Gaddafi bears responsibility

French-Lebanese scholar Gilbert Achcar on the no-fly zone in Libya:

Over at Al Jazeera, Marwan Bishara asks:

So who bears the responsibility for turning Libya into a war zone and an object of an international military intervention?

Could it be those who confronted a peaceful civil uprising for freedom with lethal force, and when it escalated into a full-fledged revolt, used aerial bombardments, heavy artillery to quell it?

Libya could have and should have gone Tunisia or Egypt’s path of change. But while their militaries conceded the need for regime change, in Libya the family-led powerful militias, financed and groomed to defend the regime’s “country estate”, sided with their pay masters.

While the Gaddafis continue to show images of pro-Gaddafi demonstrators in Tripoli to offset the images of widespread anti-Gaddafi/pro-change, in reality, Libya is not divided between two visions for their country.

Rather between a majority that seeks free and prosperous Libya, and a mostly small heavily-armed minority that runs or benefits from a corrupt rule.

Alas, even the worse regimes in history have had following among their subjects that had a stake in the system.

Needless to say, Libyans in general deserve better than to see their country ruled like a ”family farm”. That”s why they insist on taking down the regime. But the Gaddafi dynasty would not have it, threatening to take the country down with them.

That is why despite all the inflamed rhetoric and populist propaganda, when all is said and done, it is the Gaddafis who bear the responsibility for the ills and misfortunes of their country.

15 thoughts on “Gaddafi bears responsibility”

  1. “These words might ring hollow today, but as he continues to prolong and escalate the war, Gaddafi hopes to turn his attempt to preserve a brutal regime into a national anti-colonial struggle.”

    I just saw that Gaddafi appealed to the UN Human Rights Commission for a meeting about the air strikes. Apparently this meeting was not granted.

    I know Gaddafi is the author of his own destruction, but isn’t the UN supposed to be a body that encourages discussion of problems? Why won’t they talk to him?

    Is it that the West needs to continue the creative destruction of their weapons?

    1. ‘I know Gaddafi is the author of his own destruction,’

      no you dont…thats what the media would have you believe…Its like the Bully(US?NAT) saying to his victim: ‘get your face out of my fist…’

      a bit more about Gadaffi and Libya:
      guess who the rebels are?

  2. Imperialism is reponsible- Gaddafi has long been their lackey to control the masses- No to imperialist invasion- Down with the Lebanese regime that proposed the resolution for the imperialist invasion in the UN security council!

    forward to workers power!

  3. All the talk about the civilian casualties supposedly caused by the UN bombing of Libyan air defence installations is based soley on Gaddafi’s own claims. If you watch AJE you will know the value to be placed on this killer’s words.

  4. The duplicity here is stunning. Qaddafi clearly has the respect of his people and is ARMING them against western forces. Clearly if he was unpopular as the commentators imply he would not be doling out arms.

    The pseudo-Left is complicit in this attack by Obama, who is a Zionist lackey. The “left” does not support the Libyan people right to self-determination but a Zionist overthrow under the “guise” of concern for the Libyan people and a phony stance against “U.S. Imperialism ™”.

    Like all government the people of Libya have grievances yet the U.S. didn’t invade Egypt but Libya is well situated between Egypt and Tunisia and this action allow the Zionist to crush ALL pro-democracy and anti-Zionist, pro-Arab aspirations. Which when it comes right down to it is the real aim of the Zionist pseudo-Left.

  5. I pretty much have to agree with Deadbeat’s take on it.

    What I haven’t seen in any of the Libya coverage, MSM or “left” media, is any indepth account of just how this “protest movement” in Libya got started, and how it managed to morph so quickly into an armed insurrection.

    It appears that a section or sections of the military defected to the “rebels” in a body very early on. That various high level officials of the Gadawfi admin. got out in front very early also.
    And what’s this adoption of the old colonial-puppet Monarchy’s flag? Very fishy. something stinks.
    To me it looks like a well-planned attempt at a coup, whereby certain elements had been assured in advance that if they went ahead and took rash actions which had no hope of succeeding in the context of Libya, not to worry because Uncle Sam would ride to the rescue and bail them out. Of course that’s just my personal guess, but my track record on guessing what’s behind various actions is pretty good.
    My opinion is that a lot of well intentioned people are letting themselves be played for suckers…again. Lawrence of Araby redux.
    “All together now: Solidarinosh forEverr…”

    1. So the symbol of Libyan independence from colonial rule is now called an ‘old colonial-puppet Monarchy’s flag’?

      It is ironic how only two constituencies have frequently displayed an absolute faith in the efficient devilry of the notoriously incompetent CIA: Hollywood and the Left.

      Why bother reading or understanding history, when one can explain every contingency and commotion away as part of the agency’s grand design? We after all are all puppets, blind to our own interests. If it weren’t for the imperial manipulators, who in Libya could possibly desire an end to Brother Leader’s rule, eh?

  6. I agree with Deadbeat and teafoe2. This support for israeli/american/nato war crimes and their obvious puppets is a sad thing to see on sites one would logically expect the opposite.

  7. I’m impressed by Idrees’ willingness to post comments which run counter to his own views. Editorial integrity commands respect, regardless of differences.

    Re my remarks about the monarchy, flag etc.:

    excerpt from: Saving the King: Anglo-American strategy and British counter-subversion operations in Libya, 1953-59. Article from: Middle Eastern Studies January 1, 2003 Author: Blackwell, Stephen:

    “Primarily a creation of British strategic requirements from the remnants of the Italian colonial era, Libya in the late 1950s was the location of an intense conflict for influence between Nasser, the Soviet Union and the Western powers. (1) Although the Libyan monarchy survived the challenge, the regime’s dependency on Western protection was exposed along with a narrow Anglo-American conception of the country’s importance to the regional Cold War that was increasingly irrelevant to the wider political agenda in the Middle East.”

  8. Gilbert Achcar the latest cruise missil leftist. Stephen Gowans examines this phenomena: of left wing support for state war crimes:

    The renegade Achcar

    Lebanese socialist Gilbert Achcar (author with Noam Chomsky of Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy) can cite chapter and verse on why the US-French-British-Canadian military intervention on the side of the armed uprising in Libya is imperialist, but that doesn’t mean he’s against it. On the contrary, in this fight he’s lining up with the imperialists.

    In an interview featured in Z-Net, Achcar writes: “The Western response, of course, smacks of oil” and “We all know about the Western powers’ pretexts and double standards.”

    Still, Achcar, who somehow has managed to build a reputation as an anti-war activist, says “I believe that from an anti-imperialist perspective one cannot and should not oppose the no-fly zone, given that there is no plausible alternative for protecting the endangered population.”

    Achcar stands at the head of a long line of renegades who talk the anti-imperialism talk, but when push comes to shove, line up with imperialism.

    Now who are the libyans Achcar and the US/NATO war machines are backing?
    jihadists, human traffickers, CIA backed neoliberals etc

    So is Achcar a leftist at all?

  9. Thank you Brian, for posting the link to that dynamite article on CounterCurrents, which I fwded to my list. Appreciate your other comments too.

  10. did u know:

    ‘Recently, when Qaddafi urged Libyans to intermarry with Africans, following the example of Prophet Muhammad himself, who encouraged intermarriage between races, Libyan and Arab contempt for Black Africans re-surfaced. Extremely few fair skinned Arabs would sanction the marriage of their daughters to a Black African. Rarely do fair skinned Libyans marry Black Libyans. Their disdain for Black people runs deep.

    In fact, across other Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Gulf States, the horror stories emerging regarding the mistreatment of African domestic servants is reminiscent of the kind of treatment meted out to Black people during the days of chattel slavery. So a project for the development and unification of all of Africa, uniting, on equal terms, the ‘Arab’ north with Black Africa, is not close to the hearts of many fair skinned Arabs. Qaddafi is an exception to the rule.

    In his book ‘Islam and the Third Universal Theory: The Religious Thought of Muammar Qaddafi’ , the respected Muslim scholar, Mahmoud Ayoub, states that:

    “he (Qaddafi) wishes to follow the example of the Prophet who fought with such determination against oppression and inequality in society that Bilal, the Black slave, became equal with his master Umayyah. He sees his own mission and the task of the

    Libyan revolution as having the same motivations and goal for modern Muslim society. The basic aim of the Green Book is to present in general and contemporary terms the ideals of justice and equality which Qaddafi sees in the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet and his community.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: