Category Archives: Lockerbie

Apr 13 2013

Libya: The Fall of Gaddafi – Stuff They Don’t Want You to Know


Libya: The Fall of Gaddafi – Stuff They Don’t Want You to Know

When Gaddafi’s regime fell, the Libyan rebels quickly set up new infrastructure, including a CENTRAL BANK and an OIL company. These moves — as well as lingering questions about the nature of the rebel movement — have fueled numerous conspiracy theories. But is there any grain of truth to claims that contradict the prevailing narrative?

It’s the end of Matt and Ben’s week on Libya, but the guys still have loads of stuff they didn’t get the chance to explore. Listen in to Stuff They Don’t Want You To Know and learn some quick facts about Libya’s oil reserves, some rumors that didn’t make it into the show, and some updates about their blogs.

More than two decades later, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland is still officially considered the work of Libya. For decades Libya had been at odds with Western powers, and was often considered a rogue state that sponsored terrorism, so it was no surprise that Libya would be a prime suspect in this tragic event. However, a growing number of people argue that Libya wasn’t actually responsible — and that Western intelligence agencies know the real culprit, but kept the information secret. Why?

source: ConspiracyStuff

 

About these ads
Feb 27 2013

NYT Admits Lockerbie Case Flaws


NYT Admits Lockerbie Case Flaws

May 21, 2012

Exclusive: Even in death, Libyan Ali al-Megrahi is dubbed “the Lockerbie bomber,” a depiction that proved useful last year in rallying public support for “regime change” in Libya. But the New York Times now concedes, belatedly, that the case against him was riddled with errors and false testimony, as Robert Parry reports.

By Robert Parry

From the Now-They-Tell-Us Department comes the New York Times obit of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted by a special Scottish court for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. After Megrahi’s death from cancer was announced on Sunday, the Times finally acknowledged that his guilt was in serious doubt. (****NOW YOU TELL US AFTER THE LIBYAN PEOPLE SUFFERED NEARLY 13 YEARS OF EMBARGO PLUS MR. MEGRAHI WAS PUT IN JAIL SUFFERED CANCER AND DIED AND ALL OF THAT ONLY LATER TO DICIDE THAT HIS GUILT WAS IN SERIOUS DOUBT SHAME ON YOU! YOUR MEDIA! YOU PATHETIC LUNATICS! EVIL ASSHOLES THE ONLY THING YOU COULD NOT STAND WAS QADDAFI BECAUSE HE WAS RIGHT BY HIS PEOPLE AND YOU WANTED TO DESTROY HIM!!!)

Last year, when the Times and other major U.S. news outlets were manufacturing public consent for a new war against another Middle East “bad guy,” i.e. Muammar Gaddafi, Megrahi’s guilt was treated as flat fact. Indeed, citation of the Lockerbie bombing became the debate closer, effectively silencing anyone who raised questions about U.S. involvement in another war for “regime change.”

ali-al-megrahi-228x300

After all, who would “defend” the monsters involved in blowing Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans? Again and again, the U.S.-backed military intervention to oust Gaddafi in 2011 was justified by Gaddafi’s presumed authorship of the Lockerbie terrorist attack. (****YES WHO WOULD “DEFEND”THE MONSTERS involved in blowing Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people wich 189 where Americans yes but they DIDN’T TELL YOU THAT THE USA + UK TOGETHER BLEW UP THIS PLANE AS THERE WHERE PEOPLE ON THAT PLANE THAT THEY DIDNT WANT THEN ALIVE…. BUT WHO BETTER TO BLAME BUT THE NAUGHTY BOY QADDAFI LETS PUT HIM ASIDE LET’S MAKE HIM PAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT OBEY US!!! SO WE WILL MAKE AN EMBARGO FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS LET HIS PEOPLE SUFFER THEY WILL HATE HIM IN THE END!! LET’S PUT THE MAN IN JAIL WHAT WE CARE HE IS A SCAPE GOAT! THEY WILL NEVER FIND OUT THE TRUTH! BUT THE TRUTH IS COMMING OUT BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!!!)

Only a few non-mainstream news outlets, like Consortiumnews.com, bothered to actually review the dubious evidence against Megrahi and raise questions about the judgment of the Scottish court that convicted Megrahi in 2001.

By contrast to those few skeptical articles, the New York Times stoked last year’s war fever by suppressing or ignoring those doubts. For instance, one March 2011 article out of Washington began by stating: “There once was no American institution more hostile to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s’s pariah government than the Central Intelligence Agency, which had lost its deputy Beirut station chief when Libyan intelligence operatives blew up Pan Am Flight 103 above Scotland in 1988.”

Note the lack of doubt or even attribution. A similar certainty prevailed in virtually all other mainstream news reports and commentaries, ranging from the right-wing media to the liberal MSNBC, whose foreign policy correspondent Andrea Mitchell would seal the deal by recalling that Libya had accepted “responsibility” for the bombing.

Gaddafi’s eventual defeat, capture and grisly murder brought no fresh doubts about the certainty of the guilt of Megrahi, who was simply called the “Lockerbie bomber.” Few eyebrows were raised even when British authorities released Libya’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa after asking him some Lockerbie questions.

Scotland Yard also apparently failed to notice the dog not barking when the new pro-Western Libyan government took power and released no confirmation that Gaddafi’s government indeed had sponsored the 1988 attack. After Gaddafi’s overthrow and death, the Lockerbie issue just disappeared from the news.

A Surprising Obit

So, readers of the New York Times’ obituary page might have been surprised Monday if they read deep into Megrahi’s obit and discovered this summary of the case:

“The enigmatic Mr. Megrahi had been the central figure of the case for decades, reviled as a terrorist but defended by many Libyans, and even some world leaders, as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence.”

If you read even further, you would find this more detailed examination of the evidence:

“Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.

“After a three-year investigation, Mr. Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan airline station manager in Malta, were indicted on mass murder charges in 1991. Libya refused to extradite them, and the United Nations imposed eight years of sanctions that cost Libya $30 billion.  …

“Negotiations led by former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa produced a compromise in 1999: the suspects’ surrender, and a trial by Scottish judges in the Netherlands.

“The trial lasted 85 days. None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr. Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr. Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays.

“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert.

“Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in Mr. Fhimah’s desk in Malta, that Mr. Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.

“On Jan. 31, 2001, the three-judge court found Mr. Megrahi guilty but acquitted Mr. Fhimah. The court called the case circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable, but concluded that ‘there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt’ of Mr. Megrahi.

“Much of the evidence was later challenged. It emerged that Mr. Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr. Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.

“Investigators said Mr. Bollier, whom even the court called ‘untruthful and unreliable,’ had changed his story repeatedly after taking money from Libya, and might have gone to Tripoli just before the attack to fit a timer and bomb into the cassette recorder. The implication that he was a conspirator was never pursued.

“In 2007, Mr. Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.

“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored.

“Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by Mr. Mandela. Many legal experts and investigative journalists challenged the evidence, calling Mr. Megrahi a scapegoat for a Libyan government long identified with terrorism. While denying involvement, Libya paid $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in 2003 in a bid to end years of diplomatic isolation.”

Prosecutorial Misconduct

In other words, the case against Megrahi looks to have been an example of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane, an unlikely route for a terrorist attack and made even more dubious by the absence of any evidence of an unaccompanied bag being put on those flights).

Also, objective journalists should have noted that Libya’s much-touted acceptance of “responsibility” was simply an effort to get punishing sanctions lifted and that Libya always continued to assert its innocence.

All of the above facts were known in 2011 when the Times and the rest of the mainstream U.S. press corps presented a dramatically different version to the American people. Last year, all these questions and doubts were suppressed in the name of rallying support for “regime change” in Libya.

On March 18, 2011, I wrote: “As Americans turn to their news media to make sense of the upheavals in the Middle East, it’s worth remembering that the bias of the mainstream U.S. press corps is most powerful when covering a Washington-designated villain, especially if he happens to be Muslim.

“In that case, all uncertainty about some aspect of his villainy is discarded. Evidence in serious dispute is stated as flat fact. Readers are expected to share this unquestioned belief about the story’s frame – and that usually helps manufacture consent behind some desired government action or policy.

“At such moments, it’s also hard to contest the conventional wisdom. To do so will guarantee that you’ll be treated as some kook or pariah. It won’t even matter if you’re vindicated in the long run. You’ll still be remembered as some weirdo who was out of step.

“And those who push the misguided consensus will mostly go on to bigger and better things, as people who have proved their worth even if they got it all wrong. Such is the way the national U.S. political/media system now works – or some might say doesn’t work.

“Perhaps the most costly recent example of this pattern was the Official Certainty about Iraq’s WMD in 2002-03. With only a few exceptions, the major U.S. news media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, bought into the Bush administration’s WMD propaganda, partly because Saddam Hussein was so unsavory that no one wanted to be dubbed a ‘Saddam apologist.’

“When Iraq’s WMD turned out to be a mirage, there was almost no accountability at senior levels of the U.S. news media. Washington Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, who repeatedly reported Iraq’s WMD as ‘flat fact,’ is still in the same job eight years later; Bill Keller, who penned an influential article called  ’The I-Can’t-Believe-I’m-a-Hawk Club,’ got promoted to New York Times executive editor after the Iraq-WMD claims exploded leaving egg on the faces of him and his fellow club members.

“So, now as Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi reprises his old role as ‘mad dog of the Middle East,’ Americans are being prepped for another Middle East conflict by endlessly reading as flat fact that Libyan intelligence agents blew up Pan Am Flight 103 back in 1988.

“These articles never mention that there is strong doubt the Libyans had anything to do with the attack and that the 2001 conviction of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi was falling apart in 2009 before he was released on humanitarian grounds, suffering from prostate cancer.

“Though it’s true that a Scottish court did convict Megrahi – while acquitting a second Libyan – the judgment appears to have been more a political compromise than an act of justice. One of the judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about ‘enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.’

“After the testimony of a key witness was discredited, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed in 2007 to reconsider Megrahi’s conviction out of a strong concern that it was a miscarriage of justice. However, again due to intense political pressure, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities agreed to release Megrahi on medical grounds.

“Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain an early release in the face of a terminal cancer diagnosis, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty. He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his conviction.”

But today, the United States has anything but an objective press corps. That should be obvious when you contrast the U.S. media’s certitude about Megrahi’s guilt last year – when outrage over the Lockerbie bombing was crucial in lining up public acquiescence to another Middle East war – against the nuanced doubts noted in Megrahi’s New York Times obit on Monday.

source: http://consortiumnews.com/

 

Oct 19 2012

Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up


Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up

Global Research, September 20, 2012

 

The NATO powers and the bureaucrats they installed in Libya want you to think that all 5.6 million Libyans are happy that NATO and its proxy terrorists destroyed Libya, whose standard of living had been Africa’s highest under Gaddafi.

They want you to think that NATO brought “freedom and democracy” to Libya, not chaos and death.

They want you to think that there is no Green Resistance to the NATO imperialists or NATO’s Islamist allies in Benghazi.

In reality, the Resistance has been increasingly active since shortly after the murder of Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011, as will be shown below. They strike any NATO target they can, and they execute key Libyans who betrayed Gaddafi and sided with NATO. The Benghazi incident was merely their latest blow against what they see as NATO’s illegal occupation of their country.

Everyone in Libya knows about the Green Resistance, whose members are called “Tahloob” (Arabic for “Gaddafi loyalists”). The denial only happens outside of Libya, by the NATO powers and their dutiful Western mainstream media.

Because of this denial, and because most of the world’s people have forgotten about Libya, the internet is filled with blind guesses, unfounded claims, and ridiculous counterclaims regarding the Benghazi incident last week in which US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and at least three other American personnel were killed. And the NATO lie factory is operating at full blast.

CLAMS, COUNTER-CLAIMS AND DISINFORMATION

The Obama regime says “protesters” irate over an anti-Islam video did it.

The NATO-installed bureaucrats in Libya say that “foreign extremists” did it.

US Congressmen say “Al Qaeda did it”. So does CNN, plus disinformation web sites like Alex Jones’ Prison Planet, which denounces any reference to the Green Resistance as “absurd”. (1)

Media outlets, such as the UK Guardian, say “an organized terror network did it”. (****like Mossad)

Turkey’s government says “Syria’s Assad did it”. (****Syria had no time plus to far to reach)

Israel says “Hezbollah did it”. (*** they would say such a thing  just to get America to war with Iran)

The Sunni monarchs of the Gulf Cooperation Council oil sheikdoms say “Iran did it”. (****Let the Gulf explain how? really they do have an imagination!!!! like the Israeli’s)

Even reputable alternative media writers and progressive bloggers have attributed the attack to “the Benghazi Islamist’s”, and that this is “ blow-back from imperialism”.

Wikileaks says the attack happened because the US had backed Britain’s threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London and remove Julian Assange. (2) (****get real who cares about Assange? he is one person! Here we are talking about millions)

Some media outlets claim that “Al Qaeda” carried out the attack in revenge for the supposed death in Pakistan (by US drone strike on 4 June 2012) of Libyan-born Abu Yahya Al Libi (aka Hassan Mohammed Qaid) who was supposedly a key aide to Osama bin Laden, and was supposedly the “number two man” in Al Qaeda. (****Please we all know that “Al Qaeda” its the baby of “CIA & MOSSAD” So they would not do anything without their permission!!!!)

This claim is nonsense, since Al Qaeda has been a group of mercenaries employed by Washington and London since 1980. President Reagan called them “heroes” and “freedom fighters”. The US and Britain sends its Al Qaeda mercenaries to the Balkans, Libya, Syria, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan, and other places that NATO wants to infiltrate, destroy or destabilize.

NATO pays Ayman Al Zawahiri, the so-called leader of the Al Qaeda mercenaries, to advance NATO imperialism by recording videos and audio-tapes; over 60 of them so far. Zawahiri repeatedly called for the death of Gaddafi, and now he repeatedly calls for the death of Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad. He also calls for Pakistanis to support the Taliban, in order to make the world think the Taliban still exists. He sometimes records in English, and his true identity and whereabouts are a NATO secret. On 11 September 2012, in commemoration of 9/11, he released a video that eulogized Abu Yahya Al Libi, the one supposedly killed by a US drone in June. This “eulogy” had nothing to do with the Benghazi incident, which happened later that night on Tuesday 11 September.

Some claim that Salafists carried out the fatal attack on the US premises. This is more nonsense, since Salafists are NATO allies. Salafists and Wahhabists connote a strict, literalist, and puritanical approach to Islam. They are mainly associated with Saudi Arabia’s feudal style of Islam, and they were allied with NATO against Gaddafi. Now they are allied with NATO against Assad, Iran, Hezbollah, and Shiites generally.

An example of Salafists in Libya is the Ansar Al Sharia – a blanket term for various militias that want to apply strict Sharia law in Libya. Its members are pro-NATO and anti-Green Resistance. They had no reason to attack the US government site in Benghazi which had been instrumental in galvanizing the Islamist insurgency to topple the Gaddafi government, beginning at least from March 2011 and under the supervision of the late Christopher Stevens. Stevens was Washington’s point man in Benghazi and is known to have cultivated strong ties with the Islamists.

In short, it does not make sense that such Benghazi contacts would have wanted or have been motivated to kill their American paymaster.

The most obvious explanation is that cadres – the Green Resistance – loyal to Gaddafi and in opposition to the NATO-imposed regime carried out the attack. NATO and its Libyan quislings don’t want to admit this subversive reality. The fact of a resistance – a potent and growing resistance at that – has to be denied, erased from the record.

TIMING

It was a mere coincidence that the Benghazi attack happened on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. The Green Resistance was angry that Abdullah Al Senoussi (Gaddafi’s chief of intelligence) had been arrested upon his arrival at Nouakchott airport in Mauritania on 17 March 2012. Then, six days before the Benghazi attack, Mauritania extradited Senoussi to Libya for trial by the NATO-installed bureaucrats.

One day before the Benghazi attack, the NATO puppets put two senior Gaddafi loyalists on trial, accusing them of wasting public money by paying $2.7 billion to families of people killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The two Gaddafi loyalists are Abdul Ati Al Obeidi (who had been Gaddafi’s Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Head of State) and Mohammed Zwai (former Secretary General of the General People’s Congress – that is, head of the legislature under Gaddafi).

Also, Baghdadi Ali Mahmudi had been Secretary of the General People’s Committee (that is, Prime Minister) under Gaddafi, but escaped from Tripoli on 21 August 2011 as NATO-backed terrorists swept into the city. Mahmudi was arrested in Tunisia for illegal border entry and jailed for six months until his charges were overturned on appeal. On 24 June 2012, Tunisia’s Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali (acting on NATO orders) suddenly had Mahmudi re-arrested and sent back to the NATO puppets in Tripoli, who promptly imprisoned Mahmudi.

Tunisia’s Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali is pro-NATO, and a friend of American hawkish senators McCain and Lieberman. His re-arrest and extradition of Mahmudi angered Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki, who denounced the extradition as illegal, and it also enraged the Libyan Green Resistance. (3)

As for US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, he had promoted Libya’s destruction, having arrived in Benghazi in April 2011 for that purpose, and remained there throughout the NATO seven-month aerial bombardment of Libya. His job was to coordinate the NATO-backed terrorists.

After Libya was destroyed, Stevens had used a Tripoli hotel as his base, since the Green Resistance had burned down the US embassy in the capital, Tripoli. When the Resistance tried to kill him with a car bomb outside the hotel, Stevens moved to the villas in Benghazi, a city in the east of the country whose inhabitants tend to be pro-US and which has long been a hotbed of Islamist Jihadis, many of them furnishing the ranks of NATO’s Afghan Mujaheddin in the 1980′s and later Al Qaeda. (4)

That was over a year ago. (Stevens formally became Obama’s ambassador to Libya in May 2012.)

Stevens was outgoing, and had so underestimated the Green Resistance that he enjoyed jogging in the streets of Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya. (5)

Everyone knew that he and his American staff were present. One figure among the pro-NATO terrorists, Ahmed Al Abbar, says of Stevens: “He was loved by everybody [that is, in Benghazi]”. (6)

Stevens’ popularity with the Benghazi traitors added to the fury of the Green Resistance when they eventually attacked the US site in Benghazi.

Thus, contrary to claims by Western media outlets such as the British Independent, there were no “major security breeches,” and no “mystery” about the attack. All such claims are red herrings designed to distract from the reality of the Green Resistance.

THEY ALL ADMITTED THE TRUTH AT FIRST

The morning after the Benghazi attack, on 12 September, the NATO puppets unwittingly admitted the truth about the “Tahloob” (Green Resistance), and whined that NATO was not doing enough to help crush it. Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis Al Sharif admitted this in a Benghazi news conference, which was later broadcast on Al Jazeera television. (7) (8) (29)

Libya’s Prime Minister Abdurrahim El-Keib also admitted it, as did Libya’s President Mohammed El-Megarif, as well as Ali Aujali, Libya’s Ambassador to Washington, plus Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya’s ambassador to the UN. All of them said that Gaddafi loyalists had attacked the US site in Benghazi. They would quickly change their change tune under pressure from their NATO masters.

Back on 24 August 2012, Time magazine had noted that Gaddafi “still commands silent admiration in many parts of Libya”. The article quoted President El-Magariaf as saying: “We know that Gaddafi loyalists are behind these bombings [since the overthrow of Gaddafi]. In the last few months, the security services have intensified their campaign against Bani Walid and Tarhuna.” (9)

Bani Walid is a loyalist stronghold whose people held key positions in Gaddafi’s security services. It was also the last city outside of Gaddafi’s birthplace of Sirte to fall to NATO-backed terrorists on 23 January 2012. Magariaf is from Benghazi, and spent 30 years in the US being groomed for the time when NATO would destroy Libya. On 9 August 2012, NATO installed him as Libya’s head of state after an “election”. Magariaf is allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is aligned with NATO.

The initial admissions of the truth about the Green Resistance were made on the morning after the attack. Within hours, however, all top Libyan officials, acting under NATO orders, changed their tune, merely calling the attackers “foreign extremists”. Magariaf, the president installed by NATO, went to Benghazi three days after the attack, and declared that “Al Qaeda did it”. (10)

One bureaucrat who would not adopt the NATO spin was Prime Minister Abdurrahim El-Keib, who continued to insist that Gaddafi loyalists were the perpetrators. Therefore, NATO dismissed him as Libya’s prime minister, and replaced him with Mustafa Abushagur, the day after the Benghazi incident. Abushagur had lived most of his life in the USA, and had always been an enemy of Gaddafi. Like so many other US-installed bureaucrats, he had returned to Benghazi in May 2011 during the NATO-instigated insurgency.

Some alternative news outlets acknowledge the truth about the Green Resistance, for example, the Inter Press News Service, which is a non-profit outlet.

IPS spoke with armed Gaddafi loyalists who vowed that they will step up their fight. Government sources alternately claim the perpetrators are former Gaddafi loyalists or Islamists. Further confusion arises from a government clampdown on the dissemination of information in the local media, and by Libyan security forces preventing foreign journalists from covering the scenes of attacks first-hand, or taking pictures. (11)

The Libyan bureaucrats’ clampdown on media information is understandable, since they want to hamper solidarity with the Green Resistance.

MASS DENIAL

Regarding the Benghazi incident, the mass denial begins with basic facts. For example, most people refer to “the US consulate,” when in reality the US site in Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, or even a “compound”. It was a collection of villas (that is, a gated community) privately owned by one Mohammad Al Bishari, who was leasing the villas to US State Department personnel. (12)

Collectively the villas were what the US State Department calls an “interim facility”. It had a level of security known as “simple lock and key,” meaning it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors, US Marines, or other features common to embassies and consulates. (In Mexico, for example, Washington has an embassy and 22 consulates, but in Libya the US government had only a single embassy in Tripoli – and then, after the NATO bombardment campaign, used the Benghazi villas.)

The corporate media falsely use the term “US consulate” to make it seem that “terrorists attacked US sovereignty”. This justifies the “war on terror,” plus the past destruction of Libya.

Furthermore, the Obama regime calls the privately owned group of villas a “compound” in order to make it seem that the (non-existent) “protesters” brazenly stormed a fortress similar to the massive US embassy complex in Baghdad.

THERE WERE NO PROTESTERS IN BENGHAZI

The White House claims that protesters against that anti-Muslim video “spontaneously” attacked the so-called “consulate.” In reality there were no protesters anywhere in Benghazi at the time of the attack. When Fox News questioned US officials about this, the officials admitted the truth. (13)

Nonetheless, the Obama administration/regime continues to insist that “protesters did it”. This lie not only conceals the Green Resistance; it also makes Muslims all seem irrational and blood-lusting, thereby justifying imperialist aggression (that is, the “war on terror”).

The absence of protesters was confirmed by one of the eight Libyans guarding the private group of villas used by Ambassador Stevens and his staff. The eyewitness, aged 27, is being treated in a hospital for five shrapnel wounds in one leg, and two bullet wounds in the other. He asked that his name be withheld, and that the hospital not be identified, for fear that “militants” (that is, the Green Resistance) would track him down and kill him. (**** I don’t think they will waste a bullet for an idiot like him)

Of the eight Libyan security guards, the eyewitness and four others had been hired by a British firm. The remaining three were members of Libya’s 17th of February Brigade, a group of pro-NATO terrorists formed at the start of the NATO campaign to destroy Gaddafi and Libyan society.

In an interview with McClatchy news service last Thursday (13 September 2012) the eyewitness said there were no protesters at all.

“The Americans would have left if there had been protesters, but there wasn’t a single ant. The area was totally quiet until about 9:35 pm, when as many as 125 men attacked with machine guns, grenades, RPGs, and anti-aircraft weapons. They threw grenades into the villas, wounding me and knocking me down. Then they stormed through the facility’s main gate, moving from villa to villa.”

That does not sound like a “spontaneous protest” against a blasphemous B-movie that suddenly appeared on the internet, as the White House and others claim; rather, it was a sharply executed military strike that must have been planned meticulously well in advance.

The eyewitness managed to escape by telling one of the attackers that he was only a gardener in the gated community. His account is consistent with that of Mohammad Al Bishari, who owns the villas, and was leasing them to the US government. Bishari gave his own account on 12 September, the day after the attack. (12)

Ambassador Stevens was overcome by “severe asphyxia” (smoke inhalation), and was still alive after the attack. Pro-US Libyans in Benghazi carried him to the Benghazi Medical center, where he died later in the night. (14)

RESISTANCE GROWS

NATO destroyed Libya and reduced its people to poverty and violence. In the post-destruction chaos, there are family feuds and inter-militia rivalries. There are long-standing disputes over land, plus long-standing friction between Arabs and Berbers.

However, we shall focus on Resistance attacks against NATO targets, and Resistance assassinations of Libyan figures that betrayed Gaddafi and sided with NATO. The following are only some of the “scores”.

On 18 March 2012, in the Tripoli neighborhood of Abu Salim (a pro-Gaddafi stronghold) local members of the Green Resistance had a shoot-out with a pro-NATO militia group from Zintan led by one Mohammed El-Rebay. (Zintan is a province in Libya’s western mountains.) The Resistance managed to kill one of the Zintan terrorists, who had been using a Tripoli school as their base. (15)

In April 2012, the Resistance detonated a roadside bomb beside a UN convoy that included Ian Martin, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Special Representative for Libya. (16)

On 29 April 2012, the lifeless body of Shukri Ghanem, Gaddafi’s former oil minister, was found floating in the River Danube. In May 2011, Ghanem had joined NATO, and went off to reside in London and then Vienna. (17) (****Sorry mate here you are wrong we the Green Resistance know exactly who killed Mr. Shukri Ghanem, and No he did not join NATO for further information get in touch with editor)

On 2 May 2012, the Green Resistance claimed responsibility for assassinating General Albarrani Shkal, a former military governor of Tripoli who had demobilized the 38,000 men of his guard and opened the gates of Tripoli to foreign troops during Operation Mermaid Dawn, the sacking of Tripoli that began on 20 August 2011. (Tripoli’s nickname is “The Mermaid”.) (18)

On 15 May 2012, Khaled Abu Salah, a candidate for the Constituent Assembly controlled by NATO, was assassinated near the oasis town of Ubari in southwest Libya. (19)

On 22 May 2012, a rocket-propelled grenade targeted the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Benghazi, but caused only structural damage to the premises. The ICRC is headquartered in Geneva, and its foreign offices are often used as cover by Western intelligence agencies, such as MI6 or the CIA.

On 26 May 2012, Mukhtar Fernana, head of the Military Council for the Western Region, survived an assassination attempt.

On 5 June 2012, the Resistance detonated a bomb in front of the US-operated building in Tripoli, damaging its gates.

On 11 June 2012, in Benghazi’s al-Rabha neighborhood, the Resistance fired an RPG at a convoy that carried British Ambassador Dominic Asquith, wounding two of his bodyguards. (20)

Back in July 2011, Abdel-Fattah Younis, the former Qaddafi loyalist turned “rebel” military commander, was assassinated. On 22 June 2012, the judge investigating the death of Younis was himself assassinated in Benghazi.

On 28 July 2012, Suleiman Buzraidah was killed in a drive-by shooting while he was en route to a Benghazi mosque. Buzraidah had been a military intelligence official under Gaddafi, but betrayed him to join the NATO-backed terrorists. (21)

On 29 July 2012, Khalifa Belqasim Haftar narrowly survived an assassination attempt. Formerly one of Gaddafi’s army commanders, in 1988 he betrayed Gaddafi and lived for 23 years under US government protection near CIA headquarters in Virginia. He returned to Libya during the NATO-led insurgency, hoping that after Gaddafi’s death, he would be made commander-in-chief of the Libyan military (controlled by NATO). However, he had to settle for third place in the hierarchy, and was given the rank of Lt. General before the Resistance caught up with him. (****Latest gossip about Haftar’s sons one is dead and the other has escaped Libya after robing the bank in Tripoli of course he is wanted in Tripoli dead or alive the Militia’s are giving a big reward who ever brings him back in which ever condition)

Last month was an especially active four weeks for the Resistance. Security buildings and hotels in Benghazi were rocked by bomb attacks and attempted attacks. Foreign diplomatic staff and embassies were targeted. US embassy staff in Tripoli escaped an attempted carjacking.

On 10 August 2012, eight Resistance members escaped from the Al Fornaj prison in Tripoli after a coordinated attack. Gunmen in pickup trucks outside the prison shot at security guards, while prisoners inside set sections of the prison on fire and managed to overpower a number of guards. This was the third Resistance attack on the prison since the murder of Gaddafi. (22)

On 18 August 2012, the Green Resistance detonated a car bomb outside the Four Seasons Hotel on Omar Al Mukhtar Street in Tripoli. The target was a vehicle being used by Benghazi security officials (installed by NATO) who were staying at the hotel. (22)

Afterwards, the NATO-installed bureaucrats sent heavily armed soldiers to prevent photographs being taken, and to forbid journalists from entering the area, so that word of the Green Resistance would not get out. A Libyan interior ministry official refused to comment further. (22)

The following day, the Resistance set off more car bombs in Tripoli. One bomb was near the administrative offices of the Interior Ministry (controlled by the NATO powers). Two other car bombs exploded minutes later near the former headquarters of a women’s police academy, which NATO now uses for interrogation and detentions. (The latter two bombs killed two passersby.)

The next day in Benghazi (20 August 2012) Resistance members tossed a bomb into the car of Abdel Hamid Refaii, the first secretary of the Egyptian Embassy. This was outside Refaii’s house. However, the assassination bid failed.

The day after that, the then Libyan Prime Minister Abdurrahim El-Keib condemned the Green Resistance in a televised speech, saying: “Desperate and malicious forces among the supporters of the former regime are trying to create tension, send Libya backwards to violence, and sabotage the country’s political process.” (23)

Tripoli’s security chief, Col Mahmoud Sherif, said Gaddafi loyalists were responsible for the spate of violent attacks. He ordered the arrest of 32 suspected Resistance members for interrogation. (24)

Indeed, the police in Tripoli (who now work for the NATO powers) are constantly occupied with defusing car bombs set by the Resistance. (25)

After the Resistance bombing of the former headquarters of a women’s police academy, the NATO puppets sent soldiers to raid a farm where Resistance members were holed up. Several of the Gaddafi loyalists were killed.

One of the members who survived was alleged to have set up sleeper cells in Libya and to have been criss-crossing the border with Tunisia from where he and several comrades were smuggling weapons into Libya for the Resistance. (26)

On 23 August 2012, Abdelmenom Al Hur, official spokesperson for the Supreme Security Committee, installed by NATO, held a press conference in which he admitted that Gaddafi loyalists had penetrated many official security units. He said that a whole barracks full of heavy armaments was under the control of a pro-Gaddafi cell that he called the Awfia Brigade. (The group’s members call themselves the “Martyr Gaddafi Brigade”.) The same Resistance brigade had briefly occupied Tripoli International Airport back in June 2012.

After the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens on 11 September 2012, the Resistance managed to shut down the Benina airport in Benghazi, which the US military was using as a drone base. (27)

With the Resistance firing at US drones, the airport had become unsafe. A Turkish Afriqiyah Airlines flight with 121 people on-board was forced to turn back to Istanbul. (28)

CONCLUSION

The foregoing is only a partial list of Resistance activity over the past year, which has dramatically increased during the last three months, reaching a crescendo in August, and leading to the death of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens last week.

The NATO powers had shifted their focus to destroying Syria, and on continuing their preparations to destroy Iran, while letting their Tripoli bureaucrats handle the Green Resistance in Libya. Now, however, the NATO powers realize that Libya is far from subjugated and that they are being seriously tasked with crushing the Resistance before it gains critical mass.

Marines, drones, and warships have been sent to quash the Gaddafi loyalists – but how to find them? Even the FBI declined to “investigate” the latest attack in Benghazi, realizing that it would be pointless.

Libya presents Washington with another Afghan nightmare – only perhaps worse. If US drones start blasting Libyans, and the US military rounds up tens of thousands of suspected loyalists, then the Resistance can only become stronger. Of Libya’s 5.6 million people, only one in 10 (that is, the population of the eastern city of Benghazi) welcomed the NATO bondage and destruction of their country.

Meanwhile, the NATO powers do not want the Western public to realize any of this awkward truth. They want you to think that all Libyans are happy under NATO’s “liberation” with their Islamist terrorist proxies. Some 50,000 Libyans lost their lives due to NATO’s bombing and ground campaign during 2011. And for what? Only for a Resistance to rise up to illustrate to the world that Libyans had their country stolen from them by NATO powers in a criminal war of aggression.

The more the Libyan Green Resistance gains strength and challenges the NATO-imposed regime, the more clear it becomes that the Western governments and their media lied in their pretexts of “responsibility to protect (R2P)” human rights and democracy. Recall that these were the pretexts invoked by the NATO powers to justify setting up No-Fly Zones in Libya in March 2011. (The same pretexts are again being reiterated with regard to Syria.)

But, as the growing Resistance illustrates, the Western powers did not “liberate” Libya; they invaded a sovereign country and killed massively to execute their real, criminal agenda of regime change and theft of oil resources. Now the people of Libya are resisting this criminal conquest. And that damning truth has to be expunged at all costs.

Before the Benghazi incident, the corporate media had occasionally mentioned Gaddafi loyalists. After the incident, all such mention has suddenly ceased. The media say that “extremists” attacked the US site in Benghazi. Or “Al Qaeda” or “Islamists” or “terrorists,” or “protesters” – anyone but the Resistance.

Not true. The Green Resistance lives, and furthermore it is only getting started.

Mark Robertson is a political analyst based in Mexico City quatloos.x@gmail.com

Finian Cunningham is a freelance journalist based in East Africa cunninghamfinian@gmail.com

Notes

1)http://www.prisonplanet.com/consulate-attack-nato-stooge-ludicrously-points-finger-at-gaddafi-loyalists.html

(2)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9540728/WikiLeaks-blames-US-stance-on-Julian-Assange-for-Libyan-embassy-attack.html

(3)http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/06/2012624135853340329.html

(4)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/for-veteran-envoy-return-to-libya-was-full-of-hope.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast

(5)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-usa-libya-stevens-idUSBRE88B13B20120913

(6)http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Chris-Stevens-US-envoy-to-the-Arab-world-3860408.php#ixzz26t2Xx6Zi

(7)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-loyalists-idUSBRE88B0K920120912

(8)http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/20129112108737726.html

(9)http://world.time.com/2012/08/24/the-bomb-attacks-in-libya-are-gaddafi-loyalists-behind-them/

(10)http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/15/despite-arrests-in-consulate-attack-confusion-persists-in-libya.html

(11)http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/gaddafi-loyalists-up-in-arms/

(12)http://www.examiner.com/article/eyewitnesses-no-protest-at-u-s-consulate-libya-before-attack-began

(13)http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-administration-libyan-president-clash-over-explanation-on-consulate/

(14)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511234/libyan-doctor-u.s-ambassador-christopher-stevens-died-of-severe-asphyxia/

(15)http://rt.com/news/libya-clashes-militia-gaddafi-loyalists-857/

(16)http://www.tunisia-live.net/2012/08/22/car-bomb-targeting-egyptian-diplomat-in-benghazi-raises-security-questions/

(17)http://libyanfreepress.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/execution-of-big-traitor-general-shkal-claimed-by-green-resistance/

(18)http://www.voltairenet.org/Libyan-settling-of-scores

(19)http://www.tunisia-live.net/2012/05/15/candidate-for-libyan-constituent-assembly-assassinated-after-filing-to-run/

(20)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-libya-attack-britain-idUSBRE85A0TV20120611

(21)http://menasassociates.blogspot.com/2012/08/libya-security-system-failures.html

(22)http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/gaddafi-loyalists-up-in-arms/

(23)http://www.tunisia-live.net/2012/08/22/car-bomb-targeting-egyptian-diplomat-in-benghazi-raises-security-questions/

(24)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/20/gaddafi-loyalists-held-blasts-libya

(25)http://jn1.tv/breaking-news/militants-bomb-egyptian-diplomat-s-car-in-benghazi.html

(26)http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/gaddafi-loyalists-up-in-arms/

27)http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-14/news/sns-rt-us-protests-libya-airportbre88d0pj-20120914_1_benghazi-drones-libyan-rebels

(28)http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/141946/libya-shuts-benghazi-air-space-turkish-plane-returns-home-.html

(29)http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/libya-official-says-gaddafi-loyalists-killed-us-diplomats-104805571.html

 

May 25 2012

Abdel Basset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi, the martyr falsely accused in the Lockerbie case with the Libyan decent loyalty to death, died Sunday nearly three years after being released from a Scottish prison.


Abdel Basset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi, the martyr falsely accused in the Lockerbie case with the Libyan decent loyalty to death, died Sunday nearly three years after being released from a Scottish prison.

Abdel Basset al-Megrahi has died, May 20, 2012, at the age of 60 years died of cancer. He was the only person convicted in the case of the Lockerbie bombing, against PanAm flight 103, which killed 270 people , December 21, 1988.

 

Advantage of the fact that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has been destroyed by NATO, Agence France Presse writes: “  In 2003, the Gaddafi regime has officially recognized its responsibility for the attack and then paid $ 2.7 billion in compensation to the families of the victims.   ”[  1  ]. The agency also ironic that the deceased had survived three years of their release, while medical experts argued that he still had three months to live.

 

In fact, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has always denied the charge against él.Considerándose blackmailed by the great powers, however, agreed to pay compensation in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. By paying the costs of the various conflicts that pitted the United States to their country, Muammar Gaddafi hopes to stop the war preparations of NATO. History has shown that it was a miscalculation and that NATO does not lack imagination to invent new pretexts to justify the wars they have planned.

In a famous documentary,  The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie  , the U.S. journalist, Allan Francovich and others showed that the attack was perpetrated by a U.S. agent. Meanwhile, the Scottish authorities have admitted that the conviction of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was based on false testimony [ 2  ] and have agreed to review the case. It is in this context that the defendant had been pardoned medical (contrary to the insinuations of the AFP, the issue of life expectancy could not be considered). Unfortunately, his death ends the procedure and deprived of the opportunity to be rehabilitated.

“   Vae Victis!   ”(Woe to the vanquished!)

[  1  ] “The Libyan Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is dead” by Imed Lamloum, AFP, May 20, 2012.

[  2  ] “   Lockerbie: towards a reopening of the investigation   “,  Voltaire Network  , 29 August 2005.
Source:  Voltaire Network
Apr 24 2012

April 17, 1984: The Murder of Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher – A Perfect CIA Assassination


April 17, 1984: The Murder of Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher – A Perfect CIA Assassination

From: Mathaba

Yvonne Fletcher was assassinated on the direct orders of the American CIA in a coldly calculated Psyop designed to generate intense British hatred against Libya.

by Joe Vialls
Republished from mathaba.net/info

In an article published on April 9, 1996, the British newspaper the Guardian reviewed evidence presented in a British Channel 4 documentary which suggests the involvement of the CIA in the killing of a British policewoman outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984. The TV documentary cast serious doubt on the orginal claim that the policewoman was shot from a first floor window of the Libyan Embassy.

Investigative journalist Joe Vialls first revealed the CIA involvement in the incident and documented how the Libyans were not responsible for the murder of the British policewoman. He set out his findings in the following exclusive report for New Dawn published in September 1994.

During the morning of the 17th April 1984 an unarmed policewoman by the name of Yvonne Fletcher was gunned down in cold blood while on duty outside the Libyan People’s Bureau in St. James Square, London.

British accusations that the Libyan Government was responsible were incorrect. Yvonne Fletcher was assassinated on the direct orders of the American CIA in a coldly calculated ‘Psyop’ (Psychological Operation) designed to generate intense British hatred against Libya.

The operation was a complete success. Two years later when the US used British air bases to launch a vicious bombing attack on Libyan civilians, only a handful of British voices were raised in protest.

Early in 1984 an American oil multinational with known, direct intelligence links to the CIA opened an office at 8 St. James Square in London SW1: the same corner of St. James square as the Libyan People’s Bureau located at number five. It was a strange choice as the multinational already had an office in London W1 and there was no clear corporate need for the extra office space. Perhaps stranger was the multinational deliberately choosing to locate this ‘hidden’ office space within spitting distance of the Libyan People’s Bureau, which represented an object of hatred for American oil multinationals and the CIA.

All visitors to the building during 1984 were subject to rigid security checks, and it is known the telephone number was (01) 839 2102, with a 24 hour back-up of (01) 581 0918. The multinational facility at 8 St. James Square remained anonymous until early 1985, long after the last Libyan diplomat was expelled from London by the British Government.

What the new American multinational property had in common with the Libyan People’s Bureau was a clear view of the whole of St. James Square and a very similar field of fire. Assassination was not a new venture for the multinational, which the 1975 American Church Committee established had acted as a direct contact between the CIA and the Mafia on assassination matters. Later in 1985 American author Michael Drosnin expanded on the covert paramilitary relationship between the Dallas-based multinational and Langley-based intelligence agency.

Evidence of the St. James Square CIA atrocity was freely available to the British public during 1984 on a BBC film called ‘Libyan Siege’ with sound by Mike McKay. But the film was visually meaningless at the time simply because the British public had no knowledge of the multinational presence at 8 St. James Square, or its covert relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency. Even if that data had been available it would have been intellectually challenging for the British public to accept that CIA officials ordered the cold-blooded assassination of a young, unarmed British policewoman on the streets of London simply to achieve a geopolitical objective.

That the Libyans were confused by the events of that day was shown clearly in the London-based paper Jamahiriya Review some weeks after WPC Yvonne Fletcher’s assassination:

“Then came the news that elements hostile to Libya, with known links to the CIA, planned to stage a demonstration outside the Libyan People’s Bureau in St. James Square on 17th April.

“… On the eve of the St. James Square demonstration, in London and in Tripoli, Libyan officials made vigorous representation, urging the British government to ban the event to be staged outside the Libyan People’s Bureau. However, Britain ignored Libya’s request.

“… It cannot have escaped the observation of most rational people that initially the police denied the presence of any firearms inside the bureau, and then the following day made claims they had discovered spent cartridge cases on the floor and weapons concealed elsewhere. In fact it was a stage managed media event which was totally irrelevant to solving or resolving the crucial issue of who shot WPC Yvonne Fletcher.”

Clearly at that early stage the Libyan people knew well enough they themselves had not shot WPC Fletcher, but were at a loss to know how the assassination had been stage managed – and from where. The sound of the shots came from the same corner of the Square as their Bureau but there was no muzzle flash, no smoke and no obvious disturbance in the crowd demonstrating below. It seems likely the Libyans did not work out the firing point until much later on, if they ever worked it out at all.

The film narrated by Mike McKay could have easily provided the answers the Libyans sought, had they been privy to the multinational presence at 8 St. James Square. In ballistic terms the film confirms the shots could not have been fired from the Libyan Bureau, and further confirms the firing platform must have been located on the same side of the square as number eight, very close to the Libyan Bureau itself.

Also curious is the fact that though the crowd demonstrating in the square all wore hoods, the British media failed to report on this strange phenomenon. London is a free, open society not used to covert activities of this nature and the irregularity was therefore very newsworthy.

Initially the film shows that extensive crowd barriers had been placed around the central garden pavements of St. James Square and also to one side of the Libyan Peoples Bureau. In addition, all cars apart from two official vehicles had been cleared from the square. Both features prove the Libyan claim that the ‘hooded’ demonstration had been planned well in advance. The tightly controlled grouping of the demonstrators in the central portion of the square also provided a clear killing ground devoid of any obstructions on the roadway surrounding the central gardens. The latter feature was almost certainly accidental but remains highly significant.

With the demonstrators separated from the Bureau by a phalanx of British police it is very obvious from the film that Libyan personnel were under no immediate threat when the shots were fired. Thus no ‘panic’ situation existed within the Bureau as might be expected if the building was under physical siege. At the time the shots were fired there was no visual motivation for any Libyans to have taken such action: quite the reverse because the police can be seen providing very tight security in front of the Bureau building.

A camera crew positioned with its back to the Bureau was filming the hooded and masked demonstrators behind the barriers in the centre of the square. The camera traversed to its left, showing demonstrators stretching across the entire width of the central gardens. When the shots were fired this camera zoomed in and filmed the demonstrators flattening themselves on the ground towards the camera’s left. So the instinctive fear response of the demonstrators was to a loud noise coming from their own left-hand side: exactly the position of No. 8 St. James Square. If the shots had been fired from the Bureau behind this camera crew, the spontaneous crowd reaction would have been away from the Bureau and camera, not to the camera’s left hand side.

Perhaps most extraordinary was a policeman standing in the road roughly halfway between the Libyan Bureau and the crowd of hooded demonstrators. When the shots were fired he hardly batted an eyelid and merely looked casually to his right towards number 8, before turning round to look questioningly at his sergeant outside the main door of the Libyan Bureau. If the shots had been fired from the Libyan Bureau the supersonic ‘crack’ as they flew over his head would have produced a violent reaction. London policemen are known for being very cool in dangerous situations, but not as cool as that…

Although the noise of the shots sounds very loud on the sound track this was probably due to the proximity of the camera microphone to the source of the shots. In fact the sound of the shots swamped the microphone for a split second. What is even more noteworthy is that the crowd to the camera’s far left hand side facing the Bureau did not try to dive for cover, indicating strongly that the sound at that range was perhaps no more menacing than a car backfire. This is borne out by policemen filmed in other parts of the small square looking puzzled but taking no evasive action whatever.

The intensity of sound generated by a weapon is generally very loud within 90 degrees of either side of the muzzle, then decreases the further back behind the weapon an observer happens to be, proving the Libyan Bureau was not the source. If it had been, reaction to the shots would have panicked the entire front line of the crowd facing the Bureau but failed to do so.

Eye witness B. Cartmell stated on camera: “Whoever fired the machine gun must have fired between thirty and fifty rounds…” This is proved incorrect by the film. A good average cyclic rate for an ordinary machine gun is around 600 s.p.m. (shots per minute) which implies a continuous three second burst for 30 shots or a continuous five second burst for 50 shots. The film sound track gives no indication that more than two, possibly three shots were fired with echo from the square adding distortion. There can be no doubt the clatter and whine of 30 to 50 jacketed military rounds striking the ground and ricocheting around the square would have had every policeman and member of the media diving for cover. Not one of them did so.

A second TV camera located at the far end of the Square zoomed in to show WPC Fletcher rolling from side to side on the ground clutching her abdomen. The film shows clearly that there was no blood on the ground underneath WPC Fletcher at that point in time or much later on. Thus the bullet that hit her did not pass through her body and leave an exit wound, which raises serious ballistic questions. The second camera crew also filmed police officers treating other injured persons who, like WPC Fletcher, did not leave any trace of blood on the pavement. Nor was there any evidence of bullet holes in the outer clothing of the other (hooded) injured. Indeed, a policeman was filmed looking without success for the entry point of a wound sustained by one of the masked, khaki clad demonstrators.

The lack of blood generally is the most enigmatic part of the overall film footage. If all 11 injured people were shot by a high velocity machine gun and were then treated on the same pavement, there would have been buckets of blood staining the paving. The film shows no blood on the pavement or road at all.

There was a complete lack of gouge marks on the road behind WPC Fletcher as she lay rolling on the ground. If a long 30 to 50 round burst had been fired with at least one bullet hitting WPC Fletcher in the abdomen, there should have been at least two or three clear tracks on the ground behind her from near misses as the weapon wavered. No matter whether the bullets were fired from number five or number eight the path of the bullet that hit WPC Fletcher in the abdomen was downwards at an angle. The lack of gouge marks to her rear at first seems inexplicable.

Eye witness Brian Cartmell was a man with remarkable powers of observation which is very fortunate. His statement on camera was concise, assured and very detailed:

“Whoever fired the machine gun must have fired between thirty and fifty rounds because the chippings came up from the pavement [between WPC Fletcher and the demonstrators], and I saw a young policewoman, blonde in her late twenties, fall on her right hand side and her hat rolled into the gutter, and she fell clutching her groin and her stomach. And about three officers ran to her assistance.” [Author's insertion.]

The direction in which a gunshot victim falls is dictated to a large degree by the retained kinetic energy of the bullet acting on the victim and the point at which the bullet hits the body. Therefore if WPC Fletcher had been shot in her right arm the tendency would be for that retained energy to spin her to the right hand side. WPC Fletcher was shot almost dead-centre in the abdomen, which is roughly her centre of gravity. Thus the ‘fall on her right hand side’ proves the bullet came from her left, with its retained energy knocking her to the right towards the inner pavement where B. Cartmell saw the ‘chippings’ coming up. Any bullet fired from the Bureau would be in a straight line, knocking WPC Fletcher backwards rather than sideways and missing the inner pavement completely.

Further, any stray bullet fired straight down the square from the Libyan Bureau that missed WPC Fletcher would continue straight on and bypass the crowd in the centre of the square. This is borne out by the limited noise ‘reaction zone’ in front of the Bureau, and the policeman standing in front of the Libyan Bureau looking puzzled when he should have been diving for cover. If a very long 30 to 50 round continuous burst had been fired in a raking right to left traverse, it is certain that everyone standing in front of the Libyan People’s Bureau would have reacted instantly to the noise.

It is no great secret that many embassies stock weapons for use in self defence, which are normally limited to handguns loaded with, jacketed or solid lead bullets of standard military type designed to remain intact and not expand on entry to the body. Such handguns (and compact sub machine guns which fire identical ammunition) have a strictly limited range and are generally inaccurate beyond about 25 metres or 75 feet. In like manner their retained kinetic energy falls swiftly over distance as they are only designed for close range work. WPC Fletcher was well out of killing range for any such weapon fired from the Libyan People’s Bureau. Only 9mm defensive cartridges were allegedly found in the Bureau later by British authorities.

In the case of the common 9 millimetre 123 grain bullet fired by these defensive weapons, energy falls from 341 foot-pounds as the bullet leaves the barrel to 241 foot-pounds at 100 yards. Quite enough to cause serious injury but rarely death if hit in the abdomen at extreme range with hospital facilities only ten to fifteen minutes away, especially if the victim is young, healthy and fit as WPC Fletcher certainly appeared to be on the film. Conversely, the retained energy from high velocity automatic assault rifles such as the American Springfield M14 or German Heckler and Koch firing a 180 grain standard military round is a massive 2,288 foot pounds at 100 yards. Enough to go straight through two policewomen standing back-to-back if the bullet was a military full-jacketed variety.

It seems unlikely the Fletcher autopsy report will ever be made public but it would provide one of the missing answers to what happened on that day: why WPC Fletcher died from a bullet in the abdomen which did not have the velocity to leave an exit wound, but nonetheless induced unconsciousness within minutes and her death shortly afterwards.

There are three high velocity rifle bullet types specifically designed to cause massive damage without going through the body and exiting on the far side. The best known is the ‘dum-dum’ where a simple cross is cut on the nose of the bullet with a hacksaw, causing it to break up on entry and ensure heavy injury. The crude cross on the nose can cause severe inaccuracy so ‘dum-dum’ rounds are never used by professional assassins.

The ‘Hollow Point’ and ‘Silvertip’ fall into the second category and are professional hunting bullets. On impact either bullet uniformly expands to twice its diameter, causing the full retained kinetic energy to be expended inside the body, encouraging very rapid bleeding and swift unconsciousness.

Third is a bullet designed for one purpose only – assassination. Known as the ‘Fragible’ bullet it is designed to enter the body and then shatter into tens of high velocity splinters or shot that cause colossal damage in the body cavity itself, though there is little external indication of the damage sustained.

Although the film microphone recorded only two or three shots, the sound proves the bullets were fired by a high velocity weapon. Eyewitness Cartmell stated he saw between 30 and 50 rounds judged by the ‘chippings’ from the pavement between WPC Fletcher and the demonstrators, so fragible bullets must be considered the most likely villains. If three fragible bullets were fired but only one hit WPC Fletcher the remaining two would explode on impact with the paving, throwing up dozens of minuscule razor sharp metal shrapnel fragments and hard granite chippings. Quite enough to injure a large number of bystanders but not kill them. This would also account for the blood missing from the pavement, and the policeman looking unsuccessfully for a bullet entry point on the demonstrator dressed in khaki. Each shrapnel puncture wound would be tiny and almost invisible to the naked eye i.e. blood on hands and faces, but no obvious bullet holes.

Once again, with the demonstrators carefully contained behind barriers in the central part of the square, the bullets must have been fired from a point to WPC Fletcher’s left-hand side rather than from her front as she stood facing the Bureau.

Without access to the film, and knowledge of the CIA linked multinational located at 8 St. James Square, it would be very difficult for the police or public to comprehend what motive either side might have had in murdering an innocent, unarmed policewoman in the prime of her life. The Jamahiriya Review got very close to the truth with a single sentence in 1984:

“It served the purpose for which the demonstration was staged, and fitted into the pattern of the American campaign to present a false image of the Libyan people…”

The demonstration certainly did that, but the Libyans apparently missed the main point of the exercise at that early stage in the proceedings. It was the assassination of WPC Fletcher which was to play the major role in presenting a ‘false image’ of the Libyan people during the years to come.

There are few things more sacred to the British public than the safety of its proudly unarmed police force, a fact the Central Intelligence Agency was well aware of. Therefore the slaughter of a young unarmed policewoman on the streets of London itself would generate feelings of intense loathing in the British public and direct raw hatred towards the supposed killers. That it did, but the British public rem-ained unaware of the real culprits as the horrifying television film was flashed across the nation into millions of homes.

The British police must have had suspicions of course. The shots rang out for no obvious reason, and even the most junior constable would have realized that for the Libyans to kill an unarmed policewoman in broad daylight would be tantamount to committing complete diplomatic suicide.

But what else could the British police do at the time? There were no other obvious suspects and the police (later) found 9mm cartridges in the Libyan People’s Bureau: cartridges that could easily have been planted by the occupants of 8 St. James Square the night after the last Libyan left the People’s Bureau. Number 8 was only a few metres away, and entry would have been simplicity itself for an agency as skilled as the CIA.

The British Government and intelligence services were clearly certain that WPC Fletcher was not killed by Libyans located in the People’s Bureau, because after a bloodless siege that lasted until 22 April 1984, Britain broke off diplomatic relations with Libya and ordered the occupants of the People’s Bureau to leave the country within seven days. They were allowed to depart unhindered without a single ‘suspect’ being arrested and charged with WPC Fletcher’s assassination.

It was not until 2 May 1984 after the Libyans had left that the British suddenly ‘found’ 3,600 rounds of 9mm ammunition and an automatic pistol in the Bureau. If it was Libyan property it would certainly have been loaded into one of the 18 Libyan diplomatic bags which left the country unopened.

The sceptical reader should compare British Government behaviour during April 1984 with later events in 1991 when the British Government stridently demanded the extradition from Tripoli on very shaky evidence of two Libyan nationals merely suspected of being ‘involved’ with the downing of American Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland. Back in 1984 the British Government had the entire staff of the Libyan People’s Bureau in the palm of its hand, but rather than make arrests it ordered all Libyan personnel out of the country within seven days.

Central Intelligence Agency motives for the assassination are not hard to establish. It is no great secret that the agency was outraged when the American military was ejected from Libya after Colonel Al Qadhafi came to power in 1969. Following on from that there are documented incidents of covert CIA action against Libya, primarily in the form of training insurgents in Chad to undermine the Al Qadhafi government in Tripoli, all of which failed. And so it was that American F111 bombers streaked off British runways during 1986 en-route for the civilian populations of Tripoli and Benghazi.

The choice of Britain as the launching point for that attack has long puzzled many strategic analysts. Why fly all that way in relatively old-fashioned F111s when the job could have been carried out more efficiently and with less warning by American carrier-based fighter-bombers in the Mediterranean? There is no answer other than CIA determination to reinforce hostile British sentiment against Libya. In addition the CIA awarded itself a bonus by murdering Colonel Al Qadhafi’s 15 month old daughter Hannah with a 2,000 pound laser bomb, guided unerringly to its tiny defenceless target by an American F111. Years later it was established conclusively that the German ‘incident’ used as an excuse for the bombing raids was not the work of the Libyans at all but deliberate, calculated CIA disinformation.

To judge by current developments with blanket sanctions continuing against Libya at the behest of the US, the CIA probably considers the calculated assassination of WPC Fletcher one of its finest achievements. With less than a handful of bullets the Central Intelligence Agency brought Libya to its very knees using deception alone.

Anyone outside the CIA will probably view the assassination in a different light. Much is known about CIA assistance with the successful assassinations of Congolese strong man Patrice Lumumba and President Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and of CIA assassination attempts against Castro of Cuba, Qadhafi of Libya and Hussein of Iraq. Despicable though all those attempts were, they somehow seem distant and disconnected from the real world. But just like the events in St. James Square during 1984, every assassination or attempted assassination was planned for geopolitical motives, and to influence the populations of the countries in question. The CIA might even have sincerely believed that the human targets it selected deserved to die.

Any such rationale vanished the day WPC Fletcher’s assassination was ordered by CIA headquarters. At that precise point in time the Central Intelligence Agency crossed an invisible ethical line when it decided to assassinate an innocent, unarmed British policewoman in a coldly-calculated, cynical psychological warfare operation designed to manipulate and distort the belief mechanisms of the entire British population. That single bestial operation proved once and for all time what many have suspected for decades: that ‘Covert Action’ officials within the CIA have become mentally unstable and are now completely out of control.

Joe Vialls is a Western Australia-based freelance journalist with [by the time the above article was published] 30 years’ direct experience of international military and oilfield operations.

References:

Alleged ammunition in Libyan People’s Bureau -Whitaker’s Almanac, Annual Volume, 117th Edition 1985.

Ballistics data St. James Square 1984 – Libyan Siege, TV documentary video 17 April 1984, sound by BBC’s Mike McKay. ABC TV Archives, Int. 84/431, Shelf VI84/19. Sydney, Australia.

British expulsion of Libyan diplomats ’84 - Whitaker’s Almanac, as above.

CIA: Earlier covert action against Libya - New DawnSpecial Supplement, Undated periodical 1992.

CIA: Overseas political assassination planning – The CIA-Mafia Link, Ashman, J, Manor Books, New York 1975.

CIA: Proven links with multinational – Citizen Hughes, Drosnin, M, Hutchinson, London 1985.

Crowd reaction to shots in St. James Square ’84 – Libyan Siege, as above.

Libyan reaction to WPC Fletcher’s death – Al Jamahiriya, The Main Event, Hillgate Street, London 1984.

multinational presence, st. james square 1984 headed multinational documents, dated 1 february, 2 april and 6 april 1984. also january 85.

Multinational telephone contact numbers 1984 – Confidential Multinational Memo, signed by the Group Vice President and dated 6 April 1984.

Police and demonstrator positions St. James ’84 – Libyan Siege, as above.

(Extracted from New Dawn Special edition, 1994)
© 1994 by Joe Vialls

source: www.mathaba.net/news/?x=630219

Apr 13 2012

They found no fault in Qaddafi so the media invented some for us


They found no fault in Qaddafi so the media invented some for us

By CasiusIgnoranze

source: ozyism.blogspot.co.nz

LIE 1: “There were Human rights abuses in Libya and Gaddafi slaughtered his own people” 

The primary justification for intervention in Libya by NATO was because “there were severe human rights abuses” under Gaddafi’s rule. These claims were in reality, far fetched and laughable, because Libya probably had far better human rights than any other country in Africa. What YOU were told by those Mainstream Media fanatics including all those so called “human rights” groups like Amnesty International (which is no doubt another front controlled by the Elite), were all either fabricated lies or deliberately exaggerated for the justified NATO intervention. 

This damning piece of evidence (dated 4th January 2011) from the UN Human Rights website which clearly shows undeniable proof that there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE of serious Human Right’s abuses as accused by NATO and UN presently. 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

Whats more, SEVERAL countries even praised Libya’s excellent Human rights Track Record but they still decided to topple Gaddafi!

Hypocrisy or what?!

LIE 2: “The people of Libya were oppressed and were living in poverty under Gaddafi’s rule”

This lie is probably the funniest, and the easiest to debunk. 

There was very little poverty (almost compared to Western standards) and Libya had literally the best living standards in Africa ranking 55th out of 172 countries (before NATO and Rebel interference) according to the Human Development Index - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

The people in Libya under Gaddafi’s rule had: 

  • Free education, 

  • Free health care, 

  • Free farmland a house and seeds, 

  • Free energy bills, 

  • $50,000 housing money for just married couples, 

  • Interest free loans, 

  • Debt free country, 

  • Government pays half for your car, 

  • Near free gasoline prices 

  • etc. 

The people in Libya were oppressed MY ASS! This country sounds like the American dream which the people of America never had!

And just to note, almost EVERY country in Africa today is dependent on Foreign Aid, except Libya (during Gaddafi’s rule). This will be further analysed later in the thread. 

The Truth about Libya

LIE 3: Gaddafi was responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing 

Libya and Gaddafi was FRAMED for the Lockerbie Bombing. END OFF. This was probably one of the EARLIEST LIES to frame Gaddafi and socially engineer the public’s perception of him. 

This is based on the premise that key evidence presented at the trial (e.g. timer fragment, parts from a specific radio cassette model, clothing bought in Malta, bomb suitcase originating at Luqa Airport) was deliberately fabricated by the U.S. and Britain for the “political” purpose of incriminating Libya. 

Why? 

Because of all the reasons stated above and below. Libya was bad for Big business and Big Banking, so something had to be done – like the Lockerbie Bombing, so that lies could be fabricated and Gaddafi could be demonised over the years until his death. 

Even though Gaddafi was never involved in the Lockerbie Bombing, recently the mainstream media is jumping around the fact that he somehow “was”. 

You can read more about the Lockerbie conspiracy here if you’re interested http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread494260/pg1

LIE 4: “Gaddafi wanted to become the king of Africa and enslave all the people” 

On the contrary, Gaddafi wanted a more united Africa…an Africa which was independent of Western interference and exploitation.

You ever wonder why the billions of $$ in Aid never actually help the people of Africa in the long term? Because its bad for big business. Simple as that.

If you start getting a stronger Africa both economically and politically, then Big Multinational Corporations would literally be BANKRUPT, DEAD and ERADICATED over night. 

Why? 

Because their business models literally WORK AND DEPEND on SLAVERY. 

Pay some African kid less than a dollar a day to make shoes, and then sell the shoes for $50 in the market. 5000% profit made. Most of it goes to the board of directors not because they are doing good business – but because THEY CAN benefit by exploiting the African people and smacking the “Fair Trade” label on everything so that when we the consumer buy stuff, do not have to feel guilty about buying products made in Third World Countries.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/3555412/Forget-Fairtrade-only-free-trade-can-help-poor.html

LIE 5: “The wealth of Gaddafi will be redistributed to the people of Libya” 

And this is it folks, the biggest lie ever told in the history of Libya (and to the World as well) – “The wealth of Gaddafi will be redistributed to the people of Libya”. 

Even if you may still have doubts whether Gaddafi was really the Good guy or not, theres no DENYING about the fact the sole reason why NATO intervened in Libya was due to Economical reasons. 

Why punish the banks during an economic crisis when you can easily profit from a war based on a lie? 

UN to steal 144 tons of Gold from Libya 

Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.

“It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.” 
Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars. 
It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world. 

Saving the World Economy from Gaddafi – RT NEWS

That’s right folks, Gaddafi wanted OUT of the International Banking Scam which was (still is) gripping the World. The Elite couldn’t have that, so they started a couple of false flag protests, added a pinch of Al Qaeda militants to create bloodshed to make every sap in the World believe Gaddafi was killing his people, and then finally justify military intervention in the name of “FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY”. 

As you can see, Libya was truly a far better country before this Illegal Civil War and NATO interference. 

I pray for the people in Libya now because most of this wealth of Gaddafi “being redistributed”, will mostly go to the Big Banking firms and Multinationals immediately as “debt to be paid”.

And yeah, remember those words: FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY. 

I’m sure that is something we people here in the West VERY MUCH wish to have right now. 

***

“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on” — John F. Kennedy 

A legend in the making. 

Mar 27 2012

Lockerbie exclusive: we publish the report that could have cleared Megrahi


Lockerbie exclusive: we publish the report that could have cleared Megrahi

Exclusive by Lucy Adams and John Ashton

The explosive report on the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity …why we are publishing it after five years of secrecy.

Megrahi at his family home in Tripoli. Picture: Julie Howden

The Sunday Herald today publishes the full 800-page report detailing why the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing could have walked free.

The controversial report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) has remained secret for five years because, until now, no-one had permission to publish it.

The Sunday Herald and its sister paper, The Herald, are the only newspapers in the world to have seen the report. We choose to publish it because we have the permission of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, and because we believe it is in the public interest to disseminate the whole document.

The Sunday Herald has chosen to publish the full report online today to allow the public to see for themselves the analysis of the evidence which could have resulted in the acquittal of Megrahi. Under Section 32 of the Data Protection Act, journalists can publish in the public interest. We have made very few redactions to protect the names of confidential sources and private information.

Click here to read the report in full

The publication of the report adds weight to calls for a full public inquiry into the atrocity – something for which many of the relatives have been campaigning for more than two decades.

Megrahi has also sent a copy of the full report to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who released him on compassionate grounds in August 2009.

Jonathan Mitchell QC told the Sunday Herald: “From a data-protection point of view, it is questionable whether this report is the ‘personal data’ of anyone other than Megrahi.”

The Data Protection Act was described as “one of the most poorly drafted pieces of legislation on the statute book” by Tom Hickman, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers, on a UK Constitutional Law Group website.

Mitchell believes the Sunday Herald is not constrained from publishing the report. He said: ‘‘Section 32 of the Data Protection Act has the effect – putting it shortly – that processing (which includes publication) of personal data, even sensitive personal data, is exempt from the relevant data-protection principles if it is for the purpose of journalism and the newspaper reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, ‘publication would be in the public interest’, and also reasonably believes that compliance with data-protection principles such as non-disclosure would be incompatible with the journalistic function.”

The Herald revealed earlier this month that, according to the report, the Crown failed to disclose seven key items of evidence that led to the Lockerbie case being referred back for a fresh appeal.

The SCCRC rejected many of the defence submissions but upheld six grounds which could have constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The commission made clear that, had such information been shared with the defence, the result of the trial could have been different.

Its full report details why the conviction of Megrahi was referred for a second appeal.

Megrahi has said in his official biography by John Ashton, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, that he believed dropping the second appeal would improve his chances of returning to Tripoli before succumbing to terminal prostate cancer.

The Scottish Government has said it wants to release the document in the interests of transparency but cannot do so because it is covered by data-protection law, reserved to Westminster.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: “It is important that everyone is able to read the SCCRC report in its entirely, rather than the selective and partial accounts of its contents which have made their way into the poubic domain through various media reports.”

When the SCCRC referred the case back for a fresh appeal in June 2007, they were only able to publish a summary of their findings. If they had published the full report, it would have constituted a criminal offence under the legislation which established the commission.

But on Friday the Crown Office in Scotland wrote to the SCCRC making it clear it would not prosecute the organisation or any of its members if it published the report.

The Crown office lifted legal restrictions just hours after the Sunday Herald had informed its press office we planned to publish the report ourselves.

In a press release issued on Friday the Crown Office criticised ‘‘selective and misleading reporting’’ of the SCCRC report in the media. ‘Notes to Editors’ attached to the press release said that any decision of the SCCRC to refer a conviction to the Appeal Court did not necessarily mean there had been a miscarriage of justice. Only the Appeal Court could declare there had been a miscarriage of justice and quash a conviction.

It added that the SCCRC was asked to look at more than 40 possible grounds for a referral to the Appeal Court in the Megrahi case. It had rejected the vast majority of these and referred the case to the Appeal Court on six grounds. And it stated the  Crown ‘‘had every confidence in successfully defending the conviction in the Appeal Court for a second time.’’ A Crown ofice source was quoted in newspapers yesterday describing Megrahi’s grounds for appeal as having ‘‘more holes than a Swiss cheese’’.

The SCCRC has not so far published the report and is not expected to discuss the Crown Office advice until later this week. It declined to comment at this stage on the Sunday Herald’s decision to publish the report.

In an effort to get the report published, the Scottish Government has passed a statutory instrument – to slightly amend that legislation – which means it will no longer be a criminal act for the SCCRC to publish such reports. This was expected to come into force in May. The commission has written to the individuals mentioned in the report asking for their consent for publication. Consent was not given.

Megrahi said he would be happy to consent providing all other parties consented, but they did not. MacAskill has unsuccessfully written to UK Justice Secretary Ken Clarke several times to ask for an exemption under the Data Protection Act.

Megrahi was convicted of murder by Scottish judges sitting at Camp Zeist in 2001. He unsuccessfully appealed in January 2001. He dropped a second appeal shortly before the decision to release him on compassionate grounds in August 2009. He was expected to die from cancer within three months.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/lockerbie-exclusive-we-publish-the-report-that-could-have-cleared-megrahi.2012036248

Mar 16 2012

Hidden Exculpatory Evidence Megrahi, the Lockerbie Case


Hidden Exculpatory Evidence Megrahi, the Lockerbie Case

12/03/2012
TRIPOLI (Reuters) -

Showed a new book that the evidence and information that might have been exculpatory Abdel Basset al-Megrahi convicted only of the bombing of a U.S. airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie 1988, did not give the defense team, as stated in the newspaper The Independent on Sunday.

She said the British newspaper The background information on the parts of the circuit board used in the bombing which claimed the victim, 270 and police arrived in the period preceding the trial of Megrahi in 2000, but has not been disclosed.

Came of this information in a book written by journalist John Ashton, who says that the important parts of the plate circuit found at the crash site and recognized by the prosecution as part of a timer bomb, can not be among the devices that were sold to Libya by manufacturers.

The paper points out that those parts are considered a vital link in the argument to claim that the bomb was placed on the plane by al-Megrahi.

He said experts have followed the case closely, if that information is correct, it will be blown up the Lockerbie case.

The prosecution had agreed that the parts came from a timing device company Meebo Swiss admitted that she sold two tenths of a device of this type to the Libyans, but new evidence suggests that the parts that were found in the Lockerbie is not one of them.

Ashton says in his book The Time parts that were found were covered with tin, while those that were sold to Libya were covered with tin and alloys Alrsa.

source:http://www.alarabalyawm.net/

Dec 6 2011

Cover-up, conspiracy and the Lockerbie bomb connection


Cover-up, conspiracy and the Lockerbie bomb connection

Published on Sunday 19 February 2006 02:09

IF THERE is a day when the seemingly inconsequential case involving DC Shirley McKie morphed into the crisis which today is threatening the reputation of Scotland’s judicial and political system, it is Thursday, August 3, 2000.

It was already more than three years since McKie (pictured left) had visited a house in Kilmarnock where a woman called Marion Ross had been brutally murdered. Since then McKie had been accused of entering that house unauthorised, and leaving her fingerprint on the crime scene. She had been charged with perjury, after claiming in court she had never set foot in there. She had been humiliated at the hands of her former colleagues.

 Now, on that August day, a group set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) to examine the McKie case, was faced with a stunning report. It had already been established that the fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) had got it wrong and that the print was not McKie’s. Now, the document in front of the group – an interim update from James Mackay, the man they had asked to investigate the case – claimed the SCRO officers had acted criminally to cover up their mistakes. The consequences were immense: if Scotland’s forensic service was both guilty of errors and of attempting to conceal those errors, what confidence could anyone have in the entire justice system?

 Last week, Scotland on Sunday revealed the contents of Mackay’s final report, which had been kept secret for six years, and which was never acted upon by Scotland’s chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd. This week, we can reveal that it was not just police and prosecutors who knew its contents; the devastating findings of the interim version were passed on to ministers as well.

 Mackay, a much respected former Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside police, had been commissioned to investigate the McKie case after a separate report by HM Inspectors of Constabulary had found that – despite the SCRO’s claims – McKie’s prints had never been at the crime scene. Mackay now probed deeper. As this newspaper revealed last week, his final report found that a mistake had been made, yet had not then been owned up to. “The fact that it was not so dealt with,” he reported, “led to ‘cover up’ and criminality.”

 Now Scotland on Sunday has been passed documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation which show that on the same day that Mackay’s interim findings were being given to police chiefs, the then Justice Minister Jim Wallace was also informed of the results. The language used to describe Mackay’s findings to Wallace was even starker than that used in the report itself.

 The proof comes in an e-mail written by a senior official in the Scottish Executive Justice Department, Sheena Maclaren, to another senior Justice Department official, John Rafferty. Maclaren, who was the secretary of the Department’s second police division, handled the correspondence of Wallace.

 On September 20, 2001, Maclaren wrote: “James Mackay, then DCC Tayside police, was appointed to lead the investigation of the issues relating to fingerprint evidence. On 3 August 2000, we were informed that investigations so far suggested that the evidence given in court by… SCRO fingerprint personnel was ‘so significantly distorted that without further explanation, the SCRO identification likely amounts to collective manipulation and collective collusion’.”

 She added: “Mr W Rae, then President of ACPOS and President of SCRO’s Executive Committee, decided that given the circumstances, all Chief Constables concluded that there was no alternative but to ‘precautionary suspend’ the 4 SCRO personnel. This was done on 3 August by the Director of SCRO. Ministers, copied to Richard Henderson and others, were informed of this decision in a minute from John Rowell on 3 August 2000.”

 Rowell, another head of police in the Scottish Executive’s Justice Department, sat on the executive committee of the SCRO. A minute of the committee meeting on October 27, 2000, attended by Rowell, confirmed that he too saw Mackay’s findings. “Mr Rae [the chairman] had made available copies of [Mackay's] Interim Report,” the minute declares.

 Last week, before being confronted with today’s revelations, the Scottish Executive confirmed it had never been given sight of Mackay’s report. A spokesman for the Justice Department said: “It would not have been appropriate for Scottish Ministers to have seen the report. It remains a confidential report between the police and the Crown Office and Scottish Ministers (except for the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal‘s office) have never been passed a copy of the report.” Asked whether the First Minister had seen the report, his spokesman replied: “No – and neither have any other Ministers past or present as this was a confidential report between the police and the Crown Office.”

 After being told about the e-mails yesterday, a spokesman for the Executive insisted that they only referred to Mackay’s interim findings, not to his full report which was published some months later. The spokesman said: “This e-mail exchange simply confirms that the Executive was made aware of the rationale for that action [suspension of the SCRO officers]. As the e-mail makes clear, this was interim information provided to the Executive in the year 2000 around the time of the suspension decision.” The spokesman said that a civil service note had been sent to Wallace after the August 2000 meeting which “would have confirmed the reasons why there were going to be suspensions”. The spokesman added that it was for the Lord Advocate, not his fellow ministers, to act on the findings of the Mackay report.

 Last night there were further questions from the McKie family and their supporters over why, when faced with such staggering allegations, ministers failed to do more to address the SCRO’s failings.

 Iain McKie, Shirley McKie’s father, said: “This reveals that at that time in August 2000, the Mackay report was being discussed within Jim Wallace’s department. The whole case has now reached staggering proportions and if ever a public inquiry was required it is required now.”

 Wallace was unavailable for comment yesterday – and with his successor Cathy Jamieson remaining silent about the scandal, it has been left to Boyd to explain the inaction. On Friday, he declared that he had seen the full Mackay report and decided that there was still insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone from the SCRO. This decision, taken in September 2001, astonished Mackay. He is understood to have expressed his “surprise” and “disappointment” to the Crown Office and to have relayed his concerns to the then deputy crown agent, Bill Gilchrist. Indeed, so curious is the Lord Advocate’s decision not to prosecute, that many are reaching their own conclusions as to why he didn’t press ahead with a prosecution.

 One is the theory that such a prosecution would undermine the case against David Asbury, the man jailed for the murder of Marion Ross. Such a fear was misguided: Asbury’s conviction was quashed anyway in August 2002 on the back of the McKie revelations.

 A second theory brings in the shadow of the Lockerbie bombing. Mackay’s explosive report into the McKie case that August came three months after Boyd began the prosecution of Libyan suspects Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. The eyes of the world were focused on Scottish justice. What would it have said of that system if – just as the Crown was trying to convict the bombers – it emerged that fingerprint officials had been involved in “criminality and cover-up”?

 Boyd strenuously denies that Lockerbie has any relevance to his judgments regarding the McKie case. When Iain McKie first raised the issue in 2000, Crown Office officials declared that Lockerbie “had not affected in any way the response from this or indeed any other department of the Scottish Executive to the issues raised by you.”

 But there is clear proof that senior justice chiefs had a stake in both cases; SCRO director Harry Bell, for example – whose agency was coming under such scrutiny – was a central figure in the Lockerbie investigation, having been given the key role in the crucial Maltese wing of the investigation, and given evidence in court.

 Today’s revelation that two American fingerprint experts who savaged the SCRO over the McKie case were asked by the FBI to “back off” suggests that plenty of people were aware of the danger that the case could undermine the Lockerbie trial.

 Former MP Tam Dalyell – who has long campaigned on the Lockerbie case – said: “I have always felt that there was something deeply wrong with both the McKie case and the Lockerbie judgment. It is deeply dismaying for those of us who were believers in Scottish justice. The Crown Office regard the Lockerbie case as their flagship case and they will go to any lengths to defend their position.”

 The pressure for a full public inquiry is now growing day by day.

 It is understood that, this week, the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 1 Committee will consider launching a full parliamentary inquiry. One thing is sure: this murky affair looks set to rock the foundations of Scotland’s criminal justice system.

 • SCOTLAND on Sunday revealed last week that justice officials were warned six years ago by police of “cover-up and criminality” in the Shirley McKie fingerprint case. Our story was picked up across Scotland, leading to calls for a judicial inquiry from MSPs.

 Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson is now under growing pressure to act over the scandal but – nearly two weeks on – has so far refused to talk once about why ministers decided to offer 750,000 to Shirley McKie, just as she was about to take her case to court.

 Lord Advocate Colin Boyd is also in the firing line, over his decision not to press charges against fingerprint experts, despite the allegations of criminality. Jim Wallace, Justice Minister when the McKie scandal broke, is also under fire. He was aware of the allegations but failed to act. First Minister Jack McConnell is under pressure to call a public inquiry.

 • TWO American fingerprint experts were warned by the FBI to back off from the Shirley McKie case for fear it would scupper the trial of the Lockerbie bombers.

 David Grieve, the senior fingerprint expert at Illinois State police, said that FBI agents pleaded with him to stay silent, fearing the case “would taint the people involved in Lockerbie”.

 Campaigners for the McKie family last night claimed that the plea to “let everything drop” shed new light on why the former policewoman was denied justice. They believe that the Crown was determined to protect the reputation of the Scottish justice system at a time when it was coming under international scrutiny.

 The astonishing claims come as Scotland on Sunday reveals that:

 • former justice minister Jim Wallace was aware six years ago that fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) were accused of “collective manipulation and collective collusion”, yet they were allowed to return to work two years later;

 • MSPs are preparing to launch their own parliamentary inquiry into the scandal to get to the truth of the allegations.

 Wertheim and Grieve, both internationally respected fingerprint experts, were central in clearing McKie in 1999 when she was accused of having left her fingerprint at a crime scene. The case left the Scottish justice system open to claims its fingerprint evidence was unsafe. FBI officers took both aside before the Lockerbie trial in the Hague began in February 2000.

 Grieve, the senior fingerprint expert at Illinois State Police, said: “I was asked not to mention anything about the case and not to publicise it because we had to think about the higher goal, which was Lockerbie.”

 He also claims that the FBI had been visited weeks earlier by an official from the SCRO.

 “I was pulled aside and given a lecture on the importance of not embarrassing a ‘sister agency’ which had ‘very important and high profile’ cases pending of an international significance. I knew the reference was to the Pan-Am bombing,” he said.

 Wertheim, a fingerprint expert of 20 years’ experience, added: “I was at the FBI for a meeting and one of their people approached me and made the suggestion that I let everything drop.”

 Iain McKie, Shirley McKie’s father, said yesterday that he believed Lockerbie provided a motive for the ‘cover up’ over his daughter’s case.

 He said: “I have always suspected the Lockerbie connection, but when I put it to the Lord Advocate, I got nothing from them. I could never understand why they treated my daughter like that. Lockerbie would give them that motivation.”

 Former MSP Mike Russell, who has campaigned for the McKie family, said: “This new information suggests the context for the Shirley McKie miscarriage of justice. It suggests that this context is much bigger than previously thought.

 “It places the Lord Advocate in a completely untenable position and he too must now be considering his future. If he was influenced by this [Lockerbie] then he cannot continue as Lord Advocate.”

 SNP MSP Alex Neil, another campaigner for the McKies, said: “A lot of people think that there was pressure put on the FBI by the Scottish law authorities which maybe explains some of the bizarre decisions taken by the Lord Advocate.”

 The link between Lockerbie and the McKie case goes deeper as several police chiefs and prosecutors were involved in both. The director of the SCRO at the time of the allegations of criminality, Harry Bell, was one of the key police officers whose evidence led to the conviction of Abdel-baset Al Megrahi.

 Lord Advocate Colin Boyd led the Lockerbie trial, securing a conviction in January 2001. In September of that year, despite the evidence presented by the Mackay report, he decided not to prosecute the SCRO officers over the McKie case.

 The SCRO admitted yesterday that its officials had visited the FBI in 1999 and 2000, but insisted the trips had nothing to do with the McKie case.

 Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Crown Office strongly denied that the decision not to prosecute the SCRO officers had been taken with Lockerbie in mind. She said: “SCRO was not involved in any way with fingerprinting in the Lockerbie case, the evidence of which was never disputed at all.”

 Boyd declared on Friday that he had decided not to prosecute the four SCRO officials because of “conflicting” evidence from fingerprint experts. He added that a prosecution would have to prove criminal intent.

  Wilful blindness to the truth threatens to erode justice

 IT SHOULD worry us all that after more than six years of embarrassment about the quality of fingerprint evidence in Scotland and the calibre of work done by the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO), the senior prosecutor in the land appears to have learnt nothing.

 At the very least, we can say with confidence that the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, has failed to grasp a critical issue at the heart of this debate.

 In a letter Boyd sent on Friday to the presiding officer George Reid to explain his decisions to prosecute Shirley McKie for perjury and not to prosecute the four SCRO experts who misidentified a print at a murder scene as hers, he writes: “Since the time the issue arose in the trial of Shirley McKie, there have always been, and there remain, conflicting expert views on the issue of identification of the relevant fingerprints.

 “I concluded in 2001 that the conflict in expert evidence was such that there could be no question of criminal proceedings.”

  In the earlier days of the debate, Willie Rae, then Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway and now the top man at Strathclyde, said in front of TV cameras that fingerprinting was not an exact science, and that the McKie case was simply a difference of opinion between experts.

 More recently, Jim Wallace, while still Justice Minister, reached a similar conclusion. Boyd has now revealed he too remains unenlightened.

 Fingerprinting, properly administered, is an exact science. Ask any of the genuine experts, such as Allan Bayle, formerly of Scotland Yard, or Pat Wertheim, the American expert who testified so brilliantly at McKie’s trial in 1999. But even common sense should tell us, given the fact that people have been executed – and still are in some parts of the world – on the strength of a fingerprint, that it has to be precise.

There is a stubborn refusal by the SCRO to admit even that an error was made, far less something more sinister, even though the Crown Office and the Executive have long since conceded that point. This pig-headedness ensures that changes that are crying out to be made are kept in check.

 The SCRO still makes an identification based on establishing 16 points of similarity. In more advanced centres around the world, experts examine the whole mark and don’t work to a numerical, and fallible, standard.

 Better practices and training are available, but despite making another major error in a mark left at a bank robbery in Ayrshire two years ago, SCRO continues to spurn them. The result is that Scottish fingerprinting has become a laughing stock around the world.

 Independent experts have also been highly critical about SCRO’s crime-scene investigation work, described by Bayle as the worst he’s ever seen. The organisation must be forced to acknowledge its many flaws.

There is also a pressing need to break the strong link between the SCRO and the police service, especially Strathclyde Police. The current director, John McLean, was an Assistant Chief Constable with the force. His predecessor, Harry Bell, was a Det Chief Superintendent there.

 Agencies involved in detecting and solving crime, the police, forensic examiners, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, tend to form bonds and pull together. But that has to be resisted as it undermines the necessary independence of each of those bodies.

 Scientists and analysts who examine crime scenes for fingerprints, traces of DNA and any other clues should simply be concerned with finding the best evidence and passing it on. They should not become part of the drive to secure the conviction of an accused person. It has been suggested to Scotland on Sunday that SCRO experts have in the past been given targets to meet in making positive identifications. That should never happen. A print either matches a crime scene mark or it does not.

 International experts have proved the mark in Marion Ross’s home was not left by McKie; five colleagues of the four who insisted it was refused to support their identification; an independent inquiry by senior police officers found evidence of criminality on the part of the SCRO. Yet the organisation, with no dissent from the Executive or the Crown Office, continues to stand by its discredited experts. It does not bode well for Scottish justice.

MARCELLO MEGA

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/cover_up_conspiracy_and_the_lockerbie_bomb_connection_1_1409350

Enhanced by Zemanta
Nov 4 2011

The lynching of Muammar Gaddafi


The lynching of Muammar Gaddafi

Posted on 04/11/2011 at 14:05 – 363 visits

Source: Voltaire Network
The lynching of Muammar Gaddafi

The death of Muammar al-Gaddafi has been welcomed by a explosion of joy in the palace Western government in the absence of by the Libyan people. For Thierry Meyssan, the murder was not militarily unnecessary perpetrated by the Empire only for example, but also to deconstruct Libyan tribal society.

Thursday, October 20, 2011, to 13 h 30 GMT, the Libyan National Transition Council has announced the death of Muammar el-Qaddafi. Although confusing, the first elements suggest that a convoy of cars attempted to leave besieged and Sirte has been blocked and partly destroyed by NATO bombing. Survivors would have taken shelter in pipes. Gaddafi, who was wounded, was captured by the brigade of the tribe of Tiger Misrata that would have lynched.

The body of the “Guide” of the Great Libyan Arab Socialist has not been preserved in his hometown of Sirte, or transported to Tripoli, but sent as a trophy by Misrata in the namesake city.

Tribe Misrata, which has long been reluctant to choose sides and is virtually absent from the NTC, will ultimately invested Tripoli after the NATO bombing, and will Muammar el-Qaddafi lynched after the bombing of his convoy by NATO. It has even moved his body in his town to celebrate his triumph. In July, the “Guide” will be cursed Misrata, urging them to go to Istanbul and Tel Aviv, referring to the fact that their tribe is derived from Turkish Jews converted to Islam.

A flood of comments prepared in advance was instantly discharged by the media to demonize Atlanticist Muammar el-Qaddafi, and so, to forget the barbaric conditions of his death.

The main leaders of the Coalition welcomed the death of their enemy as marking the end of “Operation Unified Protector.” In doing so, they implicitly admit that it was not to implement Resolution 1973 of the Security Council, but to overthrow a political system and to kill the leader, even as the assassination of a head of State exercise is prohibited by U.S. law and universally condemned.

In addition, the lynching of Muammar el-Qaddafi shows the willingness of NATO not to defer to the ICC would not have been better able to sentence him for crimes against humanity Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia could not prove the guilt of Slobodan Milosevic, despite two years of trial.

In the torrent of mud spilled by the media to tarnish his memory Atlanticist, back loop of false accusations, which shows a contrario that these media have few authentic elements used against him.

Thus comes the case of the attack against the La Belle discotheque in Berlin (April 5, 1986, three deaths), formerly used as a pretext by the Reagan administration to bomb his palace and killed his daughter (April 14, 1986, at least 50 dead). At the time, the German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis (the one rig two decades later the investigation into the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri) relied on the testimony of Eter Mushad to accuse a Libyan diplomat and his accomplice Mohammed Amair .However, German television ZDF later discovered that Mushad Eter is a false witness and a real CIA agent, while the bomber Mahammed Aamir is a Mossad agent [1].

Or the case of the Lockerbie bombing (December 21, 1988, 270 deaths) investigators identified him the owner of the suitcase containing the bomb and the timer on the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper who sold pants also located in the suitcase bomb. Scottish justice then began charging two Libyan agents Abdel Basset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah and the Security Council took sanctions against Libya. Ultimately, to get the sanctions lifted, Libya agreed to extradite the two agents (the first was sentenced to life imprisonment, the second was acquitted) and pay $ 2.7 billion in compensation, while continuing to proclaim his complete innocence. Ultimately, in August 2005, a survey of Scottish Chiefs declared that the main piece of evidence, self-timer, had been deposited at the scene by a CIA agent. Then the expert who had analyzed the timer for the court to have admitted himself made before the CIA files on the site. Finally, the Maltese shopkeeper admitted being paid $ 2 million for bearing false witness. Scottish authorities decided to review the case, but the health of Abdel Basset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi would not allow it.

The current disinformation campaign also includes a section on the lifestyle of the deceased described as sumptuous and the amount of his fortune hidden Pharaonic. But all those who approached Muammar el-Qaddafi, or simply those who have visited his family home and his residence after bombardment can attest that he lived in an environment similar to that of the bourgeoisie of his country, far from the bling bling of the Planning Minister, Mahmoud Jibril. Similarly, none of the states that track the fortunes hidden Qaddafi for months has been able to find it. All material seized belonged to the Libyan government and not to the “Guide”.

Conversely, the media do not mention the only Atlanticist international arrest warrant issued by Interpol against Muammar el-Qaddafi before the NATO offensive. He was accused by the Lebanese justice to have eliminated the Imam Moussa Sadr and his companions (1978). This omission is due to the fact that the kidnapping was sponsored by the United States who wanted to eliminate before leaving Shiite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran, lest Sadr in Lebanon wider in scope the influence of revolutionary Iran.

Atlanticist media do not mention either the criticisms of civil resistance against imperialism and we ourselves had made against Muammar el-Qaddafi: his recurring compromise with Israel.

For my part, I can attest that, until the Battle of Tripoli, the “Guide” has negotiated with Israeli envoys, hoping to buy protection from Tel Aviv. I must also state that, despite my criticisms of its international policy, and the complete record in this regard that the French DCRI has kindly provided about me in July in an attempt to have me arrested, Muammar el-Qaddafi me given his confidence and asked me to help his country to assert its rights to the United Nations [2]; behavior far from that of a tyrant.

Atlanticist media have not mentioned that I condemned the interference of Libya in French political life, including the illegal financing of presidential election campaigns of Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal. The “Guide” had in fact authorized his brother Abdallah Senoussi to corrupt the two main candidates in exchange for the promise of amnesty or put pressure on the French Justice to complete his criminal record. [3]

Above all, the media do not mention Atlanticists the main work of the “Guide” means the overthrow of the monarchy puppet imposed by the Anglo-Saxons, the removal of foreign troops, the nationalization of hydrocarbons, the construction of the Man Made River ( the most important irrigation works in the world), the redistribution of oil profits (he made one of the poorest in the world, the richest in Africa), generous asylum to refugees and aid Palestinians unprecedented development in the Third World (with Libyan development was more important than all the states of the G20 meeting).

The death of Muammar el-Qaddafi will not change the international level. The important event was the fall of Tripoli, bombarded and captured by NATO-certainly the worst war crimes of this century, followed by the entrance of the tribe of Misrata to control the capital. In the weeks before the Battle of Tripoli, the overwhelming majority of Libyans were involved, Friday after Friday, in anti-NATO, anti-CNT and pro-Gaddafi. Now the country is destroyed and they are governed by NATO and its puppets in the CNT.

The death of the Guide will be in against a traumatic effect on the sustainable Libyan tribal society. By killing the leader, NATO destroyed the incarnation of the principle of authority. It will take years and lots of violence before a new leader is recognized by all the tribes or the tribal system is replaced by another form of social organization. In this sense, the death of Muammar el-Qaddafi opened a period of Iraqization Somaliazation or Libya.
Thierry Meyssan

[1] Survey of Front magazine, broadcast by the ZDF August 28, 1998.

[2] What I did as an activist, without any compensation. NDLA

[3] Abdallah Senussi had been convicted in absentia in France for the attack against the UTA DC-10 (September 19, 1989, 170 deaths) during the war in Chad.