, this would have created a shining monument for all of Africa. So, if you peel back the ideological onion, you can easily see why Gaddafi was a target.

There was no way for Gaddafi to survive the Neocon onslaught without serious backup from other countries. The Neocon system in the West, particularly in America, certainly didn’t want to stop their aggressive expansion in Libya and indeed in Africa. Therefore they had to summon pathetic lies and use false pretexts to invade Libya in 2011. Since the fall of the Jamahiriya, Libya has not experienced any political, financial or even social stability. None at all. Practically overnight, Libya was transformed from one of the richest growing countries in the world when it comes to oil and other resources to a failed state.

After the invasion, the West put “Abdulhakim Belhaj” in charge, one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. If you don’t believe me, you can even go to Wikipedia and it will tell you a little bit about Belhaj. He joined the Taliban and was even associated with al-Qaeda. The Gaddafi government warned the West about Belhaj right after the 9/11 attack. That was back in 2002.

The Gaddafi government even presented strong evidence which suggested that Belhaj was a terrorist and was advancing his ideology and covert activity at an alarming rate. Once again, even Zionist media like the BBC would agree with what I’m saying here. The BBC fairly reported in 2011 that Belhaj was in “Jalalabad, Afghanistan, from where he ran and financed training camps for Arab mujahideen fighters.”[12] We all know that the mujahideen are terrorists, even though the United States funded and trained them.[13] This is from Wikipedia—and it gets really interesting:

Tracked by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), after a tip-off from MI6 gained from London-based informants, Belhadj was arrested with his pregnant wife in 2004 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia. Transferred on the same plane to Bangkok, he was then placed in the custody of the CIA, where he was retained at a secret prison at the airport. Returned to Libya on the rendition aircraft N313P, he was held at the Abu Salim prison for seven years.”

Now this is the guy that the Neocons put in power in Libya! This is the kind of democracy and freedom that they are imposing on us Libyans. What were the results of the Libya invasion? Well, over 100,000 civilians lost their lives, including women and children.

It gets worse. At least 2 million Libyans had to move out of the country; some went to Tunis, Egypt, Algiers, and the UAE. The living conditions from 2011 till 2014 in Tripoli was tolerable but Benghazi and the eastern part of Libya became a living hell. Kidnapping, raping, and shooting were like playing video games in those regions.

The invaders even used Sarin gas in Ban Walid, but no Zionist Media covered that vital story. Sirt, a city in Libya, was invaded by ISIS, which we all know got their financial backing from the US, Qatar, Turkey, and even Israel. Al-Qaeda also took over Benghazi.

I could go on and on, but the main point here is that since the invasion in 2011, Libya has never been the same. The UN began to implement draconian ideas which the Libyan people rejected. Let me finish answering your question by saying that Gaddafi wanted to live. It is said that he told the invaders that he was willing to go into exile in the desert if they would not bomb Libya and turn the country into rubble. The response was: “We want you dead, not in exile, as we know you will fund a coup d’état. No, we will bomb Libya and rebuild it.”

In March of 2011, Qaddafi’s son, Saif, came out on national TV and very angrily said that he would find every single traitor (he called them “rats”) and killed them all. I think CNN broadcast his announcement with, of course, the usual editing to make it sound like he was ready to cause a massacre.

The assassination of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was an inside job, an order from the American administration, carried out by ragged rebels who were trained by American agents. By the way, there were 36 CIA agents who were saved by Qaddafi’s army; even though we had lost the war we still saved the asses of the Americans; what an irony.

The next US Ambassador, Safira Deborah, did everything in her power to finance and assist the so-called “Libyan Dawn,” which was but a faction of a terrorist group known as LIFG. They were also financed by Qatar and Turkey. Deborah praised Belhaj till she had to run for her own life in July of 2014.

Deborah fled first to Tunis then later to Malta. While in Malta she did a lot of bad mistakes which probably caused her to be fired. After Deborah, the new ambassador kept quiet and didn’t show his face much. It was no coincidence that Libyan officials began to sign contracts with Israel.

Abdulhakim Belhaj

Jonas E. Alexis: Vladimir Putin has specifically condemned the United States and NATO for invading Libya. He has obviously observed that the United States has a history of using categorical lies and fabrications to invade sovereign nations in the Middle East. Do you know if Putin ever corresponded with Gaddafi?

Mariam Alfatah: In 2011 Putin was only a prime minister and Medvedev was the president of Russia.  Gaddafi seemed to have spoken with Putin during a UN conference. As I understand it (from people who were in the room) Putin told Qaddafi that Russia would say NO to the “no fly zone.” I have no reason not to believe my sources.

Medvedev also seemed to have agreed with Putin. But it seemed that the elitists put an ideological spell on Medvedev and blackmailed him; so he basically ignored what was really taking place in Libya. Libyan officials knew that Medvedev wanted to be liked by the Americans. The result was total catastrophe.

Both Russia and China lost billions of dollars by not politically or militarily mobilizing against the Powers That Be; they knew from the get go that the Neocon “no fly zone” was a farce. Russia helped Libya as much as they could without breaking international rules. So, Gaddafi was in contact with Putin but how often I do not know.

Jonas E. Alexis: In your view, do you believe that the vast majority of Libyans supported Gaddafi’s leadership? For example, Assad won the Syrian election by a landslide.[14] Was that the case with Gaddafi?

Mariam Alfatah: Yes. At the time of the bombing Libya’s population was over 6.5 million, and Qaddafi had the support of 6.3 million. Even the Washington Post reluctantly admitted that “Many Libyans appear to back Gaddafi.” Take it from their own pen—and this was when the invaders were creating chaos virtually everywhere:

“But six days into the allied bombardment of Libyan military targets, it is clear that Gaddafi can count on the fierce loyalties of at least a significant segment of the population in the vast stretches that lie beyond the enclave of rebel-held territory in the east…

“Even Gaddafi’s opponents, who dare murmur their dissent only out of earshot of regime loyalists, concede that the man who has governed Libya for nearly 42 years does command genuine support.”[15]

But the Washington Post knocked itself out by saying, “That a man who boasts he lives in a tent and whom Ronald Reagan once dubbed ‘the mad dog of the Middle East’ still commands devotion four decades into his rule is one of the enduring mysteries of this idiosyncratic country.”[16]

That is really worse than stupid. How can they say this is an example of “enduring mysteries” when the vast majority of Libyans knew that Gaddafi, despite his faults, really helped the country? This is not an example of “enduring mysteries;” this is a classic example which conclusively shows that the Neocon ideology has always been in opposition to the vast majority of the people on this planet. So, people like you, Jonas, are right in calling this ideology satanic.

There was a rally in July of 2011 in Tripoli. I was there. There were also over 3 million people in Green Square! There is a video on my blog that you can access and see for yourself.

If the West had allowed Libyans to vote freely, Qaddafi would have won by a landslide like Assad. You see, if we didn’t want Gaddafi we would have removed him from power a long time ago. He would have been assassinated. You have to understand that we follow our tribe leaders.

I am sure if any of the tribe leaders didn’t want him, they would have taken him out. What’s also important about these issues is that the UN and Western allies refused to talk to those leaders! If I can use a rough analogy, it would be like the United States going to war with another country without contacting Congress.

Qaddafi had succeeded in uniting nearly all the tribes. This was almost an impossible task because you just couldn’t get those people to sit down at the same table. They sometimes fought against each other. But Gaddafi was able to unite them.

Note: It took us 3 years to get the majority of the tribe leaders in one room and to agree that we cannot leave Libya to foreigners or to installed puppets. Now do you see what the Neocons did to my country?

Jonas E. AlexisBusiness Insider has been a Zionist outlet, but I think they were somewhat fair to publish your letter. I was quite surprised when they declared: “But even as Qaddafi commits atrocities, the rebels are engaged in some of the same violence. And Washington has been forced to look the other way.”[17]

In your letter, you told Business Insider that “Personally, I do not care about Qaddafi but what you are doing is wrong. You are not telling the truth. You are lying to your readers.”[18] Can you expand on that for us?

Mariam Alfatah: My political views are democratic; Qaddafi was a military leader. That is what I meant. People may think that I am an apologist for Gaddafi. That would be categorically false. Gaddafi “nationalized” my father’s business and for 10 years my father was basically out of job.

But I was also furious with NATO and the West precisely because they wanted to decide our fate. They told us ad nauseam that the Libyan invasion was a true revolution. Total nonsense. If it was a revolution, why did the terrorists and blood-thirsty animals have to get help from NATO?

We knew that there were 200,000 people who were in exile and were against Qaddafi. Most of them were religious fanatics and scumbags who stole from the Libyan people. I may not like Gaddafi but I cannot lie about what he did. He did a lot of good things. Under Gaddafi, education was free and it was obligatory that people get a decent education. In 1969, prior to the revolution, we had an 80% illiteracy rate. Under Gaddafi, that percentage dropped dramatically. Let’s not forget that though Qaddafi was brought in by the CIA, he would kick them out a few years later.

Qaddafi was no threat to Europe or America. On the contrary, he was the one keeping the refugees and “migrants” out of Europe.[19] Beginning in 1970, Libyan women started gaining their freedom.  Unlike some other Arab countries, we could travel on our own, we could buy lands, etc.

Gaddafi even made a law which said that women or teenagers are not to be forced to marry anyone. Women who were forced to marry could go to the police; the police would examine the situation and, if a particular woman is found to be telling the truth, then the marriage would be rendered invalid.

Yes, we had our ups and downs, but we didn’t deserve this current chaos. We had our own kind of democracy but it was not the democracy that the war machine wanted. Ironically, we Libyans had more freedom than any American now has. The only thing we couldn’t do publicly was to criticize the Qaddafi family. But Libyans had free health care, free education, no water bills, etc.

For example, in Europe I bought a car that cost me 16,000 euros; in Libya I would have bought the same car for 8,000 euros. So, we were perfectly comfortable with not being able to criticize Qaddafi publicly precisely because we had the things we needed. Why would anyone unfairly criticize a government that puts a roof over your head? Isn’t that why the average Russian now loves Vladimir Putin? Do you think they would love to see him dead? I don’t think so!

Free speech is overrated in the West; here in Europe and in the US people talk about free speech all the time, but we all know the role that the CIA, FBI, and the NSA can play when you don’t join the party line. Look what happened to Edward Snowden and other genuine whistleblowers.

Some US spies were even saying that they would love to see Snowden’s head on a silver platter. One NSA analyst said in 2014: “In a world where I would not be restricted from killing an American, I personally would go and kill him myself. A lot of people share this sentiment.”[20] So much for “freedom of speech” in the West!

Posted in LibyaComments Off on The Khazarian Bankster Cult That Destroyed Libya

The US Hand in the Libyan/Syrian Tragedies

NOVANEWS

Image result for US Hand in the Libyan/Syrian CARTOON

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at a United Nations Security Council Session on the situation in Syria at the U.N. in New York on Jan. 31, 2012. [State Dept. Photo]
By Jonathan Marshall | Consortium News 

Police investigations and media reports have confirmed that two of the bloodiest terrorist attacks in Western Europe — the coordinated bombings and shootings in Paris in November 2015, which killed 130 people, and the May 2017 bombing of the arena in Manchester, England, which killed 23 — trace back to an Islamic State unit based in Libya known as Katibat al-Battar.

Since those attacks, a number of analysts, myself included, have characterized them as a form of “blowback” from NATO’s disastrous campaign to depose Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. By turning Libya into an anarchic staging ground for radical Islamist militants, that intervention set in motion the deadly export of terror back into Western Europe.

But such a Eurocentric critique of NATO’s intervention misses the far greater damage it wreaked on Syria, where nearly half a million people have died and at least 5 million refugees have had to flee their country since 2011. U.S., British and French leaders helped trigger one of the world’s great modern catastrophes through their act of hubris in seeking another “regime change” – the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad – in Syria.

A decade ago, Libya was a leading foe of radical jihadis, not a sanctuary for their international operations. A 2008 State Department memo noted that “Libya has been a strong partner in the war against terrorism.” It gave the Gaddafi regime credit for “aggressively pursuing operations to disrupt foreign fighter flows,” particularly by veterans of jihadist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All that came to an end in 2011, when armed rebels, including disciplined members of al-Qaeda and Islamic State, enlisted NATO’s help to topple Gaddafi’s regime.

Western leaders ignored the prescient warnings of Gaddafi’s son Seif that “Libya may become the Somalia of North Africa, of the Mediterranean. . . .You will see millions of illegal immigrants. The terror will be next door.” Gaddafi himself similarly predicted that once the jihadis “control the Mediterranean . . . then they will attack Europe.”

Subsequent terrorist attacks in Europe certainly vindicated those warnings, while discrediting the so-called “humanitarian” case for waging an illegal war in Libya. But the predicted jihadi efforts to “control the Mediterranean” have had far graver repercussions, at least in the case of Syria.

A recent story in the New York Times on the genesis of recent terror attacks on France and Britain noted in passing that the Islamic State in Libya, composed of “seasoned veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan,” was “among the first foreign jihadist contingent to arrive in Syria in 2012, as the country’s popular revolt was sliding into a broader civil war and Islamist insurgency.”

A former British counter-terrorism analyst told the newspaper, “some of the baddest dudes in Al Qaeda were Libyan. When I looked at the Islamic State, the same thing was happening. They were the most hard-core, the most violent — the ones always willing to go to extremes when others were not. The Libyans represented the elite troops, and clearly ISIS capitalized on this.”

These Libyan jihadists leveraged their numbers, resources, and fanaticism to help escalate Syria’s conflict into the tragedy we know today. The mass murder we now take for granted was not inevitable.

Extremist Violence in Syria

Although Syria’s anti-government protests in the spring of 2011 turned violent almost from the start, many reformers and government officials strove to prevent an all-out civil war. In August 2011, leaders of Syria’s opposition wisely declared that calls to arms were “unacceptable politically, nationally, and ethically. Militarizing the revolution would . . . undermine the gravity of the humanitarian catastrophe involved in a confrontation with the regime. Militarization would put the revolution in an arena where the regime has a distinct advantage and would erode the moral superiority that has characterized the revolution since its beginning.”

Largely forgotten today, the Assad regime also took serious steps to deescalate the violence, including lifting the country’s state of emergency, disbanding the unpopular National Security Court, appointing a new government, and hosting a national dialogue with protest leaders.

But on August 18, 2011, the same Western leaders who were bombing Gaddafi announced to the world that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Further energizing Syrian militants, Libyan rebels were just then in the midst of conquering Tripoli with NATO’s help.

“That is an ominous sign for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad,” reported the Wall Street Journal. “Already there are signs Libya is giving inspiration to the rebels trying to oust Mr. Assad. . . . Syrian protesters took to the streets chanting ‘Gadhafi tonight, Bashar tomorrow.’ . . . The Libyan episode may serve simply to sharpen the conflict in Syria: both spurring on the dissidents and strengthening Mr. Assad’s resolve to hold on.”

Stoking war in Syria was not an unintended consequence of the Libyan campaign, but a conscious part of the longstanding neoconservative ambition to “remake the map of the Middle East” by toppling radical, nationalist and anti-American regimes. The same Journal article described the grandiose aims of some Washington interventionists:

“Beyond Syria, a new dose of energy provided by Libya’s uprising could ripple out to other nations in the region. In particular, U.S. officials hope it will reinvigorate a protest movement that arose inside Iran in 2009 to challenge President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election. . . Syria has served for 30 years as Iran’s closest strategic ally in the region. U.S. officials believe the growing challenge to Mr. Assad’s regime could motivate Iran’s democratic forces.”

Instead of motivating Iran’s democrats, of course, the Syrian conflict motivated Iran’s hardliners to send Revolutionary Guard units and Hezbollah proxy forces into the country, further destabilizing the region.

Following the gruesome murder of Gaddafi in the fall of 2011, Libyan zealots quickly began fueling other terrorist conflicts, ranging from Mali to the Middle East, with arms looted from Gaddafi’s vast stocks.

“The weapons proliferation that we saw coming out of the Libyan conflict was of a scale greater than any previous conflict — probably 10 times more weapons than we saw going on the loose in places like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan,” observed an expert at Human Rights Watch.

A United Nations investigation determined that “Transfers of arms and ammunition from Libya were among the first batches of weapons and ammunition to reach the Syrian opposition.” It also stressed that Libyan weapons were arming primarily “extremist elements,” allowing them to gain territory and influence at the expense of more moderate rebel groups.

Spreading the War

As early as November 2011, Islamist warlords in Libya began offering “money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad,” according to the Daily Telegraph. Abdulhakim Belhadj, commander of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an al-Qaeda affiliate, met secretly with Syrian rebel leaders in Turkey to discuss training their troops. (In 2004, he had been the victim of a CIA kidnap plot and rendition from Malaysia to Libya.)

The commander of one armed Libyan gang told the newspaper, “Everyone wants to go (to Syria). We have liberated our country, now we should help others. . . This is Arab unity.”

In April 2012, Lebanese authorities confiscated a ship carrying more than 150 tons of arms and ammunition originating in Misrata, Libya. A U.N.-authorized panel inspected the weapons and reported finding SA-24 and SA-7 surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank guided missiles, and a variety of other light and heavy weapons.

By that August, according to Time magazine, “hundreds of Libyans” had flocked to Syria to “export their revolution,” bringing with them weapons, expertise in making bombs, and experience in battlefield tactics.

“Within weeks of the successful conclusion of their revolution, Libyan fighters began trickling into Syria,” the magazine noted. “But in recent months, that trickle has allegedly become a torrent, as many more have traveled to the mountains straddling Syria and Turkey, where the rebels have established their bases.”

A Syrian rebel told the newsweekly, “They have heavier weapons than we do,” including surface-to-air missiles. “They brought these weapons to Syria, and they are being used on the front lines.”

A month later, the London Times reported that a Libyan ship carrying more than 400 tons of weapons bound for Syria, including SAM-7 anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades, had docked in Turkey. Such weapons particularly compounded the suffering of civilians caught up in the war. As France’s foreign minister told reporters that October, rebel-held anti-aircraft missiles were “forcing (Syrian government) planes to fly extremely high, and so the strikes are less accurate.”

According to later reporting by Seymour Hersh, most such Libyan weapons made their way to Syria via covert routes supervised by the CIA, under a program authorized by the Obama administration in early 2012. Funding and logistics support came from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The CIA supposedly avoided disclosing the program to Congress by classifying it as a liaison operation with a foreign intelligence partner, Britain’s MI6.

Word of the operation began leaking to the London media by December 2012. The CIA was said to be sending in more advisers to help ensure that the Libyan weapons did not reach radical Islamist forces.

Of course, their efforts came too late; U.S. intelligence officials knew by that time that “the Salafist(s), the Muslim Brotherhood, and (al-Qaeda)” were “the major forces driving the insurgency.” The influx of new arms simply compounded Syria’s suffering and raised its profile as a dangerous arena of international power competition.

Libya’s arms and fighters helped transform the Syrian conflict from a nasty struggle into a bloodbath. As Middle East scholar Omar Dahi noted, “the year 2012 was decisive in creating the present catastrophe. There were foreign elements embroiled in Syria before that date . . . but until early 2012 the dynamics of the Syrian conflict were largely internal. . . . Partly in . . . appropriation of weapons pumped in from the outside and partly in anticipation of still greater military assistance, namely from the West, the opposition decided to take up arms.

“The decision — militarization — had three main effects. First, it dramatically increased the rate of death and destruction throughout the country. . . . By mid-2012, the monthly casualties were almost in excess of the total in the entire first year of the uprising. Militarization gave the Syrian regime a free hand to unleash its full arsenal of indiscriminate weaponry. . . Perhaps most fatefully, the advent of armed rebellion placed much of the opposition’s chances in the hands of those who would fund and arm the fighters. . . . It was then that the jihadi groups were unleashed.”

The collateral victims of NATO’s intervention in Libya now include 6 million Libyans attempting to survive in a failed state, millions of people across North Africa afflicted by Islamist terrorism, 20 million Syrians yearning for an end to war, and millions of innocent Europeans who wonder when they might become targets of suicidal terrorists. There is nothing “humanitarian” about wars that unleash such killing and chaos, with no end in sight.

Posted in USA, Libya, SyriaComments Off on The US Hand in the Libyan/Syrian Tragedies

SAIF GADDAFI – Officially Released and Almost Assassinated

NOVANEWS

As reported by RT, hundreds of people took to the streets in Ghat, on Saturday night, to celebrate the release of Saif Gaddafi after several years of detention.

The footage shows honking cars driving through the streets. Other Gaddafi supporters were seen waving the green flags of the ‘Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’, as has been seen frequently in parts of Libya since the fall of the state in 2011.

The unverified stories of Saif having been released had been going on for some time already; I covered it here last September, but noted it was odd that major media outlets weren’t covering it. Given this disparity between earlier claims, lack of media coverage at the time and the broader media coverage now, it is difficult to know whether Saif Gaddafi was freed last year or whether it has just happened in recent weeks.

What hasn’t been widely reported in international media is the alleged assassination attempt that was carried out on Saif in May. It was reported by some Arab sources that Saif had ‘narrowly survived an assassination attempt by gunmen from local militias’.

There is no way of knowing if this assassination attempt was simply a rival militia or jihadist group acting entirely of its own accord or whether someone else was also behind the incident.

In fact, I had suggested in that earlier piece that one of the reasons for the sketchiness surrounding Saif’s status might’ve been to throw his enemies off the scent. I had also suggested that a deliberate vagueness about Saif’s status or whereabouts was probably for the best – for his own safety. There are, doubtless, multiple parties who will be unhappy with Saif being free and will want him killed.

Saif Gaddafi’s lawyer had reported some time ago that Saif had in fact, “been given his liberty on April 12, 2016″, this being in accordance with an amnesty law passed by the Tobruk parliament.

Saif had been captured by the Zintan militia shortly after his father and brother were murdered by NATO’s Libyan death squads in Sirte in October 2011. After fierce fighting, when the Islamist Libya Dawn faction took control of Tripoli, Saif, along with dozens of other officials of Gaddafi’s former state were put on trial for their life. However, the Zintan militia – allied to the more secular Libyan National Army – again refused to hand him over.

Despite calls to do so, the Zintan militia decided not to hand Saif Gaddafi over to the International Criminal Court either, which apparently still wants him for his fictional ‘crimes against humanity’.

Qatar-based propaganda broadcaster, Al Jazeera, seems unhappy about Saif’s release, choosing to focus again on the ‘crimes against humanity’ claim. Hardly surprising, given that Al-Jazeera was one of the main corporations that took part in the 2011 conspiracy and propagandised heavily for intervention in Libya.

From 2014, the plethora of armed militias at large in the chaos-riddled country due to the 2011 mercenary war seemed to have gathered around either the Libyan National Army (backed by the secular ‘House of Representatives’) or the Libyan Dawn Coalition (dominated by the Islamist parties). That said, there are also roaming factions of jihadists and terror groups in various places, seemingly answerable to no one.

In addition to this, there is still no properly recognised government in the country, with rival ‘governments’ vying for power and the UN-backed Government of National Accord failing to gain legitimacy within the country (read: Libya 2016 – Three Governments, Foreign Intervention & the Return of Gaddafi’).

It is against this confused, chaotic backdrop that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi – the eldest son of the late Libyan leader and one-time ‘Golden Boy’ of Libya’s political future – has reportedly been released from his detainment, having previously been sentenced to death.

Saif al-Islam was seen for years  as the more liberal, progressive face of the Libyan establishment and as the figure who would help transition the country carefully towards more democracy and more liberal values. Educated in the West, graduated in England, a guest of Buckingham Palace, a moderniser and a bridging-link between his father’s ideals and the ideals of Western society, it is in fact difficult to think of anyone  who was more perfectly-placed to guide Libya into a stable, successful transition.

Instead, ‘the golden prince’ hailed as ‘the reformer’ was left to be tortured and sentenced by a court run by criminals put there by the very Western ‘democracies’ whose very ideals he had hoped to emulate.

But now, after what had for a long time looked like a bleak, hopeless situation for both Saif and for Libyans, things may be developing in a more hopeful direction. A statement, released via the Jamahiriya News Agency on January 9th 2017 and purporting to be the ‘Founding Declaration of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya’, suggests the Libyan people’s fight-back against the international conspiracy and terrorist takeover may be gathering momentum.

How much of this is propaganda or smoke-and-mirrors and how much is genuine is hard to ascertain – but the fact that mainstream media organisations are this time seemingly verifying Saif’s release suggests there is no doubt or question anymore.

That being said, there is no confirmation of where Saif is or what he is doing (as is the case for his sister, Ayesha Gaddafi) – which, again, is probably for the best.

This January ‘declaration’, if genuine, however, suggests the arrival of a stage of more open, overt activity and objectives. I also tend to wonder, as previously suggested, if the events in Aleppo, Syria, might’ve further signaled that now was the time.

The question, however, is not only whether various groups and alliances in the chaos of post-Gaddafi Libya are seeking to – or willing to – work with Saif al-Islam to try to rescue the country from the abyss; but also whether Western powers would be willing to allow Saif Gaddafi a place or a voice in the country’s future.

I argued previously that the same Western powers that sought the collapse of Libya in the first place might not welcome such a turn of events – not only because it would threaten the extremist/Islamist ‘caliphate’ that is so necessary for the War on Terror and ‘clash of civilizations’ programme, but because it would be hugely embarassing and would force Western governments (and corporate media) to admit they had been entirely wrong in 2011.

However, with the scale of the refugee crisis flowing out of Libya, the spiraling of the jihadist/terror threat and the reality that the recent Manchester attack was carried out by Libyan anti-Gaddafi jihadists working for the British state, some Western governments might be primed right now for a change in attitude.

 

Posted in LibyaComments Off on SAIF GADDAFI – Officially Released and Almost Assassinated

Manchester atrocity: UK government must come clean about its relationship with Libyan Islamists

NOVANEWS

By Mohamed El-Doufani

The suicide attack on a concert hall in Manchester in which 22 people were killed and another 166 wounded throws light on Britain’s ill-conceived and dysfunctional policy towards Libya, past and present. While Muammar Gaddafi was in power, this policy drove the UK to welcome Islamists as potential tools to destabilise his regime, and since his ouster in 2011 it has seen it, along with the United States and the United Nations, push for dialogue with Islamists of the same ilk as those behind the Manchester atrocity

The perpetrator of the Manchester atrocity, British-born Libyan Salman al-Abedi, 22, was not your bog-standard, homegrown terrorist: the prodigy of Muslim immigrants who failed to adjust to British culture or who had fallen under the wrong influence online or elsewhere. No, he is largely the outcome of the policy pursued by successive British governments – Conservative and Labour – towards Libya.

Haven for Islamists

Salman al-Abedi did not hail from a typical family that had immigrated to Britain in search of a decent life. His father, Ramadan Belgasem al-Abedi, also known as Abu Ismail, had come with intent. His choice of country was quite deliberate. As a Libyan Islamist escaping from the Gaddafi regime, the UK welcomed him, and many like him, with open arms and gave him political asylum. He settled in Manchester, where about 10,000 Libyans, many of them Islamists, now reside.

Ramadan al-Abedi

Ramadan al-Abedi

In 1994, just two years after arriving in Britain, Al-Abedi senior joined the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an affiliate of Al-Qaeda that is listed by the United Nations as a terrorist organisation. He quickly rose up in the organisation’s ranks, as shown by this document from Gaddafi’s intelligence service which puts him at number five in the LIFG.

Al-Abdei - No. 5 in LIFG

In addition, Mr Al-Abedi senior, like many of his Islamist compatriots in Manchester, was naturally drawn to the Muslim Brotherhood. Together with his sons, he frequented the Didsbury mosque where he worked as muezzin, or prayer caller, and where his other son, Ismail – the Manchester bomber’s older brother – was a tutor at the mosque’s Qur’an school.

According to an independent group called Muslims In Britain, the Didsbury mosque is of a Salafi-Ikhwan, or fundamentalist-Muslim Brotherhood, orientation. The Brotherhood likes to portray itself to Westerners as a peaceful, democratic and law-abiding organisation. Suffice to say that one of its slogans includes the phrases “Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of God is our highest hope.”

The Didsbury mosque is also linked to organisations founded by Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who not only endorses suicide bombings, but also argues that apostates from Islam and those who defy Islamic culture should be immediately put to death. Among the mosque’s publications is a document entitled The special problems of females, which says that “God made boundaries for a man that he should have four wives” and that there is a ban on wives taking any form of employment.

At the Didsbury mosque, Al-Abedi senior became an associate of Sohail al-Ghariani, son of notorious Libyan cleric Sadiq al-Ghariani, spiritual leader of Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood who subsequently acted as cheerleader of the violent takeover of Tripoli by Islamist militias in 2014. Al-Abedi senior, the BBC reports, also supported the extremist Islamist cleric, Abu Qatada, and used to meet him in London.

Tools of foreign policy

So, it should have been obvious to anyone who wanted to see that Mr Al-Abedi senior was an unsavoury character who should never have been given a safe haven in Britain. But the British state welcomed him, and numerous other Libyans like him, with open arms, even though it knew who these people were and what they stood for. The reason was as cynical as it was shortsighted and counter-productive: Mr Al-Abedi and his comrades in the LIFG and the Muslim Brotherhood were potentially useful tools to deploy against the Gaddafi regime, even though they belonged to organisations that were a million times worse than anything Gaddafi represented.

With the father a member of Al-Qaeda throughout his children’s lives, and with Salman and his two brothers, Ismail and Hashim, immersed in the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadism, it is little wonder that all three of Al-Abedi senior’s sons grew up to be terrorists. And it was not long before the British state was able to deploy them – or shall we say facilitate their deployment – and many other Libyan Islamists for the purpose for which they had been given a safe haven in the first place: as weapons against Gaddafi.

Ismail al-Abedi, the Manchester bomber's older brother, posing with a gun

Ismail al-Abedi, the Manchester bomber’s older brother, posing with a gun

Hashim al-Abedi, the younger brother of the Manchester, bomber holding a gun

According to Middle East Eye, Britain “facilitated the travel of Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents and citizens keen to fight against Gaddafi, including some who it deemed to pose a potential security threat”. It cited the case of one British citizen of Libyan descent who had been placed on a control order, or house arrest, because of fears that he would join terrorist groups in Iraq but was nonetheless allowed to travel to Libya in 2011 to participate in the insurrection against the Gaddafi regime.

“I was allowed to go, no questions asked,” said the source, who wished to remain anonymous.

He said he had met several other British-Libyans in London who also had control orders lifted in 2011 as the war against Gaddafi intensified, with the UK, France and the US carrying out air strikes and deploying special forces soldiers in support of the rebels.

“They didn’t have passports, they were looking for fakes or a way to smuggle themselves across,” said the source.

But within days of their control orders being lifted, British authorities returned their passports, he said.

“These were old school LIFG guys, they [the British authorities] knew what they were doing,” he said…

Another Libyan Islamist cited by Middle East Eye, Belal Younis, described how he was virtually encouraged by the British to help bring down the Gaddafi regime. He said he was asked by an intelligence officer from Britain’s domestic security agency, MI5, whether he was “willing to go into battle?” He was told, he said, that the British government had “no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi”.

According to BBC correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse, during the anti-Gaddafi insurrection the Manchester bomber and his father fought with the Tripoli Military Council, which was headed by Abdelhakim Belhadj, the LIFG founder. Speaking on the BBC’s Newsnight TV programme, he said three different sources had told him that the Manchester bomber had travelled to Libya during the summer holidays while he was still at school. “Like many at the time, they went in their school holidays in the summer. They finished school, they broke up, they went out to Libya,” Gatehouse said.

Links to the UN-backed “government”

Sometime after the ouster of the Gaddafi regime Al-Abedi senior returned to Libya and, following the takeover of Tripoli by an alliance of Muslim Brotherhood, LIFG and organised crime militias in 2014, was appointed to security positions. According to The Independent, on the eve of his son’s atrocity in Manchester Al-Abedi senior worked as administrative manager of the so-called “Central Security force” in Tripoli, which is nominally under the control of the UN-backed “Government of National Accord” (GNA) but in reality is run by a mishmash of Islamist and organised crime militias on which the GNA completely relies. Other reports say that, incredibly, he was head of Libya’s Interpol liaison bureau in the Libyan capital.

As news of the Manchester bomber’s identity reached Libya, Al-Abedi senior and his two sons, Ismail and Hashim, were reported to have been “arrested” in Tripoli by the so-called “Special Deterrence Force” – often referred to as Rada, Arabic for deterrence. This is a Salafist-leaning militia and is one of the main armed groups supporting the UN-backed “government”.

Rada leader Abdul Raouf Kara

Rada leader Abdul Raouf Kara, “a hardline Islamist with a fearful reputation and a Salafist vision for Libya’s future”.

According to the risk consultancy SecDev, “the militia hardliners are mainly Madkhali Salafists, an Islamist ideology that refers to followers of the Saudi cleric Rabia bin Hadi al-Madkhali, who promotes a doctrine of obedience to a sitting political authority (wali al-amr)”. It is led by Abdul Raouf Kara who, SecDev says, is “a hardline Islamist with a fearful reputation and a Salafist vision for Libya’s future”. According to SecDev, Rada has been “accused of acting as a form of ‘moral police’ enforcing conservative dress and behaviour on Tripoli’s civilians and using brutal intimidation rather than focusing on tracking terrorist groups”. So, one can reasonably surmise that, rather than being arrested, the Manchester bomber’s father and two brothers had been taken into protective custody.

Inexplicable policy

From a realpolitik point of view, one can see the logic, albeit cynical and shortsighted, behind the British policy of using potential terrorists to destabilise the regime of a longstanding foe-cum-distrusted friend, even though it is not quite clear how an Islamist regime could be better, in terms of Britain’s purported values, than that of Gaddafi, notwithstanding the brutality, arbitrariness and unpredictability of his regime. What is difficult to understand is Britain’s support for Islamist militias that ousted Libya’s elected government in 2014 and its present support for the UN-brokered outfit in Tripoli which is completely reliant on Islamist and organised crime militias, including Al-Qaeda.

Two years ago Jospeh Walker-Cousins, a former British official who was based in Benghazi during 2011-14, wrote in an article in The Guardian entitled Islamists are leading Libya to annihilation – and the West is letting them”,

Despite the remark by Philip Hammond, the British foreign secretary, that “there is no authority in Libya to engage with”, the Libyan parliament remains resolute in tribally secure Tobruk. The army and police, with whom we share security and commercial interests, are (albeit only just) containing the extremists in Benghazi. And the administration, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, occupying Tripoli – with whom we have nothing in common – has been called out on its covert relationships with extremists.

The bottom line is: we can’t do business with the militias occupying Tripoli.

That was in March 2015. Since then a new player has entered the scene, the UN-backed “government”, which exists in Tripoli courtesy of the Islamist and criminal militias blighting the Libyan capital and is riddled with jihadist, including those of Al-Qaeda. Yet Britain recognises it as the “government” of Libya.

The paradox was summed up by the prime minister of the elected government of Libya, Abdullah Thinni. In a statement condemning the Manchester atrocity, reported by Libya Herald, he said that the atrocity stemmed from the presence for decades of terrorist groups in the UK, including the LIFG, “which has been recruiting Libyan and Muslim youth in the UK and Europe and sending them to Libya and other countries to deliver terrorism and death”. This, Thinni’s statement said, had been done with the knowledge and consent of the British government, which had provided a safe haven for the “father” of these terrorists who was now in Tripoli – possibly a reference to the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Sadiq al-Ghariani, or LIFG founder Abdelhakim Belhadj. However, despite continuous warnings from the Libyan authorities, the statement concluded, successive British governments and ambassadors had “insisted that we share power in Libya with these terrorist organisations and their militias, the LIFG and the Muslim Brotherhood”.

With so many innocent Britons murdered in Manchester, and reports that one of the terrorists who murdered seven innocent people in London on 3 June, Rasheed Radwan, was Libyan, it is time the British government come clean about its deathly embrace of Islamists. That is the least it can do in memory of those murdered in Manchester and London, and the countless Libyans who have lost their lives at the hands of LIFG, Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist militias since the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

Posted in Libya, UKComments Off on Manchester atrocity: UK government must come clean about its relationship with Libyan Islamists

Libya – Why Was Muammar Gaddafi Killed – May We Never Forget

NOVANEWS
Posted By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Based on a Skype interview with Alex Knyazev, Russia TV24

 

The Text below is the transcript of the interview between Alex Knyazev of Russia TV24 and Peter Koenig.  

Questions Russia TV24: What were the reasons Mr. Gaddafi was killed and NATO invaded Libya?

PK: Mr. Muammar Gaddafi was certainly not killed for humanitarian reasons.

Mr. Gaddafi wanted to empower Africa. He had a plan to create a new African Union, based on a new African economic system. He had a plan to introduce the ‘Gold Dinar’ as backing for African currencies, so they could become free from the dollar dominated western monetary system, that kept and keeps usurping Africa; Africa’s vast natural resources, especially oil and minerals. As a first step, he offered this lucrative and very beneficial alternative to other Muslim African states, but leaving it open for any other African countries to join.

At the time of Gaddafi’s atrocious murdering by Hillary Clinton, then Obama’s Secretary of State, and the French President Sarkozy, driven by NATO forces, on 20 October 2011 – Libya’s gold reserves were estimated at close to 150 tons, and about the same amount of silver. The estimated value at that time was US$ 7billion.

Image result for libya gold reserve

It’s your guess who may have stolen this enormous treasure from the people of Libya. As of this date, it is nowhere to be found.

Gaddafi also wanted to detach his oil sales from the dollar, i.e. no longer trading hydrocarbons in US dollars, as was the US / OPEC imposed rule since the early 1970s. Other African and Middle Eastern oil and gas producers would have followed. In fact, Iran had already in 2007, a plan to introduce the Tehran Oil Bourse, where anyone could trade hydrocarbons in currencies other than the US dollar. That idea came to a sudden halt, when Bush (George W) started accusing Iran of planning to build a nuclear bomb which was, of course a fabricated lie, confirmed by the 16most prominent US security agencies- and later also by the UN body for nuclear safety – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Vienna. Washington needed a pretext to stop the Tehran Oil Bourse which would have decimated the need for dollars, and thereby most probably would have meant the end of the dollar hegemony.

Saddam Hussein had the same idea. He promised as soon as the murderous and criminal embargo imposed by the UN – of course dictated by Washington – would end in 2000, he would sell his petrol in euros. He was killed.

Gaddafi’s new plan for Africa would have meant an entirely new banking system for Africa, away from the now western (mainly France and UK) central banks dominated African currencies. -It could have meant the collapse of the US dollar -or at least an enormous blow to this fake dollar based western monetary system.

So, the Gold Dinar was not to happen. Anybody – to this day- who threatens the dollar hegemony will have to die. That means anybody other than China and Russia, because they have already a few years ago largely detached their economy from the dollar, by implementing hydrocarbons as well as other international contracts in gold or the respective local currencies. That alone has already helped reducing dollar holdings in international reserve coffers from almost 90% some 20 years ago to a rate fluctuating between 50% and 60% today.

Related imageThe also Washington / CIA induced “Arab Spring” was to turn the entire Middle East into one huge chaos zone- which today of course, it is. And there are no plans to secure it and to return it to normalcy, to what it was before. To the contrary, chaos allows to divide and conquer – to Balkanize, as is the plan for Syria and Iraq. One of the Washington led western goals of this chaos of constant conflict is to eventually install a system of private central banks in the Middle Eastern / North African countries controlled by Washington – privately owned central banks, à la Federal Reserve (FED), where the neocons, the Rothschilds and freemasonry would call the shots. That is expected to help stabilize the US dollar hegemony, as the hydrocarbons produced in this region generate trillions of dollars in trading per year.

Gaddafi also wanted to introduce, or had already started introducing into Africa a wireless telephone system that would do away with the US / European monopolies, with the Alcatels and AT and T’s of this world, which dominate and usurp the African market without scruples.

Gaddafi was not only the leader of Libya, he had ambitions to free Africa from the nefarious fangs of the west. Despite being called a dictator and despot by the west – they do that to anyone who doesn’t submit to Washington’s rules – he was very much liked by Libyans, by his people. He had a more than 80% approvalrate by the Libyan people. Libya’s oil fortune has allowed him to create a social system in his country where everybody would benefit from their land’s riches – free health care, free education, including scholarships abroad, modern infrastructure, top-notch technology in medicine, and more.

Russia TV24: Why the gold dinar would be unacceptable for the western leaders? Or not?

PK: Yes, the gold Dinar was totally unacceptable for western leaders. It might have devastated the US dollar hegemony, as well as Europe’s control over the African economy – which is nothing less than neo-colonization of Africa – in many ways worse than what happened for the past 400 or 800 years of murderous military colonization and oppression -which is by the way still ongoing, just more discretely.

Image result for Alassane Ouattara

Look at the Ivory Coast 2010 presidential elections. Theirarguably ‘unelected’ President, Alassane Ouattara (picture on the right), was in a tie with the people’s candidate, Laurent Gbagbo. Gbagbo said he won the election and asked for a recount which was denied. Ouattara, a former IMF staff, was pushed in, basically by ‘recommendation’ of the IMF. He is the darling of the neoliberal international financial institutions – and is leading a neocon government – an economy at the service of western corporations. That’s what they wanted. That’s what they got. Modern colonization is well alive and thriving. I call this a financial coup, instigated by foreign financial institutions.

Image result for laurent gbagboMr. Laurent Gbagbo was accused of rape, murder and other atrocities and immediately transferred to the International Criminal Court (sic-sic) – what justice? – in The Hague, where he was waiting five years for a trial which started on 28 January 2016 and is ongoing. On 15 May 2017, it was extended at the Prosecutor’s request to collect further evidence. This by all likelihood is just a farce to dupe the public into believing that he is getting a fair trial. Already in hearings in 2014, Gbagbo was found guilty of all charges, including murder, rape and other crimes against humanity. Like Slobodan Milošević, he is an inconvenient prisoner, or worse would he be as a free man. So, he will most likely be locked away – and one day commit ‘suicide’ or die from a ‘heart attack’.  The classic. That’s how the west does away with potential witnesses of their atrocious crimes. End of story. Nobody barks, because the ‘free world’has been made believe by the western presstitute media that these people are inhuman tyrants. That’s precisely what the western media’s headlines proclaimed about Muammar Gaddafi: Death of a Tyrant.

On the other hand, in 2015, Ouattara was “reelected by a landslide”. That’s what western media say. Colonization under African ‘leadership’. He is protected by the French army.

Back to Libya: Take the specific case of France and West and Central Africa. The French Central Bank, the Banque de France, backs the West and Central African Monetary Union’s currency, the CFA franc. The West African Central Bank, for example, is covered, i.e. controlled, by about 70% of the Banque de France. Banque de France has an almost total control over the economy of its former West African colonies. No wonder, Sarkozy, a murderer and war criminal – sorry, it must be said, backed Hillary’s – also a murderer and war criminal, push for NATO to destroy the country and kill thousands of Libyans, including Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi. Hillary’s infamous words: ‘We came we saw he died’. And that she said shamelessly, jokingly, laughing. Would the term human being still apply to such a monster?

Russia TV24: What countries are mostly interested in the Libyan recovery and why? What are the chances for the economy of Libya to be repaired?

PK: Well, if anybody should be interested in Libya’s recovery it would be first the Libyans who are still living in Libya, because they are now living in a Libya of chaos and high crime, of mafia-economics, of tyranny by gang leadership. They certainly have an interest to return to normalcy. North African neighboring countries should also be interested in restoring order and rebuilding Libya’s infrastructure and economy, stopping the spill-over of high crime and terrorism. They have lost an important trading partner.

Of course, the rest of Africa, who have suffered from continuous colonization of the west, after Gaddafi’s demise, should also be interested in reestablishing Libya. They know,it will never be the same Libya that was there to help their economy, to help them prying loose from the western boots and fangs of exploitation.

And Europe -should be most interested in reestablishing order and a real economy in Libya- cleaning it from a murderous Mafia that promotes drugs and slave trade ending up in Europe. Libya today is one of the key hubs for the boat refugees from Africa to Europe.Instead of helping Libyans to come to peace within its borders and to rebuild their country, the European Commission launched in 2015 a new European Border and Coast Guard Agency, targeting specifically Libya – destroying refugee boats, if they cannot stop them from leaving Tripoli, Benghazi and other Libyan Sea ports.

Of course, spineless Europe doesn’t dare saying they would like to remake Libya into a functional state.Libya is Washington’s territory – and Washington wants chaos to continue in Libya.As such Libya is a formidable ground for training and recruitment of terrorists, drug and slave trading; a country where crime prospers and the CIA takes their cut, as these criminal activities are directed by the CIA and their affiliates. The rest of the world doesn’t see that. For them it’s all the fault of the dictator Gaddafi, who thanks goodness was eliminated by the western powers, lords of money and greed.

Russia TV24: Decades ago Libya was very successful from an economic point of view. What main things could you remember?

PK: Libya was economically and socially a successful country, arguably the most successful of Africa. Prosperity from oil was largely shared by Gaddafi with his countrymen. Libya had a first-class social safety net, an excellent transportation infrastructure, free medical services, and modern hospitals,equipped with latest technology medical equipment, free education for everyone – and students could even receive scholarships to study abroad.

Image result for libya gaddafi

Under President Gaddafi, Libya built friendly relations based on solidarity with other African States and was always ready to help if a ‘brother nation’ was in trouble. Gaddafi was a bit like Hugo Chavez in South America. He had a large heart and charisma, maybe not so much for western leaders, but certainly for Libya’s own population. Yet, he is accused of tyranny by the West, and is said to having financially supported Sarkozy’s Presidential campaign – Sarkozy, the very ‘leader’ (sic-sic),who then helped Hillary lynch Gaddafi. If that doesn’t say a lot about Europe’s criminal leaders – what will?

Muammar Gaddafi was accused by Washington – an accusation immediately repeated by the spineless European puppets, of being responsible for the December 1988 PanAm Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. More than 240 people perished in the crash. Not a shred of evidence was discovered that Libya was behind the plot. But it was a good reason to start a program of sanctions against Gaddafi’s regime. It was most likely a false flag. What interest would anybody have to bring down that flight, other than clamping down on an oil-rich country.

Russia TV24: Now we see oil production has grown to at least 50% of the 2011 level. Can we expect it to continue growing and affecting the oil market?

PK: Yes, Libyan oil production has increased to about 50% of its 2011 level. Libya is known for her high premium light petrol, commanding premium prices. It is a market niche which might well be affected by Libya’s stepped up production. But who really benefits from this production increase? – Most likely not the Libyans, but the international corporations, mostly American and French oil giants. They call the shots on the production levels. They are part of the international cartel of oil price manipulators, as are the Wall Street banksters,predominantly Goldman Sachs.

Russia TV24: The sanctions against Libya are lifted and all barriers for foreign investments have disappeared as well. Does it mean the county will face recovery soon?

PK: Sanctions may be lifted, but that does not mean that foreign investments will now flow to Libya. The country is still under chaos and disarray – and in my opinion will stay so in the foreseeable future. That’s in Washington’s interest.Investors are reluctant to put their money into a crime nest and a terrorist breeding ground which is working closely with Washington and its secret services – to provide terrorists to fight US-proxy wars around the Middle East, for example in Syria and Iraq – and now even in Afghanistan – and who knows where else.

Russia TV24:How do you assess the political situation in the country today?

PK: As much as I would like to end on a positive note, it is difficult. As long as the CIA, chief instigator of all wars in the Middle East, is using the purposefully created Libyan chaos to train and recruit Islamic State fighters, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups which vary only in name but have the same objective – namely regime change in Syria – prospects for a foreseeable bright future are dim.

Of course, a lot depends on the unpredictable Trump Presidency. Will he seek peace in the Middle East? – That would be the surprise of the Century – or will he continue on the track dictated by the Deep State (not least to save his skin) – continue destruction of the Middle East, Balkanization of Syria – all as a stepping stone to Full Spectrum Dominance – as is written in the American Bible – the PNAC – Plan for a New American Century – which outlines the ‘American Pax Romana’. They were the bloodiest 200 – 300 years of the Roman Empire. Here comes the positive note: It is unlikely that the American empire will last that long. It’s on its last legs.When it finally falters, Libya may recover, and so may the rest of the world.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Libya – Why Was Muammar Gaddafi Killed – May We Never Forget

BBC Caught Fabricating Videos to Push Libya and Syria War Agendas

NOVANEWS

By the Editor,

Many find it difficult to believe the sheer boldness of the lies peddled by the British Broadcasting Corporation – the world’s largest and most ‘respected’ broadcasting organisation. Nevertheless, the BBC’s nefarious agenda has come to the fore during the wars on Libya and Syria, where it has taken every opportunity to justify foreign military intervention in both countries. In some cases the BBC has been quite ham-fisted in its attempts to deceive viewers, resulting in its foul play becoming readily apparent.

BBC claims footage of Indian protest is live feed from Green Square, Tripoli

The following video was aired on BBC News on Wednesday 24 August 2011. Watch from the 0:29 mark – the BBC airs footage that they purport to be live, from Green Square in Tripoli, Libya. The footage shows a crowd of ‘Libyan’ people celebrating and waving their national flag. What is so incredibly shocking about this report, is that the footage is not live, nor is it from Libya. It actually shows Indian protesters waving the Indian flag.

This unbelievable dishonesty on the part of the BBC was not an error. Such a first rate global broadcaster does not make such mistakes. It is simply not plausible that the BBC accidentally substituted a live video feed with an archive clip that, coincidentally, shows an identical scene to the one that the ‘live feed’ purports to show – jubilant protesters waving flags.

Not an error – BBC chose Indian footage due to similarities between flags

The truth of the matter is: jubilant crowds were simply not present in Tripoli, so the BBC had to use fake footage to convince its viewers of the Libyan ‘revolution’ myth.

Footage of Indian protesters waving the Indian flag was selected by the BBC because of the visual similarity between the two flags in question. Below I have juxtaposed the Indian flag (left), with the flag of the counter-revolution that took place in Libya.

As you can see, the flags are composed of similar colours; the Indian flag is green, white, and orange, whilst the flag of the ‘Libyan’ counter-revolution is green, black, and red.

Both flags are tricolour flags with horizontally orientated stripes, and both flags contain a circular emblem in the centre. The BBC chose to show the Indian footage because that footage provided the best opportunity to deceive unwitting viewers. To the untrained eye watching a fleeting video, these two flags are virtually indistinguishable.

BBC caught faking Syria ‘chemical weapons’ footage

Credit goes to Craig Murray for being the first to spot(1) this shocking example of deception from the BBC.

This BBC video report(2) was published on 29 August 2013 – the eve of the UK’s parliamentary vote for war on Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons(3). The section of the video that we are concerned with begins on the two minute mark.


The British doctor who is speaking to the camera says, “seems like it must be some sort of, I’m not
really sure, maybe napalm
“.

Compare this video with the following one, also published by the BBC.(4) As before, view the video from the two minute mark.

Listen closely to the audio track of both videos. You will notice that the female doctor’s words and intonation are exactly the same in both videos, however the background noise in the second video is completely different. In addition, in the second video (contrary to the first video), the doctor can be heard to say: “seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon I’m not really sure..”

The BBC has manipulated the audio track of this video report to characterise the event as a chemical weapon attack. Because the doctor’s mouth is covered by a mask, the dubbing is impossible to detect.

What is even more concerning is that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the event itself. At the beginning of the first video, Dr. Rola Hallam can be heard to say, “I need a pause, because it’s just absolute chaos and carnage here“. Now despite this seemingly impromptu plea to the cameraman from Hallam, there is convincing evidence(5)  to suggest that the video was not in fact live footage of the wounded being rushed in to a makeshift hospital. It is clear that Hallam actually did multiple takes of the video interview, whereby the movements of others were choreographed in line with her own movements. I highly recommend reading this analysis,(5) paying particularly close attention to the movement of the man in the high-visibility vest.

Notice how in one video, his hands are behind his back as he approaches Hallam, and in the other video, his hands are by his side. Furthermore, at this moment in one of the videos, a man can be seen looking through the fence above Hallam’s left shoulder, yet in the other video, he is not there. We are supposed to believe that this video sequence was filmed in an impromptu manner as victims were being rushed in to a makeshift hospital.

What is clear is that this is not a live sequence – the scene was clearly staged multiple times despite Hallam’s contrived ‘I need a pause here because it’s absolute carnage‘ opening gambit.

Dr. Rola Hallam has familial links to anti-Assad opposition groups

Dr. Rola Hallam’s maiden name is Al Kurdi. She retains her maiden name on her public Facebook profile:(6)
Dr. Rola Hallam's Facebook profile.

Below is her profile for ‘Atfal’,(7) ostensibly a charity set up to help Syrian children. She uses the same photograph, but goes merely by the name “Hallam”.

hallamatfal

Her father – Dr. Mousa Al Kurdi – is also a doctor. Two months before the BBC’s apparently contrived chemical weapons report, Mousa Al Kurdi, was publicly kvetching about chemical weapons being used in Syria(8) in an attempt to expedite a larger-scale foreign intervention.

In the following clip, Dr. Mousa Al Kurdi talks to Al Jazeera about how he addressed the Friends of Syria summit, where he called for foreign intervention and arming of the Free Syrian Army.

Dr. Rola ‘Al Kurdi’ Hallam is also related to Colonel Malek Al Kurdi, who is deputy leader of the ‘Free Syrian Army’.(9)

Keeping in mind Dr. Rola Hallam’s background and family links to the anti-Assad opposition, the BBC’s apparent staging of propaganda and usage of Hallam in particular becomes all the more sinister.

Examples such as these are the reasons why no well-informed person takes the BBC seriously any longer.

Notes

(1) Fake BBC Video – http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ – 7 October 2013.
(2) Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead’ – BBC News, 29 August 2013.
(3) Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action – BBC News, 30 August 2013.
(4) Syria: Agony of victims of ‘napalm-like’ school bombing – BBC News, 30 September 2013.
(5) Dr Rola – wikispooks.com
(6) Facebook profile page of Rola Alkurdi Hallam – https://www.facebook.com/rola.alkurdi.7 – 4 January 2014.
(7) About Atfal – atfal.co.uk
(8) Video: Doctors record ‘chemical attacks’ in Syria – Al Arabiya News, 2 June 2013.
(9) Divisions, lack of arms underscore weakness of Free Syrian Army – The National, 3 March 2012.

Posted in Libya, Media, Syria, UKComments Off on BBC Caught Fabricating Videos to Push Libya and Syria War Agendas

UN: Refugees traded in Libya ‘slave markets’

NOVANEWS

Image result for Libya ‘slave markets’ PHOTO

Press TV 

The United Nations has raised alarm over a climbing number of refugees passing through Libya who are being traded in so-called slave markets before being held for ransom and subjected to malnutrition and sexual abuse.

Migrants are typically traded for as little as $200 to $500, and are held for an average of two to three months, said the head of the UN migration agency’s Libya mission, Othman Belbeisi, in a Geneva press briefing on Tuesday.

He emphasized that “migrants are being sold in the market as a commodity,” cautioning that “selling human beings is becoming a trend among smugglers as the smuggling networks in Libya are becoming stronger and stronger.”

Many of the asylum seekers are used as day laborers in construction and agriculture, Belbeisi further stated, noting that although some are paid, others are forced to work without pay before being sold again to new buyers.

He also pointed to the extremely tragic fates that female refugees often encounter, saying, “About women, we heard a lot about bad treatment, rape and being forced into prostitution.”

According to a report released Tuesday by the agency, officially called the International Organization for Migration (IOM), its representatives have spoken to African refugees who recounted their experiences of being bought and sold in garages and parking lots in the southern Libyan city of Sabha, one of the nation’s main refugee smuggling hubs.

In the report, the IOM recounted the story of a Senegalese refugee – referred to as ‘SC’ to protect his identity — who spoke of being ‘bought’ and taken to his first ‘prison’ – a private home where more than 100 asylum seekers were beaten and held as hostages.

SC, the report added, was asked to pay 300,000 Central African Francs ($480) for his release, which he could not pay. He was then sold to another Libyan, who set his release price at 600,000 CFA ($970).

The Senegalese refugee further spoke of awful sanitary conditions and meals offered only once per day, adding that he was eventually able to get money from his family and work as an interpreter to avoid future beatings.

However, the IOM report added, others are not so lucky. Those who cannot pay are often killed or left to starve to death. They are buried without being identified.

“What we know is that migrants who fall into the hands of smugglers face systematic malnutrition, sexual abuse and even murder,” said IOM’s director of operations and emergencies, Mohammed Abdiker. “We are hearing about mass graves in the desert.”

The development came as Libya remains a major gateway for asylum seekers hoping to reach Europe via the Mediterranean Sea, with more than 450,000 people making the crossing over the past three years.

So far this year, of an estimated 26,886 refugees who have crossed into Italy, more than 600 are known to have drowned at sea while an unknown number perish during their journey north through the desert, according to press reports.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on UN: Refugees traded in Libya ‘slave markets’

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

September 2017
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930