Gaddafi

The "Arab Spring" which first broke out in Tunisia and disseminated to many countries in the Arab world has become one of the most actual topics of the international political agenda in the recent years. The protests that began against the Gaddafi regime after the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt led the opponents to unite under a single umbrella in a short time and form the main opposition in the country. The opponents which first came to the fore with civilian protest movements then continued their struggle against the government with armed attacks. In this article we are going to analyse the ―Arab Spring‖ in Libya which broke out in February 2011 leaving its mark that year and investigate the positive and negative effects.

Despite a recent resurgence in research on the politics of migration, foreign policy analysts have yet to approach cross-border population mobility as a distinct field of inquiry. Particularly within the Global South, scant work has theorised the interplay between migration and interstate bargaining. This article proposes the framework of migration diplomacy to examine how mobility features in states' issue-linkage strategies, in both cooperative and coercive contexts. Drawing on Arabic, French and English primary sources, it empirically demonstrates the salience of its framework through an analysis of Libya's migration diplomacy towards its Arab, African and European neighbours under Muammar Gaddafi.

In "Gheddafi: le mia verità", il raìs illustra la sua dottrina politica e sociale. Si tratta di un testo ideologico, pensato per masse incolte, in larga parte ispirato alla tradizione socialista, che attinge a piene mani dal pensiero filosofico e politico degli ultimi 2.500 anni, adattando teorie elaborate dai maggiori pensatori del passato. Il Colonnello espone la Terza teoria universale, che vorrebbe essere alternativa al capitalismo, ma anche al socialismo, esattamente come il fascismo nel Novecento. L’obiettivo è la costruzione di uno Stato totalitario, nel quale la nazione viene ad essere identificata indirettamente con il legame di sangue del clan o del gruppo gentilizio allargato che fa riferimento alla famiglia del leader della Jamahiriya. Il raìs affronta il problema della democrazia e del potere del popolo, attaccando l’istituto del parlamentarismo ed il sistema dei partiti. Gheddafi si sforza di dimostrare l’inutilità di tutti gli istituti tipici della rappresentanza democratica, compreso il referendum e la Costituzione, per giungere all’assunto di uno Stato senza diritto, nel quale l’unica fonte della legge è la sharia. Il leader libico propugna un sistema di democrazia diretta su imitazione dei Soviet, nel quale il popolo è l’unico titolare del potere politico. L’uomo forte di Tripoli nega spazio a qualsiasi forma di iniziativa privata: i mezzi di informazione, così come le organizzazioni e le attività sportive, e tutta l’economia, devono essere demandati alla gestione statale. Aberrante la posizione sulla donna, che viene considerata alla stregua di un mammifero destinato alla riproduzione, negando ad essa il diritto al lavoro. In "Gheddafi: le mia verità" è condensata la summa theologica in salsa maghrebina del raìs di Tripoli, con il commento inedito del prof. Marco Marsili.

Although international asset recovery is one of the key anti-corruption commitments under the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, a huge gap remains between commitments and implementation. The shortcomings of international asset freezes in the case of Libya, with billions of dollars unaccounted for, confirm this statement. In this article, I identify the major obstacles for recovering stolen assets in the case of Libya and I argue that the international community needs to enhance asset recovery and mutual legal assistance, as well as to explore bold ideas, such as the reversal of the burden of proof as to the illicit origin of the assets.

On February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1970 in response to the violence and ongoing human rights violations being committed against the people of Libya by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi and his regime. The charges against the Gaddafi regime are numerous, the majority of which predate the February 2011 popular uprisings in Libya. On March 17, 2011, the Security Council passed Resolution 1973, further condemning the use of force against the rebel forces and imposing a number of sanctions and demands on Gaddafi and his regime including a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. Citing Chapter VII authority, the Security Council demanded an immediate cease-fire, an end to the violence and all attacks against civilians, and called for member states to “take all necessary measures” to prevent further civilian casualties and enforce compliance with the resolution. This article will illustrate the ways in which NATO’s armed intervention in Libya violated customary norms, standards, and practices of international law. This article will also demonstrate the ways in which, from a broader historical perspective, the bombing campaign in Libya constitutes yet another episode in the ongoing saga of Western hypocrisy and global hegemony. In this context, it becomes clear that, while NATO’s recent actions are wrought with international legal violations and contradictions at the local and individual levels, the underlying premise and motivation render the operation itself illegal on a much broader scale.

Revolts did not knock on the door, they just sneaked in the Arab region, toppling some regimes while shaking the thrones of others. Analyses began to heap in an attempt to examine this state of affairs; some choose to factor in this context a new foreign conspiracy, aiming at dividing of what is left from the region. Others suggest that the revolts are a long awaited revolution of pride and dignity and were ignited by plain domestic forces. As a prelude to this analysis, in today's article we wish to address the common views, widespread not only among academics and politicians, but also amongst the Arab masses which started to question, doubt and lose confidence in the current spate of Arab revolts. in order to keep readers abreast of the latest developments, this article espouses a nuanced approach in addressing a third view which considers the events mere scientific material that can serve as a platform to examine existing theories of International politics in a region, described for long time as idle and sluggish towards transformations.

This chapter traces and conceptualizes the evolution of the EurAfrican borderscapes during the 2000s. It points out how a popular, but flawed perspective that sees borders through a closed-systems perspective, is responsible for much of the knowledge-production and policy-making in European border politics, including the critical image of a ‘Fortress Europe’. However, this perspective fails to accurately appraise the EurAfrican borderscapes’ functionality as a transnational network of control nodes ripe with both aligning and conflicting interests, resulting in various negotiations and bilateral supranational issue-linkages. This chapter explains how the traditional concept of forced migration, following the closed systems perspective, has tended to view border control as a response to forced migration, and has therefore not seen how the border control system in itself also cause forced migration. The various ways in which states’ border control yield displacement is here labelled border-induced displacement and further explored. In particular, the chapter traces the European externalization of detention camps to Gaddafi’s Libya, the Italian-Libyan Friendship Treaty of 2008, and how this process fed into externalization policies pushed by the Dutch, British and Danish governments since the 1980s. Finally, within these processes, the chapter interrogates the humanitarian conditions in the EurAfrican borders when it comes to migrants’ rights.

On February 15, 2011, anti-government demonstrators in Libya took to the streets in hopes of starting a revolution that would liberate them from a corrupt government. Libya’s Arab Spring lasted only a month before foreign intervention came in the form of a French-proposed United Nations Security Council Resolution, which formed the legal basis for a NATO-led military intervention only two days later. This resolution authorized the UN member states to enact a no-fly zone and “take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas,” (NATO and Libya, 2015). On March 19, 2011, “an international force led by France, UK and US began a massive air-strike campaign against Gadhafi loyalist forces,” under a NATO framework that included a coalition of 10 states, which later expanded to 17 (Svendsen, 2014). The fall of the government eventually came when Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was captured and killed by National Transitional Council forces, prompting the end of the NATO mission in Libya and concluding the deadly conflict. Although official statements cite humanitarian reasons for the 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, this paper shows how the countries involved acted in a predominantly neorealist fashion, concerned more about their political and economic security than the interests of the Libyan people. Neoliberals would argue that international diplomacy could have prevented a military intervention, however a failed cease-fire disproves this position. This essay identifies and defines the neorealist paradigm, compares and contrasts its tenets to neoliberalism, takes a look at the consequences the intervention had on the international community, and addresses the main reasons for the NATO intervention from a realist perspective.

Öz
Dünyada gelişen teknolojinin ve küreselleşmenin aksine yüz yıllardır Arap coğrafyasında cumhuriyet, demokrasi, insan hakları gibi kavramlara karşı yabancı kalınması beklenen bir durum olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu bağlamda Arap Baharı kapsamında Libya’da ortaya çıkan devrimden sonraki durumun neden şiddetli geçtiğini ifade etmek gerekir. Tunus’ta başlayan ve hızlı bir şekilde büyüyen halk ayaklanmaları, Tunus’tan sonra Mısır, Libya, Suriye, Bahreyn, Ürdün ve Yemen gibi ülkelere sıçramıştır. Bu ayaklanma, ilk olarak Tunus ile sınırlı kalmış ve “Yasemin Devrimi” olarak anılmaya başlanmıştır. Arap coğrafyasında yaşanan güvenlik sorunlarının kısa sürede birbirini etkilemesi ve diğer Arap ülkelerine ulaşması sonucunda bu durum “Arap Baharı” olarak ifade edilmiştir. Arap Baharı Libya’da farklı bir boyutta gelişmiş ve Libya Arap Baharı’nın etkisi belki de en ağır şekilde hissedilen ülkelerin başında gelmektedir. İnsan haklarının ihlalleri ve uluslararası müdahale ile birlikte Muammer Kaddafi’nin yönetimden ayrılması ülkeyi ikili bir yapıya sürüklemiştir. Bu ikili yapı başta Hafter ve Ulusal Mutabakat Hükümeti arasında gerçekleşen ve hâlâ devam eden bir iç çatışmayı beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu durum ülkeyi siyasi, sosyal ve güvenlik bağlamında bir çıkmaza götürmüştür. Bu makalede, Libya’da devrim öncesi ve sonrası siyasi, sosyal ve güvenlik anlamda bir değerlendirme yapılmış ve ülkenin içine girdiği bu krizden nasıl çıkabileceği üzerinde durulmuştur. Bununla birlikte, Libya’da yaşanan sürecin perde arkası ve devrimden sonraki Libya ile devrimden önceki Libya’nın durumu sosyal, siyasal ve güvenlik boyutları ve genel hatlarla analiz edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Uluslararası Siyaset, Doğu Akdeniz, Arap Baharı, Libya, Kaddafi
Abstract
Contrary to the developing technology and globalization in the world, it is a situation that is expected to be foreign to concepts such as republic, democracy and human rights in the Arab geography for centuries. In this context, it is necessary to express why the situation after the revolution that emerged in Libya within the scope of the Arab Spring was severe. The popular uprisings that started in Tunisia and grew rapidly spread to countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan and Yemen after Tunisia. This uprising was first limited to Tunisia and started to be known as the "Jasmine Revolution". As a result of the security problems in the Arab geography affecting each other in a short time and reaching other Arab countries, this situation has been described as the "Arab Spring". The Arab Spring has developed in a different dimension in Libya, and Libya is one of the countries where the impact of the Arab Spring is felt most heavily. With the violations of human rights and international intervention, Muammar Gaddafi's departure from the administration has dragged the country into a dual structure. This dual structure brought about an ongoing internal conflict between Haftar and the Government of National Consensus. This situation has led the country to an impasse in terms of political, social and security. In this article, an evaluation in terms of political, social and security before and after the revolution has been made in Libya and it has been focused on how the country can overcome this crisis. In addition, the background of the process in Libya and the situation of Libya after the revolution and Libya before the revolution were analyzed in terms of social, political and security dimensions and in general terms.
Keywords: International Politics, Eastern Mediterranean, The Arab Spring, Libya, Gaddafi

During a four-day conference held in July of 1997 in Chicago, entitled “Islam in the 21st Century” and hosted by the World Islamic People’s Leadership organization. Louis Farrakhan, the Leader of the Nation of Islam addressed the crowed and stated: “We who are oppressed, love those who fight against oppression and the oppressors … and it is with great honour and privilege that I present to you the leader of the al-Fatah revolution, from Libya, our brother, Muammar al Gaddafi.”  Gadhafi addressed the crowed of 4,000 conference goers, via closed satellite feed appearing on two large screens inside the ballroom. Gaddafi began by praising Farrakhan for being a “courageous freedom fighter”, and proceeded to provide an in-depth explanation as to how he would support paramilitary efforts within the United States.  Gadhafi told them that Libya was now their ally in their struggle against white America, but he also promised to supply weapons to create a 400,000-man strong black army in America. The expressed goal of this army would be to garner true emancipation for African Americans and, quoiting Gadhafi: “if white Americans refuse to accept Blacks as US citizens, it [white America] must therefore be destroyed” . The army for which Gadhafi eluded was never created, and the associated support in the context of arms never materialized, however this speech underlines the feigning value of third worldist leaders and their revolutionary diction. How does this event fit into the revolutionary values Gadhafi espoused in his 1975 political monograph the Green Book? Furthermore, how does this event fit into Gadhafi’s self-defined ‘Third internal theory’ via his international interventions in global geopolitics?

The Arab Spring is not a united experience. The intention of this paper is to acknowledge that Libya and Syria constitute two distinctive cases within the 2011 Arab uprisings. To understand why two different outcomes have occurred we must first look to the historical context which preceded the conflicts in 2011. These contexts – their economies and civil societies, military and social compositions – provide us with a better understanding of why they represent different cases. Libya and Syria where not the same before the Arab uprisings began. Libya’s closed society and state subsidised economy, coupled with a divided and easily fragmented military/security framework stood in contrast to Syria’s quickly but unevenly liberalizing economy, shifting support base and strong and united military component. The first part of this paper will explore these contexts. The second section will examine how these contexts provided for two very different uprisings, specifically looking at two key factors: the composition of the rebels and their territoriality, and the international response to the uprisings. In both cases we see different outcomes.

• 2011 yılındaki Arap Devrimleri dalgası ile Libya’da başlayan halk isyanı, o dönemki Kaddafi rejimi tarafından sivil katliamlara başvurularak bastırılmaya çalışılmıştır.
• Kaddafi rejiminin Libya’daki isyancılara ve sivillere karşı başvurduğu silahlı yöntemler dolayısıyla “ülkeyi yönetme meşruiyetini kaybettiği” açıklamaları yapan devletler, Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’nin yetkilendirmesi ile Libya’ya askeri müdahalede bulunmuştur.
• Libya’ya uluslararası müdahaleye giden yolda, Türkiye gibi diplomatik çözüm çabalarını devam ettirme taraftarı olan ülkeler, müdahale taraftarı Batılı devletlerce karar alma süreçlerinden dışlanmıştır.
• Libya’ya müdahale için birbiriyle yarışırcasına harekete geçen Batılı devletler, askeri operasyonu daha sonra NATO liderliğinde sürdürmüştür. Ancak uluslararası askeri operasyonun uluslararası hukuka uygunluğu, yetkilendirilme sebebi olan sivillerin korunmasını öncelemeden Kaddafi rejiminin devrilmesi amacıyla yürütülmesi ve sebep olunan sivil ölümleri dolayısıyla tartışmalı hâle gelmiştir.
• Birçok uluslararası ve bölgesel aktör, Güvenlik Konseyi’nin getirdiği bağlayıcı yükümlülüklere aykırı olarak Libya’daki silah ambargosunu delmiş, isyancılara silah temin etmiş, muhalif gruplara destek olmak üzere sahaya askeri personelini göndermiştir.
• Kaddafi rejiminin devrilmesinden sonra Libya’da yönetim istikrarı sağlanamamış ve 2014 yılı itibariyle ülke, “yarışan meşruiyetlere” sahip yapılar arasında parçalanmıştır. Bu yapıların birbirleriyle olan silahlı çatışmalarında savaş suçlarının ve insanlığa karşı suçların işlendiğine ilişkin çok sayıda resmi rapor yayınlanmıştır.
• Devrim sonrasında uluslararası toplum tarafından Libya’nın meşru temsilcisi olarak görülen Milli Genel Kongre’ye bir tür darbe yapan ve Libya’nın doğu bölümünde nüfuz kurarak kendini bağlı Temsilciler Meclisi’nin kurulmasına ön ayak olan General Halife Hafter, bu raporda vaka incelemesi olarak ele alınan Ganfouda örneğinde görüldüğü üzere Libya’da işlediği birçok savaş suçuna rağmen Rusya, Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri, Rusya ve Fransa gibi birçok ülke tarafından desteklenmektedir.
• Sivilleri Kaddafi rejiminden korumak için askeri müdahaleye başvurmakta tereddüt etmeyen Birleşmiş Milletler, aynı kararlığı Kaddafi sonrası daha büyük ölçekli ve yoğunlukta mezalime uğrayan sivilleri korumak için göstermemiştir. Bunun en belirgin örneği, Libya’daki geçiş sürecinde yerel otoritelerin ulusal çabalarına yardımcı ve destekleyici olması için yetkilendirilmiş bir politik misyon olan BM Libya Destek Misyonu’nun, yetkilendirildiği sınırlı çerçeve içinde dahi gerçek anlamda bir varlık gösterememiş olmasıdır. Bu açık başarısızlığa ek olarak, uluslararası medyada da yer bulan ve UHAM’a konuşan Libyalı yetkililerin iddia ettiği üzere, önceki BM Libya Destek Misyonu Başkanlarından Bernardino Leon’un adı rüşvet skandallarına karışmıştır.
• Libya’ya ilişkin hemen her kararında insan hakları ve insancıl hukuk ihlallerini güçlü şekilde kınadığını dile getiren Güvenlik Konseyi’nin uygulamada iç barışın tesisini kolaylaştıracak elverişli ve ikna edici tedbirler alma konusunda başarısız olması ve güvenilirliğini yitirmiş BM organları ve yetkilileri dolayısıyla, Libya’daki BM varlığının ve BM himayesinde kurularak Libya’nın meşru temsilcisi kabul edilen Ulusal Mutabakat Hükümeti’nin (UMH) meşruiyeti sorgulanır hâle gelmiştir.

Written in Cairo and initially published in Buzzle, AfroArticles and the American Chronicle on 21st January 2011

Republished on Friday, 25 March 2011 here:
Tunisia, Gaddafi, Al-Qaradhawi, Islamism, Pan-Arabism, Tyranny, Democracy and Freemasonry
http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2011/03/tunisia-gaddafi-al-qaradhawi-islamism.html

Excerpt:
There is another parameter of the theatrical events that one must not ignore. Far from the noise of the Tunisian streets, safe from the bullets of the local police, joyfully living a lavish life that is reserved for the few top puppets of the international Freemasonry and Zionism, extremist sheikhs supported by the US, UK, French regimes welcome a brilliant future for the peoples of the region, if the orchestrated developments of Tunis happen to be repeated in Algiers, Tripoli, Khartoum, Cairo, Damascus and Amman.

These are the sheikhs of Satan; a typical example of extreme immorality, unprecedented deviance, and incomparable betrayal is the sheikh Al-Qaradhawi who, supported by the pedophile pseudo-princes of Qatar, evangelizes a supposedly Islamic Caliphate as supreme stage of the modern Islamism.

The evil, pseudo-Islamic state that the ignorant and pathetic sheikh evangelizes would bring forth the end of Islam itself, because this is the target of the Freemasonic Orientalists, who fabricated Islamism in their ateliers in Paris, Sorbonne, London, Oxford and Cambridge, and then projected it on the gullible and ignorant sheikhs of the detached Ottoman provinces during the 19th c. What sheikh Al-Qaradhawi ignores is that he personally stands on evil Western money (Qatari, Saudi and Emirati money being also Western), on evil colonial support, and on a 213-year anti-Islamic conspiracy. If for a moment the imbecile sheikh had been perilous to the West, they would have poisoned him at ease.

Maduro is a very good friend with the President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Maduro visited Turkey in October 2017 and Erdogan paid a return visit to Venezuela in December 2018. However, it is a well-known fact that the person lives 1 month whom Erdoğan said "mashallah". He previously visited Libya in November 2009, and then there was a mix up. Erdogan made his second visit in September 2011 after Gaddafi’s overthrow, a month later, Gaddafi was lynched. The same goes for Syria. Erdogan and Bashar al-Assad had made mutual visits. Later, however, Erdogan cooperated with the United States to overthrow Bashar al-Assad whom he said "my brother". Looking at what happened in the past, there is no choice but to call "the poor Maduro" for the future of the Venezuelan leader.

This paper is a highly contextualised study of the political, diplomatic, economic and military relations between Romania and Libya during the regimes of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Nicolae Ceau
escu, from the Libyan Revolution in September 1969 to the Romanian Revolution in December 1989. The analysis is based, in a significant amount, on the official archives of the Romanian Communist Party, as well as of the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The study aims to integrate the ideological, economical and politico-diplomatic
ambitions of the two leaders in the realities of the Cold War and the Middle Eastern conflict.

both Saudi Arabia and Libya are oil-dependent countries, yet the Arab spring produced different outcomes in each. As the uprising began, Qaddafi responded by cracking down cruelly on the opposition. During the first day of protests (15/02/11), several people were killed by the police4. Such violence then continued two days later on the official day of the revolt when more than a dozen protesters were massacred by Qaddafi’s forces5. After his supposed refusal to engage with the opposition, Qaddafi was, under the supervision of the international community, overthrown and killed by the rebels. In Saudi Arabia, by contrast, king Abdullah had to cope with only few protests, which were quickly repressed6. Moreover, the Saudis even managed to contain the revolts in neighbouring countries such as Bahrain. Thus, while a regime change occurred in Libya, King Abdullah managed to remain comfortably seated on his throne. This indicates that oil taken by itself cannot prevent the change of a regime that has become widely unpopular. Therefore, other factors must be taken into account.

In March 2011, around seven months before the brutal and sadistic murder of Brother Leader of Libya (that is what he preferred to be called), Moammar Gadhafi, I had written an article, " Gadhafi, Libya, counter-revolution, and the imperialist pack of hyenas " , which was first posted on http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com and later posted on my own web site http:// imperialismandthethirdworld.wordpress.com (1). That article had briefly described the great accomplishments of the 1969 Libyan Revolution, which was brought about under the leadership of Gadhafi. It also analyzed the nature and causes of some radical changes and contradictions in the Libyan policies and actions, in the aftermath of the Grand Betrayal of Socialism in the former USSR and China. Another article also included relevant information about some of these matters (2).

Gadhafi was forced to bend over backwards all the way, in order to adjust to the new international situation and balance of forces and to try to save Libya from the same kind of devastation, as was inflicted on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. However, none of his compromises and adjustments were enough to prevent the American and NATO aggression against him, his country, and his people. In retrospect, it would have been far better if he had stuck to his revolutionary principles, and policies based upon them. He was a strong supporter of many national liberation movements, and had extended crucial economic and military assistance to them in their struggle against imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. However, in face of US and NATO imperialist aggression against him and Libya, no one came to his aid. Everyone betrayed him, including the African Union, in the establishment and development of which, he had played a crucial role. Even Russia and China, with whom Libya had important political and economic relations, did nothing to counteract the imperialist aggression. The UN allowed itself to be used as a cover and tool for that aggression. Just like in Afghanistan and Iraq, most of the NATO and other European countries either participated in that imperialist war or condoned it. Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich monarchies were always against the progressive, socialist, and democratic ideas, policies, and actions of Gadhafi, and were happy to see him and Libya destroyed by imperialism.

The paper analyzes certain intra-European institutitional dynamics underpinning the formulation of EU migration policies, and explain which key issues remain unaddressed in the Commission's Third Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum dealing with 2011. The paper then proceeds to sketch a picture of the the current state of the EU’s border and migration system and the challenges it faces through such developments as the Frontex Agency, EUROSUR, the Arab Spring and ECtHR and ECJ verdicts.

Reduced English translation of the Russian original paper.

The fall of the Gaddafi’s government resulted in actual disintegration of the state due to the actualization of all its vulnerabilities:
preserving tribal structure;
regional disbalances (mainly in location of oil fields);
necessity to have an external enemy as a base for creating an image of combating united Libya;
necessity to have an authoritative and charismatic leader who can become a mediator / arbiter admitted by the majority of elites;
necessity to design a new system of distribution power and resources between differentr ethnic and tribal groups within the frames of generation change.
Falling oil prices, as well as long-lasting internal conflict contribute more to Libya’s disintegration. Penetration of radical ideas and movements make the internal political situation much more complicated. Libya was united mainly due to the external forces. The issue of refugees (which was more or less administrated by the Gaddafi’s regime) and general growth of terrorism danger can push the external actors to make real efforts towards the stabilization in the country. However, the analysis of these vulnerabilities shows that it will take long years with the uncertain results. Without external interference the process will last no less than one generation.

Written in Cairo and initially published on 20th January 2011 in AfroArticles, Buzzle and the American Chronicle
Republished on Friday, 25 March 2011 here:
http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2011/03/tunisia-gaddafi-al-qaradhawi-islamism.html
Excerpt:
Some issues are personal; and the worst personal damage that can happen to a Freemason is to be stolen by a non-Freemason; these evil persons take it very badly, because money is their sole 'god' and because they are idiotic enough to believe in their intellect’s superiority. In such cases, revenge is imperatively taken, and the cost of human life can suddenly become next to nothing.

Why among all the relatives of Zine al Abedine Ben Ali, his nephew, Imed Trabelsi, was butchered in a merciless way? Why bother to kill - with such passion, with such determination, and with such hatred - someone who was not in the front line of the Tunisian political life, being a mere businessman?

O presente guia de estudos visa fornecer ferramentas de discussão sobre o desenrolar do conflito líbio até o ano de 2011. Para isso, o trabalho contém um histórico sobre a política da Líbia que permite, nas seções seguintes, compreender a chegada da Primavera Árabe, da guerra civil e, finalmente, da intervenção estrangeira.

A pocos días de haberse cumplido cuatro años de la muerte del controversial ex líder y dictador libio, Muammar Al Gaddafi, Libia continúa sumida en el caos y muchos ya comienzan a hablar de su inexorable camino hacia convertirse en estado fallido.
En tanto, mientras las potencias occidentales se deshacen en esfuerzos diplomáticos para lograr la restauración del orden político del país, sus anuncios día a día distan de los datos arrojados por la realidad.

Gaddafis Libyen nahm eine zwiespältige Haltung gegenüber seiner Berbersprachigen Bevölkerung ein: Zum einen wurde die Kultur und Architektur der Berber (und auch der Tuareg) um den Tourismus zu fördern in einem folkloristischen Sinn angepriesen, und werbewirksam vermarktet. Zum anderen wurde jede Form einer kulturellen oder gar politischen Mobilisierung vehement unterdrückt und die Berber der allgemeinen Arabisierungspolitik unterworfen.

Welche Rolle spielt Gaddafi für die Tuareg? Was tut er für sie, und was verlangt er als Gegenleitung von ihnen? In diesem Artikel möchte ich das komplexe Beziehungsfeld zwischen Gaddafi und den nigrischen und malischen Tuareg aufrollen. Weiters kommen die Motivationen von Tuareg-Rebellen, Banditen und Söldnern zur Sprache, die keine ideologischen Zugeständnisse an Gaddafi sind, sondern Strategien, um der Armut zu entkommen.