August 27, 2011
The mainstream media is already engaging in widespread damage control in an attempt to mitigate the fallout of the reality of the situation in Libya and the withering NATO-sponsored narrative of post-Gaddafi Libya.
They are called "Gaddafi loyalists", "Sub-Saharan mercenaries" and other phrases all pointing to the unfortunate reality that every single black person is now considered by the rebels to be a mercenary hired by Gaddafi.
The Libyan rebels and those carrying water for them in the Western media are now attempting to conceal the fact that they are now committing crimes against humanity in the active targeting of innocent black Libyans.
Some call the attacks "reprisals" or "revenge" but in reality they are hateful murders carried out by the al Qaeda-affiliated, Western backed and trained rebels.
These killings are irrefutably tied to the wildly racist and wholly unfounded claims that Gaddafi hired Sub-Saharan African mercenaries to murder his own people during the uprising.
Unfortunately for the painfully ignorant rebels and their Western compatriots, this is simply not true and has never been verified in any way.
As I covered in my article about the "waves of disinformation" emanating out of Libya, even the New York Times now is forced to admit that there is no substantiation for the claims whatsoever.
The rebels have alleged that they captured these so-called mercenaries but quite conveniently they have never been able to show a single international journalist these captured fighters.
Why? It is pretty simple: there are no black mercenaries that were being used to kill Libyans. In fact, there have been no verified instances of Gaddafi ordering the targeting of peaceful civilians in Libya.
This aspect of the false narrative was debunked so long ago that it seems most of the mainstream media has dispensed with it altogether.
However, the representatives of the undemocratic, racist (notice there are no black Libyan rebel leaders, interesting, isn’t it?) and thoroughly corrupt National Transitional Council continue to peddle these tired lies.
I was watching the Qatari propaganda outlet Al Jazeera earlier today and I witnessed a fascinating exchange between a homogenous panel of "experts" discussing the future of Libya and the relations with the African Union.
One member of the panel was a spokesman for the illegitimate Libyan NTC. This individual parroted every single thoroughly vetted and discredited rebel claim that they have been making since the first days of the conflict.
These included "mass rape", enormous numbers of civilians allegedly killed by Gaddafi and the hiring of Sub-Saharan mercenaries to fight the people of Libya.
Despite the fact that all of these claims have remained unsubstantiated and some have been completely discredited altogether, the moderator and a professor at Oxford University all nodded in agreement and sat silently by while the rebel spokesman continued to spew pure propaganda and lies.
I was quite disgusted by this lack of journalistic integrity on the part of Al Jazeera. Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised that a station funded by the first Arab nation to drop bombs on innocent people in Libya would be propagandizing the ignorant members of their audience.
Regardless, I always seem to expect that non-Western news outlet might have a bit more integrity and honesty but I am continually disappointed.
The reality of the situation in Libya is ugly and every day that goes by it looks more like it is turning into another Iraq or Afghanistan.
The West seems to have a knack for turning people against themselves based on imaginary divisions of skin color, national origin or religious sect.
In Libya it is an especially dangerous situation because it is quite obvious by now that much of the rebel forces have been successfully convinced that black people are automatically Gaddafi mercenaries, even though this is completely untrue.
One must wonder who is directing these operations on the ground and perpetuating these myths. Could it be the many Anglo-American Special Forces troops that are admittedly on the ground in Arab disguises?
One cannot say that this is occuring with any amount of certainty, but one can say, based on historical precedent that this is likely the case. Take, for instance, in 2005 when undercover British soldiers were arrested by Iraqi police for allegedly murdering an Iraqi policeman. This is just one of many examples of similar events occurring in Iraq and elsewhere to raise tensions and destabilize the region.
While there is currently no evidence that proves foreign agents are behind inciting this racist violence, one can safely say that based on the past it would be hard to imagine that Western forces are not encouraging such actions.
The British news organization the Independent has published an article today that revealed some of the instances of this tragic race-based violence in Libya.
One man named Ahmed Bin Sabri told the Independent as he pulled back a tent flap, "Come and see. These are blacks, Africans, hired by Gaddafi, mercenaries."
Speaking of the dead bodies put on display by Bin Sabri, the Independent aptly points out, "Why had an injured man receiving treatment been executed?"
Bin Sabri merely shrugged in response and the Independent writes, "It was seemingly incomprehensible to him that anything wrong had been done."
This lack of understanding seems to be widespread among the Libyan rebels and their supporters across the world. It seems as if the rebels can do no wrong and when they are guilty of crimes against humanity they are merely advised to restrain themselves.
Why are the rebels not treated with the same hostility that Gaddafi and his forces were regarded with? Why is NATO not bombing rebels now?
If they actually had any intention of following the United Nations resolution that allows them to be there which mandates the protection of Libyan civilians, they would be attacking the rebels now.
But, of course, they are not. They will not, as the rebels have already made it clear that they will serve their Western masters that have allowed them to come to power through the establishment of a private bank and their sales of oil.
Interestingly, the Independent article still paints a somewhat biased picture of the aftermath of the "revolution" in Libya.
In Gaddafi’s latest broadcast he warned that the people of Tripoli would be targeted by revolutionaries and that women would be raped in their homes. The Independent calls these "unsubstantiated, as are similar claims by his official apologist, Moussa Ibrahim."
I think that this is a little bit too early to make such generalizations. We have indeed seen that the Libyan rebels are targeting the people of Tripoli, so how exactly are these claims unsubstantiated?
In the next paragraph they claim that Gaddafi "has repeatedly unleashed appalling violence on its own people."
Actually, these claims are just as unsubstantiated as Gaddafi’s, but since this is a Western media outlet one wouldn’t expect them to point that out, I guess.
However, one must give them credit for pointing out that "the mounting number of deaths of men from sub-Saharan Africa at the hands of the rebels – lynchings in many cases – raises disturbing questions about the opposition administration, the Transitional National Council (TNC) taking over as Libya’s government, and about western backing for it."
This is an important passage because the West has indeed openly supported the non-democratically declared Libyan government without hesitation.
Other parts of the world, on the other hand, have not been so quick to endorse the murderous band of criminals affiliated with al Qaeda that the media lovingly calls the rebels.
Take the African Union, for example. They refused to recognize the Transitional Council until the violence ceased. The aforementioned segment on Al Jazeera included the rebel spokesman excoriating the AU for their prudent "wait and see" approach.
This shouldn’t be surprising as the rebels are attempting to draw together as much support as possible before the world begins to realize that their forces are committing and have committed war crimes throughout the uprising.
Tripoli is not the only city that has been marred by racist violence at the hands of rebel forces in Libya.
Amnesty International has reported that similar acts of brutality have been committed in the coastal city of Zawiyah. They have reported that black Sub-Saharan African migrant workers have been killed there just as they have throughout Libya since the uprising started.
The rebel attempts at explaining why they have been summarily executing black people who they suspect to be mercenaries are laughable at best.
When the Independent posed this question, "if the men had been killed in action, why did they have their hands tied behind their back?" A rebel fighter from Misrata named Mushab Abdullah said, "Maybe they were injured, and they had to be brought to this hospital and the handcuffs were to stop them from attacking. And then something went wrong."
The rebels are clearly lacking guidance and sound decision-making skills. Just look at the case of Ahmed Safar Warfalla, a man accused of spreading Gaddafi propaganda. He told the Independent, "They accuse me of a crime, but this is what I did" […] taking out a copy of the Koran from his pocket and pointing it to the sky. "Allah and Libya," he shouted. "They have Nato technology? This is Arab, Muslim technology. We shall not be defeated."
I was unaware that the Koran was Gaddafi propaganda but apparently even the rebel militia realized that this claim was a bit farfetched and allegedly decided to let Warfalla go free, because, "the man is mad".
To be fair, Amnesty International has also reported that pro-Gaddafi forces have killed detainees at two camps in Tripoli where 160 prisoners attempted to flee. Amnesty International says that they have "uncovered evidence" of this and that 23 prisoners were able to flee successfully.
A bunker in Muammar Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte came under fire from cruise missiles launched by RAF Tornado GR4 bombers, about which a rebel spokesman said, "Maybe the mercenaries there will run away."
Again, the rebels seem to hold on to the delusion that there is no way a single Libyan could actually support Gaddafi and thus the only people still loyal to the now-underground leader are mercenaries. This is far from the truth and has been proven as such time and time again.
Even the Washington Post admitted that some of the deaths in Tripoli do not seem like normal battlefield deaths.
They report, "not all of them looked like ordinary battlefield deaths." Speaking of the dead bodies left in the wake of the attack on Gaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziyah compound in Tripoli. "Two dead men lay face down on the grass, their hands bound behind their backs with plastic cuffs."
I’m not sure how that could be anything other than a summary execution but I’m sure a rebel could come up with some legitimate explanation about how "something happened."
The Amnesty International researcher for Libya, Diana Eltahawy told the Washington Post that many of the Sub-Saharan African detainees in Zawiyah were migrant workers who were "taken at gunpoint from their homes, workplaces and the street on account of their skin color".
The Washington Post claims that the civilian leadership of the rebel forces are attempting to stop their forces from committing "revenge attacks" but this is just silly seeing as they continue unabated and have no sign of ending any time soon.
The fact that the attacks are largely based on skin color does not bode well, as it is not as if one day their skin color will change and they can go back to business as usual.
All of this racially based hatred among rebels is not going to go away on its own. The hypocritical treatment of these murders is just another point in case proving that NATO and the West have no interest in protecting civilians but instead are interested in regime change and putting stooges in power who will serve their Western masters like Gaddafi would not.