It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Written by Scott Taylor
In the wake of the rebels’ victories in Libya, stories have surfaced detailing the revenge killing of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi’s black African mercenaries. Almost from the outset of the conflict, the claim that Gaddafi was using mercenaries to repress his people became a cornerstone of NATO propaganda. To explain that the war in Libya was largely an internal tribal conflict would not have warranted international intervention. No, we needed to believe that madman Gaddafi was using professional foreign fighters to try and cling to power and NATO was duty-bound to protect the poor “armed civilian” rebels. While it would be difficult to shed a tear for any foreign mercenary caught by rebel forces and executed for having brought violence to Libya, the problem is that not every dark-skinned male is a foreigner, and certainly very few were paid fighters.
Fully one-third of the Libyan population is dark-skinned and come from sub-Saharan Africa. And in pre-war prosperous Libya, migrant workers from central African countries performed most menial labour jobs. With emotions running high and Gaddafi loyalists still battling in several cities, many dark-skinned males have been summarily executed by rebels for no other reason than they are black. To be fair to the NATO spin doctors, there were a number of units in Gaddafi’s army who were recruited from regional neighbours Chad and Mali. During a weeklong fact-finding trip into Libya in early August, I actually encountered these fighters first-hand as two companies of soldiers were billeted at my hotel. These young men mostly had very little martial bearing, and they attacked the supper buffet like it was either their first or last meal in a long time. According to an American colleague who remained at the hotel in Tripoli, when the rebels entered the city, the fighters housed at our hotel never ventured out to fight. Apparently, they cut a separate deal with a rebel commander. This, of course, is always the problem with paid mercenaries: they want to live to cash their paycheque. Those Gaddafi loyalists continuing the fight against hopeless odds are likely members of the Gadhafa tribe, and they know their fate at the hands of the rebels will be a brutal one. Their continued resistance debunks the rebel and NATO claims that this was a unified uprising of all Libyan people against a repressive regime. While it would be despicable for Gaddafi to employ foreign mercenaries to suppress his own people, how can one conversely justify NATO’s intervention on the side of the rebels? The UN Security Council’s Resolution1973 authorized the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi from
using his air force to effect reprisals on the nearly defeated rebels.
Yet, from the outset, NATO planes openly engaged any and all Gaddafi loyalist forces. Furthermore, the subsequent arms embargo was only enforced against Gaddafi’s forces. There is a great video clip from NATO TV that shows the crew of HMCS Charlottetown boarding a suspicious vessel off the coast of Libya. The professionalism of the Canadian boarding party is commendable, and they quickly located a horde of weapons and howitzer shells destined for the embattled port city of Misrata. After radioing their find to headquarters, HMCS Charlottetown officers were advised that this is a rebel ship and, therefore, was to be given safe passage. Without NATO’s provision of air strikes, permission of weapons and training to the rebels, and the denial of fuel and funds to Gaddafi’s government through the one-way embargo and seizure of the country’s cash assets, the Libyan civil war would have ended with a government victory back in March. As the killing has not yet finished and the NATO air bombardment of Gaddafi-held cities continues, it is as yet impossible to calculate how many Libyans were killed in the name of protecting Libyans.
As for freeing the Libyan people from a madman dictator, it would seem these people are now subject to the ravages of a gun-toting, fractious mob of rebel fighters. Ironically, the Gaddafi supporters who denounced the rebels for enlisting the aid of NATO are now urging NATO to deploy international peacekeepers to protect them from rebel reprisals.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by casenately
no since the other sources confirmed that. but since you said you REFUSE to read them I guess its retarded to try and explain isht to you.
In case you haven't noticed, your personal attacks have inspired me to pay more attention to this thread than it merits. I simply do not consider a webpage which issues communiques from the "Libyan Government" to be unbiased.
Originally posted by WarriorOfTheLight
And can i please look at the evidence for "all the above" other than a "theory" boarder lining on being anti west propaganda, sorry this is just getting ridiculous now excuse my sarcasm
Originally posted by freethis
Clinton: Arming Syrian rebels could help al Qaeda
Clinton: Too many concerns over arming Syrians
Red Cross delivers aid to battered Syrian city
"What are we going to arm them with and against what? We're not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan," Clinton said.
Another administration concern is that weapons might go to al Qaeda.
"We know al Qaeda [leader Ayman al-] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al Qaeda in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?" Clinton said. "If you're a military planner or if you're a secretary of state and you're trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, that we don't see. We see immense human suffering that is heartbreaking."
Originally posted by freethis
so they lack leadership...ok
and we want to give a bunch of people guns who answer to no one, ok
that makes sense.
Originally posted by freethis
Turkmani has family in the embattled city of Homs. She’s an academic based in London, and she’s also a member of another Syrian opposition group, called “Building the Syrian State.”
She’s opposed to any foreign intervention. “How is it going to work” she asks, “how are the shells going to fall particularly on the tanks of the regime without losing many more people, many more innocent civilians.”
Turkmani also told anchor Lisa Mullins that she objected to Syrians taking up arms. “I am opposition to my bones,” she says, but “we are taking the wrong road” by taking up arms. It just gives the regime “an excuse to kill more civilians.”
Who cares what motivated them to stand up for themselves
the death didn't begin until we armed them