Libya: Hundreds massacred in KUFRA by Nato mercenaries

more importantly there was tribal war already based on race which really didn't merit international intervention. They weren't armed to the teeth and didn't go off killing people in the streets in an all out civil war.

Here is a great article that explains the racial profile of Libya and the reasons why NATO used tribal war to incite race war and all out destabilization so the west could move in.

Dissecting NATO’s claim that Gaddafi used black African mercenaries

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.

www.espritdecorps.ca...:dissecting-natos-claim-that-gaddafi-used-black-african-mercenaries&catid= 49:commentary&Itemid=70

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.

Western media uses PROPAGANDA to convince people atrocities are being committed overseas.
Of course if you only film one side of something bias is going to develop.
ANd yea, they're ghaddafi loyalists because that's what 90% of the country citizens are!!

I love Ghaddafi's 60 minutes interview when he asks if the interviewer if he's seen any protesters, and the guys says yeah. Ghadaffi says "Where, where?! Those are not my people. They are Al Qeada!". And the guy can't even answer.

reply to post by freethis


Cool story

What about Tunisia & Egypt/other where the leaders managed to stepped down peacefully without ordering the protesters to be shot at ?

How does this all tie in? did they make him insane with one of those cancer inducing ray guns Hugo Chavez dreamt up and brain wash him to act like a sick & twisted genocidal lunatic ?

So NATO incited tribal war in libya and in Egypt why for what purpose?

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 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

This is exactly what I have been saying. +s

reply to post by casenately


Look, his straight forward approach, may be too much for you to handle, but he is right in his assessment.
BUT, of course you will disagree, because it is much more dramatic to call it genocide.

In the true definition of the word, this is NOT genocide.

I can't believe how strange his first comment sounded, but it's true.

reply to post by WarriorOfTheLight


wooah wooah wooah, stop the clock. Don't you know, the world views westerners like a mix between the fat kid in charlie and the chocolate factory, and Clint Eastwood.

Never mind the thousands dying in Syria, they aren't bright enough to separate Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. If the US had not been to war, or intervened in the last 20 years, these same people would be begging for western intervention.

Unfortunately, many more will die, due to protest from fools.....

reply to post by ScarletWitch


well the people dying might not have taken up arms in the first place if the west had not given them arms.

to quote myself in another thread

Originally posted by freethis

Clinton: Arming Syrian rebels could help al Qaeda
ByWyatt Andrews

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."

www.cbsnews.com...

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.”

www.theworld.org...

but I guess we can't handle letting other people handle their business. no, we need to send weapons to "help" them start a civil war.

but of course, arguing that intervention that is not centered around diplomacy but rather arming and training terrorist is actually progressive and conducive to peaceful ends.

I see. so If I give you a gun, you somehow learn peace.....nice.

I wonder why gangs and mercenary sponsored groups like the contras never seem to get it?

or is that just a cool story too?

we didn't arm the contras and train them in torture and mass murder. No, they were "freedom fighters" and we "helped" them.....

RIGHT......

reply to post by freethis


So... if they wanted this, but didn't have the arms, you would have them be helpless? Do you think the west MADE them do it? OR did they give them, hope of support?

You people are too blinded by your hate of the west... Iraq and Afghan were NOT right... These people are being mowed down by their own govt... You make me sick...


Who cares what motivated them to stand up for themselves.. We certainly didn't make them, or hypnotize them. If you have a problem with backing them, your a fool.

reply to post by ScarletWitch


well they had elections and guess what....the rebels didn't participate and ended fighting the Syrian army. The new constitution was approved, and then, oh guess what, they used the weapons and training we showed them.

They could have voted. But no, they decided to create a blood bath that killed yet more civilians.

They will running to the next elections. Or rather FROM THEM.

reply to post by ScarletWitch


If you like arming people instead of creating a diplomatic solution you are a cave man.

You think giving weapons to random groups without leadership is responsible?

How is that going to help them. Some of these people are al-Qaida.

That is a good idea. Give known terrorist weapons and training. The same people we are currently fighting?

Who cares what motivated them to stand up for themselves

yes

who cares indeed. It could be a ploy to sell weapons and military aid, since we have this perfectly good business in place already, but hey, we love freedom right?

we sell freedom and not weapons?

change the business and I will change my position.
sell death and I will call you a death dealer.


we dont sell sneakers you know.

reply to post by freethis


Please please tell me, you are not such a hypocrite.... They could not vote, those that stood up as rebels and tried, were slaughtered.

They were trying to survive, not vote.. Do you think this a bugs bunny cartoon, where they lay down their weapons and head to a voting booth, right out of the war zone?

propaganda only exists, if it's what your mind perceives as propaganda...

This vote was for reform, not for the regime to go...

This is beyond ridiculous here.. The hate for the west is so bad, people are just mindless drones..

by the way, I don't hate the west. I hate people who justify my taxes going to killing civilians.

the death didn't begin until we armed them. We will be poorer after we get the bill.

but yes, I hate being lied to and made poor.

reply to post by freethis


Do you mean, giving a group a way to protect themselves?

I joined this site for the diversity in thought. This site is nothing more than a blame the west propaganda tool.

How many more Syrians need to die, simply because some folks are too dim to differentiate between Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria?

IF the US hadn't fought a war since WW2, you mouth pieces, would be spewing a different view... Pathetic!

reply to post by freethis


Prove your second sentence.. You can't, because you simply speak with emotions and ignorance.

the death didn't begin until we armed them

Prove this sentence, or man up and admit you speak with emotions, turning opinions into your facts.

I didn't realize I was debating with someone so ill equipped to debate. Carry on... You and I have nothing intelligent to discuss.

1) Prove the US armed them. You cant because we haven't yet.
2) Learn how to separate your emotional opinion with facts.


No need to respond, I won't lower myself to do so for you.

Funny how this thread about Libya has become a thread about Syria. It's almost as if that were the intention from the beginning.

To return to topic: NATO's intervention in Libya was a terrible mistake. Libya's tribal rivalries were held together by Qaddafi's iron fist. The system worked. Despite his sketchy past, Qadaffi had learned how to "play" the West. He apologized for Lockerbie, renounced terrorism, CBN weapons, played nice with his neighbors and generally acted civilized on the world stage. It had reached the point where the State Department could finally say: "He may be a [deleted], but at least he's our [deleted]." This lulled Qadaffi into thinking the West would turn a blind eye to his using force to quell the latest rebellion. Unfortunately, he forget to take French domestic politics into account. Sarko is facing an election, and, after taking so much grief for his taking a back seat to Angela Merkele over the financial crisis, he needed a dramatic international gesture to run out the Tricoleur. "Humanitarian Aid" to Libya fit the bill. Showing off the French Air Force was an irresistible bonus. Of course, the country is falling apart now and the most likely unifying force is Islamism. Both sides screwed up.

The good news for Syria is that all of the usual NATO armed forces are busy elsewhere. Looks like it's Turkey's turn. Say hello to your old pals, the Ottomans. Good night, and pleasant dreams.

If they were 'light skinned' people, would it be less egregious?

reply to post by casenately


NATO just like the UN is useless as usual. It needs to be dismantle or have it's arse whipped by the world's non-members. NATO has caused more genocide than any organized military effort in the modern era of the last 50 years.

reply to post by iskander683


They have been itches to get their hands on each other for ages - I full expect more of this to occur as old vendettas are carried out.

As to OP and his discussion about blacks / genocide.....

You have been