On the war in Libya through the eyes of the witness

On the war in Libya through the eyes of the witness

6 October 2011. Syrian television showed a special program with French journalist Thierry Meyssan, president of the political science center Réseau Voltaire. Meyssan spoke about his experience of working in Libya, where he came as a journalist to try to recreate an objective picture of what is happening. Here is what he told.

I saw that those events that everyone was talking about were not in reality. There was no revolution against Gaddafi, something else happened [...].

The decision on the war against Libya was taken 10 years ago, and this has nothing to do with the recent events of the Arab Spring. Immediately after the 11 events of September, literally through the 4 of the day at the Camp David meeting, the Bush administration decided to attack one after another of the 7 countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, and at the very end - Iran. These details were once publicized by William Clark, the former commander of NATO, who opposed the plan.

Over the next years, the Libyans tried to negotiate, reach an agreement with Washington, thinking to avoid war. However, it was a mistake on their part, because the main thing the United States wanted was to establish itself in Libya, to create its own military base here, in order to develop later throughout Africa. All the efforts of Gaddafi failed. Remember, in 2003 immediately after the fall of Baghdad, the pressure on Libya was very strong. Then Gaddafi decided to make the country more open, entered into negotiations with Washington, accepted their economic conditions, defusing tensions in relations. However, the United States continued to prepare to attack both countries simultaneously - Libya and Syria. True, the position of Syria was different; it had international agreements that allowed the Seritians to protect themselves. What happened?

Washington turned to France and the UK so that these countries come to the fore in military operations against Libya, because Obama could not justify a new war in the eyes of the American public […]

In Libya itself, Gaddafi enjoyed considerable popular support. I met many people who were traditionally in opposition to Gaddafi, but for reasons of patriotism, they joined Gaddafi in his fight against NATO aggression. 1 July in Tripoli held a grand demonstration. While 1,5 million people live in the city itself, the demonstration gathered 1,7 million people, that is, people came from everywhere to show their support for the government in the fight against NATO.

Further, I saw the crimes committed by those who were called "rebels". In reality, they were not rebels, they were mostly foreign fighters. Libyans, armed against Gaddafi, were extremely small in number. The bulk of the fighters were mercenaries armed with American and Israeli weapons. In addition, the presence of al-Qaida was significant. In Libya, there used to be an influential Al Qaeda group that supplied fighters to Iraq. They are supporters of extreme violence. When they attacked the villages (or rather, they attacked NATO, and then al-Qaeda fighters entered), they were under the influence of drugs and committed terrible crimes. They cut off the heads of men, breasts of women, and all this in public in order to gather as many witnesses as possible in order to instill fear. They forced the population to flee, expanding the power of the Benghazi-formed committee further and further. Libya is a country with a small population, no more than 6 million people, and of them 2 million people fled, leaving their homes.

I can say one thing about the work of foreign journalists in Libya: everyone lied in unison. It was the journalists of the major channels - BBC, CNN, France-24, France-TV (Al-Jazeera was not there, she was not allowed). Usually, when a television group receives accreditation, it is always two - a journalist and a cameraman, and three, four, sometimes up to seven people came here, and it was clear that they were not journalists, there were people with pumped muscles, by whose appearance it was possible to understand that they were well-trained military men, even though they had press certificates ... I saw how they fabricated lies. In the government of Libya, there were heated debates about what to do with these people. Some, for example, Yu. Shakir, a prominent Libyan journalist, said that they should be expelled. However, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi believed that if all this public was put out of the door, they would stop talking about what was happening in Libya and, with such silence, would simply be annihilated ...

I think this was a serious mistake. When we were discussing who was real and who was a fake journalist, and I began to search on the Internet who was who, it turned out that only those who spoke in front of the cameras were real journalists, the rest were military men. And then the Libyan secret services decided to intercept the e-mail of all journalists working in the main press center, they found unthinkable things: even real journalists communicated with MI-6, French special services, Mossad, that is, all these were agents. The Libyan secret services intercepted a terrific document - something like a small textbook published by the private military company Aegis (the English equivalent of the American company Blackwater). It became clear that all these “journalists” were one group and worked together. The manual, in particular, indicated that when the Americans began to attack in order to destroy Tripoli, then three hours before it would be necessary to remove all journalists from the Libyan capital, otherwise Gaddafi could take them hostage. There was an evacuation plan, according to which Aegis had a secret base in Tripoli and used the help of the Turkish secret services. All journalists were instructed to quickly move to the port, from there to deliver to NATO ships - and do it exactly three hours before the general offensive on Tripoli ...

France-24, the official channel of the French government, has signed an agreement with the Benghazi committee to assist in working with mass communications and providing international relations to the rebels. That is, French journalists claimed to give objective information, but in fact supported the insurgency. France-24 journalists were allowed to appear everywhere, they traveled by car to the bombing sites, visited various parts of Tripoli, and as a result it was established: when groups of these journalists appeared in some part of the city to inspect, say, one or another government building, - 15 minutes after their departure, this building was bombarded. That is, these "journalists" served as gunners.

There was a completely scary case. Everyone knows that NATO uses the same methods as Israel — killing individual leaders, their families. If they cannot kill their leaders, they intimidate them by killing women and children. One of the high-ranking Libyan military had a family holiday where several journalists were invited. It is not known exactly who, but one of them put a suitcase-GPS in the nursery. When NATO aircraft bombed this house at night, the bombs hit exactly in the children's rooms. All the children were killed.

In one of the small Libyan villages there was a massacre. It was located on a hill, and NATO members needed to remove this village in order to provide free access for the “rebels”. As a result, they bombed the hill and destroyed the village. Libyan authorities said it was a war crime. NATO representatives replied - no, they, they say, have accurate information that the military were hiding there. Libyans appealed to all journalists from the press center with a request to arrive at the site to establish the truth. When they arrived, they saw that it was a terrible slaughter, torn bodies everywhere. Then these satellite-equipped journalists contacted NATO headquarters in Brussels to get instructions from there. And the NATO officers dictated to them the texts of the articles, indicating what should be written: they say, the object was a military man, but there were by chance several civilians there, which no one knew, etc. That is, it was all a lie manufacturing enterprise.

... Al-Jazeera built a television studio in Qatar, where an imitation of Green Square and Bab el-Aziz Square in Tripoli was created. Then NATO began to bomb the city. It was a continuous stream of fire, bombed everything, for two days the earth did not stop shaking, and at that time Al-Jazeera was spinning pictures from the studio, in which jubilant "rebels" enter Green Square ... Then the head of the rebellious "transitional council" declared that it was a "military trick."

For the Libyan special services to cope with all this was beyond the power. They did not know how to react. It was such an exceptional situation that no one could navigate. Limited to the expulsion of several journalists ... Once, for example, Gaddafi met with the heads of the tribes in the hotel where the press center was located. The Americans are hunting for Gaddaffi in order to destroy him - and here he appears in the press center, which cannot be bombed, since here all the “journalists” are in full assembly. No one knew how Gaddafi entered the press center, how he got out. They decided that there were secret passages, and at night they found one of the Washington Post journalists in the basement, where he was barefoot, with an ultrasound machine in his hands, trying to find an underground exit through which Gadhafi left. This guy was sent ...

All television channels of NATO countries worked closely together, while Libya had only its own television channel, which the Americans had disconnected from the satellite, and the Libyans could not broadcast to foreign countries. Everything was drowned in an ocean of lies. The Europeans really thought that a revolution occurred in Libya, that Gaddafi was killing people and that military intervention was normal. They did not understand that it was a colonial expedition, that the West was returning to its colonial experience.

And now we see that the same methods, the same propaganda, are being deployed on satellite channels against Syria. Now Al-Jazeera sets up special studios depicting the Abbasid and Umayyad Squares in Damascus, that is, they are preparing to repeat what they did in Libya ...

In Libya, people who collaborated with NATO did not know what this would turn out to be. As a result, more than 50 thousand people were killed, more than 200 thousand were injured, 2 million people became refugees. Can you imagine what will happen in Syria? [...]

The Libyan experience is extremely important in that it was originally intended to attack Libya and Syria at the same time. It did not work, but no one in the world began to defend Gaddafi - everyone believed what the leading TV channels said. In Libya, in the midst of an attack on her, only the ambassadors of Venezuela, Cuba and Syria remained [...].

France and the UK in November 2010 signed an agreement providing for the creation of a joint expeditionary force. To the contract there is an annex on joint military exercises with an indication of all the parts involved in them. The scenario of the "teachings" is as follows: British forces must invade North Africa to save the civilian population subjected to repression by the tyrant. The document specifies that military exercises will take place on March 21. 2011. The British army attacked Libya on March 19. That is, since November 2010, everyone knew exactly what was to be, and preparations were made for war [...].

However, the roots go deeper. This war, as I said, was planned with 2001 and planned by the United States. The British and French are just subcontractors. The United States intended to do the same in Syria, but so far failed for two reasons. First, it was necessary from the very beginning to concentrate in place a huge mass of weapons. In Libya, they managed to seize arsenals with weapons, but in Syria they did not succeed and the NATO forces had to send weapons through Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. That is, it was not possible to immediately deliver one powerful, decisive blow. We see that militant groups are moving across Syria, attacking here and there, but they do not deal a decisive blow.

Secondly, Libya was isolated, and Syria has a broad policy of alliances. It is not only about Iran and Russia. We see how the veto of Russia and China worked in the UN Security Council. That is, while Syria was able to protect itself, but all this is very fragile. After all, the Americans will not stop. Libyans mistakenly thought that they could defend themselves, but the world is different ....
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in