Leaked UN report reveals torture, lynchings and abuse in post-Gaddafi Libya

Leaked UN report reveals torture, lynchings and abuse in post-Gaddafi Libya

www.indepen dent.co.uk

Thousands of people, including women and children, are being illegally detained by rebel militias in Libya, according to a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of the prisoners are suffering torture and systematic mistreatment while being held in private jails outside the control of the country's new government.

The document, seen by The Independent, states that while political prisoners being held by the Gaddafi regime have been released, their places have been taken by up to 7,000 new “enemies of the state”, "disappeared" in a dysfunctional system, with no re

(visit the link for the full news article)

Yet another sloppy liberation by NATO. We like to roll in, do the job as quick as possible, install a puppet government, then get the heck out (except for Iraq and Afghanistan of course).

Libya is way worse off than before the NATO sponsored civil war. Now we have a lawless country, but hey at least they didn't switch to the African Gold Dinar right?

Those videos of the Gaddafi's capture that surfaced were foreshadowing for what's to come for the Libyan people. I have a feeling we will see a second uprising like we're seeing in Egypt.

www.indepen dent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

You're misspelling all the words. Its actually meant to say 'Leaked UN report reveals democracy, liberty and apple pie in post-Gaddafi Libya.' Everything is wonderful, a job well done.

reply to post by Tea4One


Is it safe to say Mission Accomplished yet?

The banner is all ready to go and everything.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Yet another sloppy liberation by NATO.

Liberation? More like sending their country into chaos.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree with the points you made but organizations such as NATO who sponsor or fund these types of missions should also have a long term plan if they're going to turn a country upside down. Yes I admit they were already in a civil war before official NATO intervention but in my opinion it would have been less bloody if they would have just let Gadaffi crush the rebels. I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see Libya becoming any better off than it was under during the Gadaffi times. I know it's still too early to jump to conclusions but I just don't see them getting any better under the current system.

Hopefully they will implement some order.

Another great find OP

Keep the news coming...

I feel very sorry for the people who didn't choose to be born in Libya, and who do not have the means to leave. I can just imagine them watching the protests going on in front of them, and then the recent fighting and killing...and they know what some of us still refuse to believe...

That is that things are going to be much worse than they were when Gaddafi ruled the country. My heart goes out to them, because now those who "run" the country are going to oppress the people while the West cons them out of their oil. I do not understand why some of you cannot see why Gaddafi HAD to go from the West's point of view, and who has benefited and will benefit the most.

I suspected that things would be much worse now that the "rebels" "won" their "liberty." This just starts to confirm my suspicions, which I had even before the Al-Qaeda flag was flying over Libya after Gaddafi's death.

yep good old western oppression and tyrany .. erm freedom and dimocracy in action...

I always find it amusing when actions like torture, lynchings and abuse all of a sudden become top priority for people when they can link it / blame it on the US / West.

Its to bad they didnt voice their concern when Ghaddafi / Hussein were doing that while they were in power.

Selective morals for the loss.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Unfortunetly long term plans by military organizations always end up causing more problems than solving. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Has continued military presence helped or hurt security and relations in the Middle East?

Are those people's quality of life better than it was? I would think not. Sure you can provide aid to a country in an attempt to have it rebuild itself, but you can't take the helm and try and do it for them.

It's insulting to most of those people. The military come in and level entire towns, then hire American contractor companies who are paid by their tax and government dollars to rebuild to their specifications as in most cases the country will be force to privatize it's water systems and energy systems in order to pay for the massive loans given to them by the IMF.

They can't win.

Google Economic Hit Man and take a read, it's been going on since the 70's.

~Keeper

reply to post by Xcathdra


People did and still do speak out against Gaddafi, quite frequently too so I have no idea what your point is.

Now it's NATO's turn to also accept criticism along with the rebels who are still acting as if there is a civil war going on.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I haven't had the the motivation to research who will be awarded the contracts for rebuilding Libya. But it's probably safe to say that companies such as Halliburton will be involved.

It's a shame that the Libyan people will most likely have to pick up the bill for this. You're right, they can't win either way.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

but hey at least they didn't switch to the African Gold Dinar right?

www.indepen dent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 24-11-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Bingo. This was the aim, this was accomplished. The US and UK don't care anymore what happens there.

This my fellow humans is severe injustice and this my fellow humans is why the west WILL fall.

Democracy and profit
UK to profit $300 billion from Libya
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by xavi1000


Thanks for linking me to that story

I haven't come across that one yet.

"War Is a Racket" - U.S. Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Why is NATO responsible for post war plans? Seriously? Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different - these countries were invaded so a plan is required (and wasn't in place).

Libya on the other hand, NATO was invited into and had support from the Arab League - it is upto the liberators (i much prefer this to rebels - how can the overwhelming majority of a country be considered rebels?) to implement the new Libya.

They have been under dictatorship and tyranny for 42 years. I am not going to get into arguments about it, go for yourselves and speak to Libyans rather than people claiming to be from Libya on the internet - by far the majority of Libyans are still absolutely delighted with how things have worked out.

Look at examples from history. This kind of revolution will always lead to blood and chaos for a while whilst governments are worked out and people learn to actually run things like ministeries (ie Ministry of Health, etc). This may continue for another year or so but it will improve.

reply to post by Flavian

Why is NATO responsible for post war plans?

It's quite simple really. From a moral standpoint they should be responsible because they sponsored and supported the rebels. This support was based on "humanitarian" reasons. If they truly cared about the well being of the Libyan people they would have done it differently than funding a bunch of rag tag terrorist rebels.

I think NATO intervention happens way too often. If they decide to bomb the # out of a country and help overthrow the ruling regime, they should also be responsible with the well being of the country after the government is toppled.

NATO claims to do things for humanitarian reasons but as soon as they accomplish their "hidden agenda" they get out of dodge unless it serves their interest to remain an occupying force.

According to a Russian article titled Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar, Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the Euro as payment for Libya's oil, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the African Union were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.[20]

Source

I think this is one of the main reasons Gaddafi was removed.

After Libya was 'liberated' in a non-war war .. Obama took credit and said that America (with him as leader) had led the way. Wonder if Obama is going to step up and take responsibility for what is going on .. for the poor way the post- Gaddafi Libya is being handled by those who 'liberated' the country.

Nope. Didn't think he would.