factbat.com

Quote:"They have trained people to be hired thugs whom assist countries within revolutions or coups, or as most often occurs, aid governments in suppressing protests or rebellions." That sounds possible to me. How do you link them to Gaddafi, though? After seeing that the ultimate goal of this NATO action is to topple the regime and kill Gaddafi, doesn't it make more sense that they were used to create chaos and gain public support for the NATO military action, claiming that it was government snipers that shot the protesters? I mean, how can you prove who the sniper was, isn't it a point of sniper to not be seen? As we remember, similar claim was made by the unknown "witnesses" that the Libyan army was cluster bombing Misratah, which was later also proven wrong http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25004 then we have the case of Gaddafi's air-force bombing civillians, again not documented or proven http://rt.com/news/airstrikes-libya-russian-military/ So, while I am inclined to believe Blackwater and/or similar forces are engaged in Libya as we speak, I am asking you to tell me how did you reach the conclusion that it was Gaddafi or the Libyan government who hires them?

You are neglecting the primary evidence, which is the fact that the Qaddafi regime is responsible for all official reports coming out of Libya. He has also lied ad nauseam on video to nationally and internationally accredited media organizations. Your comment is strangely intept, and clearly devoid of any fact. Maybe you need to read the article again...veeery sloooowly, so that you can understand exactly what evidence is used to show the possibility that they are linked to Qaddafi. I clearly stated it was because of the MO (modus operandi) of the mercenaries that were being employed. You appear to be one who is distracted by the generalities of the operations being performed, rather than informed by them. You need to be objective, or you run the risk of falling off course. You claim it makes more sense to consider them to have been used to foment the crisis in the first place, and justify the NATO mission. You sound like either a complete idiot or a shill. Really now, have you so easily forgotten the last four months of Nazi style repression exposed in Libya, and the last 4 decades it has been employed in that nation? I have no time for such ignorance and sophistry. Go ply your confusion elswhere!

Furthermore, just because Russia claims that the United States has manufactured the reports of air strikes by Qaddafi does not make it true. Russia wants Qaddafi in power because he is a dictator and autocrat. He also would be the perfect ally for them, and would pay triple the dollars for any arms they could sell him because no legitimate country will arm him anymore. The people of Libya have done much to expose the actions by Qaddafi, and there are many videos of bombing raids by Qaddafi fighter jets. As to who is flying those jets, it is irrelevent. The fact is that they are employed by Qaddafi, and he is clearly out of favor with much of the world. Do you not think that Qaddafi would have already exposed any inequities in the air force reports? He has lied often concerning the events, even claiming that his people are being led by Al Qaeda. Do you not think that he would have said something denying the use of force against his own people if the reports were false. He hasn't. All he has done is attempt to indemnify his bombing raids and ground assaults. You are an idiot Moonpurpose, and you are being manipulated by unconfirmed reports coming from a Russian government that is completely unreliable, and furthermore, is a near mirror image of the Qaddafi regime. I generally tell people like you to fuck off, but I will spare you...this time.

I'm sorry but you give no evidence what-so-ever. I saw so much more evidence in support of Gaddafi then against him. Let alone atrocities done by Al Qaeda rebels..they are horendous..

All your article is Hollywood'struth.
In real world this are a little bit differnt.
A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.”
From March 31 to April 6, the mission visited the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the region of Tripolitania; from April 19 to April 25, it visited the rebel capital of Benghazi and the surrounding Cyrenaica region in eastern Libya.
The report identifies four factions among the members of the eastern Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC). Apart from a minority of “true democrats,” the other three factions comprise partisans of a restoration of the monarchy that was overthrown by Qaddafi in 1969, Islamic extremists seeking the establishment of an Islamic state, and former fixtures of the Qaddafi regime who defected to the rebels for opportunistic or other reasons.Benghazi is well-known as a hot-bed of religious extremism. The Cyrenaica region has a long Islamist tradition going back to the Senussi brotherhood. Religious fundamentalism is much more evident here than in the western part of the country. Women are completely veiled from head to foot. They cannot drive and their social life is reduced to a minimum. Bearded men predominate. They often have the black mark of piety on their foreheads [the “zebibah,” which is formed by repeated prostration during Muslim prayers].
It is a little-known fact that Benghazi has become over the last 15 years the epicenter of African migration to Europe. This traffic in human beings has been transformed into a veritable industry, generating billions of dollars.
you can read all article on http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/06/al-qeada-and-libyan-revolution.html

wow,you certainly know how to treat your readers. Maybe you are the one who should see the doctor,factbat.

I think you read to much propaganda..factbat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLt_PTCg1bQ&feature=player_embedded

2 million people marched in support of Gaddafi, and against NATO agression.. that says a lot..

1. rebels are a minority, and by no means represent a 'popular uprising'
2. Gaddafi is very popular among Libyans
3. If he was killing civilians, he wouldn't be so popular among the people
4. whole Libya has 5,5million citizents,and there were 2 million of them just on a square in tripoli, and along the streets with 4.5km long flag..supporting gaddafi ..
5. CNN, BBC,and Al Jazeera are full of lies..

@ Joseph: One glaring fact you fail to mention is that all of the inhospitable activities in Libya in the past which you mention happened while Qaddafi was in power. You say that "Two French think tanks conclude that Jihadists have played a predominant role in the Eastern-Libyan rebellion...". Assuming that these alleged "thinkers" are correct, one must take into consideration that the Libyan people were recEIving no assistance in their attempts to peacefully protest the Qaddafi regime...while Qaddafi henchmen were murdering them. Furthermore, it was the French, Britain and the United States who armed Qaddafi to the teeth and enabled him to wage war against his own people. It is no secret that Qaddafi is a terrorist and assisted in the bombing of commercial airlines. He appears to enjoy murdering innocent civilians. It is also no secret that the humanitarian mission in Libya has been engaged by several nations, and was carefully scrutinized for over a month while Qaddafi was murdering his own people. Maybe you would like it if the US government engaged in such operations, and the world just turned a blind eyel. The fact is the religious extremism fourishes in areas of poverty and repression ... two of the most prevalent characteristics of the Qaddafi era. People were routinely jailed, tortured and murdered for even so much as opening their mouth in public to question the Qaddafi regime. That there will now occur a period of destabilization as the country attempts to transition to a more respectable system is to be expected. Anyone who is too cowardly or too inept to meet this crisis head on should relegate their opinions to the back of the room for the moment. There will be plenty of time for lackadaisical contemplation and idiotic idealism once the real work has been accomplished. Then you have the floor. You claim the French question "Western military intervention" when it was a French fighter jet that fired the first missile. As well, the fact is that America is only a small part of the equation. The UAE (United Arab Emirates) has both supported the rebellion in Libya and has officially recognized the Libyan Transitional Counsel. The misinformation is classic autocratic and communist propaganda, so why do you claim that it is being perpetrated by the West. Putin, prior to the implementation of the humanitarian operation called the plan "medieval crusades", and Russia abstained from the vote on the resolution to protect the Libyan people. But then Russia has been a longtime supporter of the methods of oppression and exclusion that Qaddafi employs. The Arab League first supported the resolution, and then when the chips were down and it was obvious that this was not a game, they wimped out and criticized it. Then other nations, such as Germany, who refuse to lend a hand in the creation and protection of freedom and autonomy (they are a socialist country by the way) used the Arab Leagues criticism to vindicate their choice not to get involved. The scenario (which has been backed and engage by several international powers) is mostly a controversial issue because the request by Libyans of "no foreign troops on the ground" has been honored, and the many countries that will not help if they are not allowed to impose their will within the borders of that nation are lying through their teeth and attempting to obscure their primary objective in the case.

Adam: You claim I am the one "reading too much propaganda". However, it is quite clear you cannot even recognize propaganda when it slaps you in the face with a dead fish. How then can you accuse me of what you obviously are powerless to even identify regardless that it stinks the high heaven?

To Wow: What is your problem? Are you such an insensible prude that you can't handle my poking a little fun at you morons and employing a little profanity for once. It was mostly a humorous way to poke a jab at someone who clearly intended to say the same thing, just in a round-a-bout way ... so blow it out your ass!

HanzK: First of all, the video is in a foreign language and I cannot understand it. However, the fact is that it only shows evidence that propaganda is effective, and we have already established this. Simply the fact that Qaddafi can lie to the people and get them to gather against their own best interest is no great achievement. Qaddafi is famous for paying those who agree with him, and giving them all manner of amenities and rewards for supporting his ideology, and perpetrating extreme reprisal and repression on those who do not. He is also well known for buying support of children and women, placing them in group living settings and propagandizing orphanages. It is common for dictatorial leaders to pit their nation's peoples against each other, and fomenting vast amounts of bigotry and extremism to divide the society so that they are much easier to control. THE TRUE TEST OF A GREAT LEADER IS HOW CAPABLE THEY ARE OF BRINGING THEIR PEOPLE TOGETHER AND PROVIDING INSPIRATION AND EGALITARIAN PRINCIPALS FOR THEM TO BUILD A COOPERATIVE UNION UPON, THUS ENABLING THE PEOPLE TO PROPERLY DECIDE THEIR FATE. Qaddafi is a simpleton and a criminally minded perversion of humanity. You can worship him if you wish, but it will only serve to stifle your soul. Furthermore, there is no actual proof of just why the people were gathered and waving Qaddafi posters, nor is there proof that the video was made since the beginning of the Libya crisis, or that there are two million people there simply to support Qaddafi's regime. People gather for many reasons, and there could be any number of various groups there. Some of them could simply be there because it was billed as a national event. Some could be there because they feel they may be targeted as a "dissenter" if they do not. Some could be paid. Some could be ordered to be there because they are part of the regime. But mostly, the majority could be there simply due to the fact that Qaddafi has created a veritable Nazi state that in many ways makes Hitler's tactics look like child's play. And he has bred a society of people whom are largely terrified to even speak in public for fear of reprisal.

How unfortunate that you people would be so gratuitously opposed to the freedom that the Libyan rebels have been forced to demand at the risk of their very lives. I am embarrassed to think that we are of the same species.

F R E E D O M ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

OK...lets start from the beginning
1."You are neglecting the primary evidence, which is the fact that the Qaddafi regime is responsible for all official reports coming out of Libya." - The report stating that it wasn't Libyan government forces who used cluster bombs in Misratah was made by Human Rights Watch, Libyan government couldn't control those info at the time, cause they didn't have the control over Misratah at the time Human Rights Watch was there.
2."Your comment is strangely intept, and clearly devoid of any fact. Maybe you need to read the article again...veeery sloooowly, so that you can understand exactly what evidence is used to show the possibility that they are linked to Qaddafi. I clearly stated it was because of the MO (modus operandi) of the mercenaries that were being employed. "-OK, I've read your article "veeery slowly" as you suggested and still haven't found any evidence to link Gaddafi to the Blackwater and similar hired agencies. In fact, in my comment I haven't disputed the MO of those hired armies being similar to that used in Libya, I actually agreed ( maybe you should read it veeery slowly), I asked you how did you link them to Gaddafi? The only thing besides the MO ( which is not disputed, but doesn't prove that Gaddafi hired them )you offer in your article, that is supposed to link them to Gaddafi is this: "Reports state that the mercenaries are being flown in from Africa, which has been a primary stomping grounds for several for-profit security agencies, especially Sandline and its affiliates." - OK, but what reports? You haven't mentioned the resource for that statement. What proof do you have of Gaddafi hiring mercenaries in the first place? If you have, please share it with the rest of the world. It seems to me you have provided more evidence of other counties condoning with the use of those forces, such as Britain, you also reported that America used them in Iraq, You even linked some UN officials who support their use. Who is it that's bombing Libya now with every intention of staying there for a long time? NATO, under the resolution by the UN.
3. "You need to be objective, or you run the risk of falling off course." - That's the pot calling the kettle black...at the time you wrote this article you were clearly under the influence of the Reuters and AP propaganda machine, not to mention the social media campaign and you didn't bother to check those allegations.
4. "You claim it makes more sense to consider them to have been used to foment the crisis in the first place, and justify the NATO mission. You sound like either a complete idiot or a shill. Really now, have you so easily forgotten the last four months of Nazi style repression exposed in Libya, and the last 4 decades it has been employed in that nation? I have no time for such ignorance and sophistry. Go ply your confusion elswhere!" - Now, that's just plain insulting, and I don't remember insulting you in my comment. I hope you don't always answer that way to your readers. Then again, mine was the first comment on that article...if insulting everybody who dares to comment on your article is the way things are done here, maybe that's the reason nobody comments. As for " NAZI style repression exposed" that's what I mean when I say you took some things Reuters, AP and the social networks reported, for granted. I suggest You educate yourself about Libya before and after Gaddafi, and then compare it to your country.
5. "Furthermore, just because Russia claims that the United States has manufactured the reports of air strikes by Qaddafi does not make it true" - I agree, but then, just because America, Britain, France media says so, doesn't make it true either. Do you want me to state their wast interests in Africa?
6."The people of Libya have done much to expose the actions by Qaddafi, and there are many videos of bombing raids by Qaddafi fighter jets" - Give me ONE conclusive video showing Libyan air-force bombing targets on the ground.
7. "Do you not think that Qaddafi would have already exposed any inequities in the air force reports? He has lied often concerning the events, even claiming that his people are being led by Al Qaeda. Do you not think that he would have said something denying the use of force against his own people if the reports were false. He hasn't." -Wrong, he did, both him and Saif al Islam have been claiming the opposite from the beginning, but who's listening. Don't you think American satellite would have captured something like that if it accured, and if it did, don't you think they would publish it by now? Still, we haven't seen any conclusive evidence something like that occured, only allegations so far. As for rebels being led by Al Qaeda, I don't know about being led, because there are different fractions in their orders, but Al Qaeda is probably involved and you can find out something about that in this article where you will also find the 2007 West Point study showing the high concentration of the extremists in the Eastern Libya region, as opposed to the rest of Libya. http://www.americanpendulum.com/2011/03/2007-west-point-study-shows-libyan-rebels-come-from-main-al-qaeda-suicide-bomber-recruitment/
To conclude, I never tell people who question my claims to fuck off, usually people who lack real arguments use insults, I try to answer to the best of my abilities instead.

First of all MoonPurpose, I never said there was any conclusive evidence to support a finding of fact. I only questioned the likelihood based on current reports. Furthermore, the use of mercenaries is one of the most turbid areas of security force in the world today, and thus concrete evidence is typically shifty and difficult to come by. This is why I took great care to research their tactics, and the way they differ from official military policies and actions.

I never said anything about "cluster bombs", nor do I care that Human Rights Watch claims that they were not used by Qaddafi. It is almost certain that they also have no concrete proof.

At any rate, the reports coming out of Libya are shoddy at best, and often must rely on cell phone video and personal accounts. However, the fact is that Qaddafi used planes to fire into crowds of protesters, and tanks and armored vehicles to suppress growing support for his removal from power. This is classic dictator oppression and is what caused much of the crisis. Qaddafi was well aware of the unrest spreading in the Middle East, and headed toward his country. And he stated many times that he would use force, "to the last man, woman and child...to the last bullet". He also consistently took credit for aerial raids and ground shelling, inlcuding attacking with war ships on his coast. Simply the fact that he consistently claimed that there was no violence or problems in his nation and that ther was merely a small cadre of "Al Qaeda terrorists" that were feeding people drugs and brainwashing them into rebellion is not in any way a denial of violence. He consistently has taken credit for bombing his own country, and more than once said that he would "set the nation on fire", or turn it into "hellfire on Earth" or whatever.

This is one of the reasons I said I wanted to tell you to "eff off". You believe much like a religious extremist, in that you demand that if somebody can't, or just doesn't want to, prove you wrong, then you are right. I never told you to "fuck off" I merely said I felt like it. And was primarily just joking, because your refusal to understand the gravity of the situation, or the nature of the article, is irritating. I never prevent anyone from speaking their mind. Nor do I care if somebody tells me to "fuck off". You appear to be far too thin skinned for this type of subject matter.

I said that "Qaddafi is responsible for all official reports coming out of Libya" because that is the fact. Almost all other reports are on condition of anonymity, or clearly unconfirmed, and furthermore denied almost invariably by Qaddafi and his counterparts. Too many denials of fact are logical reason to question somebody's veracity. Moreover, Qaddafi is a well documented liar in some of most audacious respects. He also typically appears rather mentally unstable.

What is remarkable is that you even quoted me verbatim as stating a "the possiblity that they are linked to Qaddafi" (the pivotal word here being "POSSIBILITY"). Yet you still respond by claiming you "have read the article ... and still don't find any evidence to link Qaddafi to the Blackwater ... organization". I never said you would find any smoking gun, only that the powder burns were very telling and create a reasonable suspicion of collusion, and thus are grounds for further investigation.

French speaking mercenaries were both witnessed entering the country by Libyans, and even captured and question and told their captors that they were flown there to quell the uprising. This was reported by the Al Arabiya Network back in Feb 2011. There is a link about it here:(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-protests-2.html)
This was in the beginning weeks of the crisis. Whether they are legitimate reports is not the primary concern of the article. Just that there are reports. However, even African analyst Na'eem Jeenah, executive director of the Afro-Middle East center in Johannesburg appeared to confirm the reports, although he stated that the numbers were likely very low, possibly in the hundreds. But who could expect anything less since violence against them was escalating due to their paid involvement. It sounds more like protectionary reporting, than legitimate data. Here is a link (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Experts-Disagree-on-African-Mercenaries-in-Libya-117156253.html)
Jeenah and other analysts said "Qaddafi has a long history of using mercenaries from Chad, Nideria, Niger and perhaps even the Central African Republic ... some mercenaries were flown into Tripoli in the first few days of the uprising ... there is an established relationship between Qaddafi and these individuals that would enable such a quick response".

The only evidence offered in contrast to his report is the belief that it may be hasty since the mercenaries were mobilized so quickly in this instance, as stated by Issaka Souare. However, this is not credible since Qaddafi made it perfectly clear that he meant to subdue any protests with force. As I stated before, Qaddafi himself said that "Libya is not Egypt" and he would not step down, but would use force. He damned well knew what was coming because it likely began much earlier than was reported due to the fact that Libyan media is controlled by Qaddafi, and he was preventing any media coverage of the growing crisis.

You claim I am not being objective, although you have absolutely no grounds to make such a statement. You even claim to know what news agencies I was "under the influence of", and "didn't bother to check those allegations". Which shows YOUR clear lack of objectivity in the matter, as you make bombastic assumptions and false statements; a rather exfoliating development, and more than proving my point. If you will note, I never claimed anything to be fact that was not supported by proof. I only offered objective analyses. How you perceive those analyses is not my concern. You are responsible for you own assumptions, not me.

My comments about the "Nazi style repression" was from reports made by the people of Libya who have for decades been afraid to speak openly of their dissatisfaction with the abuse, repression and discrimination perpetrated by Qaddafi because they would be either jailed or killed. I also base them on a recorded phone conversation with a Tripoli resident who gave detailed accounts of this environment of reprisal, including the fact that every Qaddafi supporter being shown on Libyan media in Tripoli was being paid by Qaddafi. And that "everybody in Tripoli knows that nobody supports him". He even gave evidence that proved all of the supporters were from other cities to the far south west of Libya, You can hear the call on the website (http://www.libyafeb17.com/).

What is also remarkable about your post is that you claim over 2 million people turned out for a rally supporting Qaddafi. However, the truth coming from nearly every report is that it was only a few thousand people. Furthermore, there are many reports coming from local Libyans who say their families were threatened and members that were being held captive were executed because they refused to attend the rally. A local man, Mohammed yesterday said that 4 or 5 days ago a member of one of Qaddafi's revolutionary committees approached his brother's family in Tripoli and told him "We have your son, he is being held at Abu Salim prison. If your family does not come out to demonstrate on Friday, you will never see him again" Hours after thousands packed Green Square in Tripoli, to cheer Qaddafi, the still warm body of his nephew was dumped outside the family home with two bullets in his head. Why, you might ask? Because this particular Mohammed is part of a family of around 50 adult males, and Qaddafi wanted as many people in the square as he could get for his propaganda machine. This appears to have only been one of many such incidences of oppression, coersion and murder in Qaddafi's rally efforts. I report this to you as evidence because it is not difficult to hear the ring of truth in these peoples' reports, or the stale stench of deception in those coming from the Qaddafi regime.

These people are heartboken because they believed that their relatives were already dead and that Qaddafi was just making idle threats. Then their sons, cousins and nephews appeared on their doorsteps with fresh bullet wounds and warm blood after the rally.

What a great leader you appear to worship. And you wonder why I may sound a little insulting in my responses to you. You are the one who is insulting, and to the human race in general, because you appear far too comfortable assuming that the crisis is a mere triviality of humanity, and that the lives in jeapordy are of no real concern. Maybe you should join the Qaddafi regime, it appears you would fit right in.

To tell you the truth, all I really needed was to see Qaddafi's son, with his lying, smug mouth and cowardly eyes reaching for a clue, denying everything, to peer deep into his despicable soul. It is not difficult to see why these peoples' primary concern is the control of the media. Viewers like me can see right through them whenever they are exposed to the light. I likely could smell that skulking creep in the dark.

I grow sick of your sophistry. Why don't you prove to me that there have been no bombing raids by Qaddafi. Since you actually have the audacity to say "show me one video that conclusively proves" that he has. You are a sick monkey, buddy. And I am done with you for the moment.

One other comment MP. You actually claim that Qaddafi denied it was him who bombed or shot his people with jets.WRONG! HE DENIED IT EVER HAPPENED AT ALL, OR THAT THERE WAS ANY HUMANITARIAN CRISES OCCURRING IN HIS COUNTRY! That is what shows him to be a lying fool, and despot who certainly was responsible.

This is what I mean by you are an irritating sycophant and barely worth the time it takes to respond to you. So quit complaining about how I address you. It makes you even more irritating.

1. "First of all MoonPurpose, I never said there was any conclusive evidence to support a finding of fact. I only questioned the likelihood based on current reports." Yes you did, at the very begining of the article you said: "There is much evidence to assume that Aegis Defense Services, DynCorp, and/or Blackwater company - closely affiliated with the defunct Sandline security company - are being paid by Mohammar Gadhafi to send mercenaries to Libya, to do his dirty work." And then failed to present any evidence. If there is "much evidence", why is that?
2. "I never said anything about "cluster bombs", nor do I care that Human Rights Watch claims that they were not used by Qaddafi. It is almost certain that they also have no concrete proof." They do, which you would know if you have read the article I offered you. Let me quote just one part of the article arguing the cluster bombs being fired in Misratah and the evidence that question they belonged to Libya:"The incorrect reports that Spain sold the MAT-120 to Libya.

We have found the reports that Instalaza, the Spanish manufacturer of the MAT-120, has admitted selling these weapons to Libya turn out to be baseless. In fact Instalaza have denied selling these weapons to Libya.

The munitions found in Misrata were dated 2007 (batches 02/07 and 03/07) and the Spanish government ceased issuing any export licences on 11 June 2008.

The false reports that these munitions were sold to Libya rest on a misreading of the Spanish Government’s National Reports export data for arms exports – and this is a misreading which has been contained in media reports since a 15 September 2008 article in Solidaridad. It seems likely that the organisers of the bombing of Misrata read these reports and assumed that Libya possessed the MAT-120.

The Spanish government reports show licenses were issued by Spain for exports to Libya in category 4, which includes bombs and missiles, in 2007 and an export was made in 2008 in this category. The amounts were for 3 licenses in 2007 valued at a total of 3,823,500 Euros and actual exports under 2 licences of 3,839,21 Euros in 2008. There is no detail in the reports on these shipments and what they consisted of or who the companies were (although detail is separately given on dual-use equipment in 2008 – radars and lab equipment).

Of the countries to whom Spain sold category 4 munitions in 2007 and 2008 only three countries are involved in the Libyan conflict and have not signed up to the cluster munitions treaty – and those countries are Libya, Qatar and the USA. But everyone has rushed to blame Libya based on a misreading of this report.

However, analysis of official Spanish government documents shows Spanish company Instalaza didn’t export cluster weapons to Libya in 2007/08.

In fact the MAT-120, as a mortar round, is a category 3 munition (ammunition), not a category 4 one (bomb), and Spain didn’t export any category 3 munitions to Libya in 2007 or 2008. So the bombs Spain exported to Libya in 2008 were not the MAT-120 but something else. Spain did export category 3 munitions to the USA.

Below is an extract from the Spanish National Report on Exports of 2007 showing the way different items are categorised:

DESCRIPTION OF THE 22 ARTICLES FIGURING ON THE LIST OF DEFENCE MATERIAL (ROYAL DECREE 1782/2004 OF 30 JULY)

2 Smooth-bore weapons with a calibre of 20 mm or more:
Firearms (including pieces of artillery), rifles, howitzers, cannons, mortars, anti-tank weapons, projectile launchers, flame throwers, recoilless rifles, signature reduction devices, military smoke, gas and pyrotechnic projectors or generators and weapons sights.

3 Ammunition, devices and components
Ammunition for the weapons subject to control by articles 1, 2 or 12. Fusesetting devices including cases, links, bands, power supplies with high operational output, sensors, submunitions

4 Bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles
Bombs, torpedoes, grenades, smoke canisters, rockets, mines, missiles, depth charges, demolition charges, “pyrotechnic” devices, cartridges and simulators, smoke grenades, incendiary bombs, missile rocket nozzles and re-entry vehicle nosetips.

These categories, used in the Spanish Report, are in line with those of the Common Military List of the European Union.

This means that the contention that the MAT-120, the mortar fired ammunition was exported to Libya from Spain is based on a misreading of the report. In fact, according to the Report, Libya could not have been supplied with the MAT-120.

Of the countries to which category 3 exports were actually made in 2007 and 2008 (after the date of manufacture of the bombs found in Misrata and before the the Spanish government banned their export) only the following country has not signed the Convention against Cluster Munitions and is involved in the conflict in Libya: The USA

The weapons systems trail.

A limited number of weapons systems can be used to fire the MAT-120 and these include the USA-built Combat Boat 90H (CB-90) with the AMOS system on board which is manufactured under licence in the USA by AAI Corp." I am sorry to make such a long quote, but You obviously didn't bother to read the article at all.
3. "French speaking mercenaries were both witnessed entering the country by Libyans, and even captured and question and told their captors that they were flown there to quell the uprising." Thank you for posting those resources after all, and I will take them into consideration, but let me just point out that there are also reports of French mercenaries or "private security contractors" working with the rebels. Resource "The New York Times" as of May the 12th http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/africa/13benghazi.html?_r=1
As for the claim that 2 millions had gathered in Tripoli to show the support, I never claimed such thing, You got me confused with somebody else, but I feel the picture is worth a 1000 words, so I suggest you see this video shot from many angles and try to estimate how many people were there and how long was the Libyan flag, that those same news agencies described as couple of hundred meters long. http://vimeo.com/25897585 My friend who was on the said gathering on the July 1st. and had shot it with his camera too, says a different story than a Libyan who said he was blackmailed to do so. So I guess each one of us chooses who to believe.

Let me just correct one of my previous comments that said:"The report stating that it wasn't Libyan government forces who used cluster bombs in Misratah was made by Human Rights Watch, Libyan government couldn't control those info at the time, cause they didn't have the control over Misratah at the time Human Rights Watch was there." It was Human Rights Watch that provided the evidence the cluster bombs were used in Misratah, they collected the evidence and provided the photo showing the lot number etc, they were also quick to blame Gaddafi for that, because they thought Libyan army was in possesion of them and the wrong assumption they can only be shot from ground. It was "Human Rights Investigations" that analised those evidence and showed that it couldn't have been the Libyan forces who cluster bombed Misratah and provided the alternative explanation. Sorry for the confusion, it wasn't intended. But that, even more shows that Human Rights Watch wasn't under any guidance of the regime, just the opposite, when publishing the evidence of the bombing.

Holy crap! MP, it is difficult to decide whether you are a deceptive liberal shill, or just an astonishingly inept moron. As stated, my intention was to raise the question. Primarily because I don't live in Libya, and there is no way to conclusively substantiate any claims whatsoever. I don't give a fat rat's flying fuck at a rolling shit doughnut who made the report, people lie, and for myriad reasons. Some of them well intended and most of them not. Either way, lies cause problems. Just like you are by intending to substantiate lies because you say they come from a reputable source. In times of crisis, the reputable sources are the ones who are typically used to spread the most misinformation. No, they don't necessarily lie outright, they generally just leave out the most important information so that people draw the wrong conclusions.

You sound like a complete idiot, and you quite literally cannot see past your own nose. It is almost painful to read your bombastic blasts of half baked statistical flatulence. You present as a truly reprehensible wind bag...who’s ramblings reek of bias. You act as if some report on the source of the weaponry actually precludes the possibility that Qaddafi was in possession of them. You talk as if there is an invisible shield which stops all illegal arms from entering a country, even though illegal arms deals are some of the most prolific, and lucrative, black market exchanges in the world today.

It is obvious you have your mind set on the assumption that the United States bombed Libya as a means of creating the crisis that now exists, even though it would not serve this nation's interest's one iota...not even the treasonous filth that now inhabits its federal government and some security agencies.

You appear obsessed with ONE REPORT by ONE AGENCY and you do not seem to be able to see the forest for the trees.

As stated in the article (and substantiated by the evidence you claim I never provided), Sandline and Blackwater have been involved in all manner of illegal and black market dealings - including human trafficking and the illegal sale of arms to embargoed nations. Also backed by evidence you claim does not exist, is the fact that Blackwater and other agencies like them have routinely used South Africa as a staging and training area. This clearly shows the possibility, and even the likelihood, that Qaddafi could have easily procured the munitions you have described.

Furthermore, the United States has been guilty in the past of supplying Qaddafi with the arms he has used to attack his own people. But in contrast, in 2008/09 congress balked repeatedly to the proposition of helping him to upgrade his war machine to the tune of $77 million. Yes, I understand that there are idiots in this country as well, such as Barack Obama, who was in favor of the agreement. And while his attempts to help Qaddafi upgrade his troop carriers - and thereby increasing his ability to mobilize - would appear to lend credence to assumptions that Obama is opposed to the Arab Spring revolution, questions concerning possible involvement in covert actions with Blackwater - to the same ends - do not carry an equal level of merit.

Simply the fact that Obama is a treasonous idealist who dances to the tune of autocrats and socialist dictators does not somehow indemnify Qaddafi, nor warrant any denial that he is both perfectly capable of procuring the weapons you describe, and more than willing to use them on his own people.

For Pete’s sake MP, the man has clearly taken complete responsibility for the entire fiasco in many statements where he claims that he will crush what began as a peaceful rebellion. And as stated previously, QADDAFI NEVER CLAIMED HE DID NOT STRAIF HIS OWN PEOPLE WITH HEAVY MACHINE GUN FIRE FROM WARPLANES…HE CLAIMED IT NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS HIM TO BE ENTIRELY CULPABLE IN THE AFFAIR, AND GUILTY OF PERPETRATING THE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST UNARMED AND PEACEFUL PROTESTERS.

Qaddafi has also, ad infinitum, contradicted himself by first claiming that there was no actual crisis in his country, and that there was only a mere microcosm of Al Qaeda led terrorists attempting to destabilize his country. And then he let fly with the rage as he vowed to fight to “the last man…last bullet”. And for what MP? You know damned well what - Nothing more than SIMPLE REQUESTS THAT HE CEASE AND DESIST ALL AGGRESSION AGAINST THE PEACEFUL UPRISING OCCURRING AMONG A MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENRY IN HIS COUNTRY.

THE PEACEFUL PROTESTS THAT WERE HEADED HIS WAY, AFTER THE DEMANDS FOR FREEDOM CULMINATED IN THE OUSTER OF MUBARACK IN EGYPT, WERE MORE POWERFUL THAN HE, AND HE KNEW FULL WELL HIS PLASTIC IMAGE AND JUVENILE GRASP ON POWER WERE SOON TO BE OBLITERATED. HOW TRITE THAT PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU APPEAR TO WORSHIP THIS SMUG SIMPLETON OF SMUTTY SMITHERENES.

I find it rather telling that you refuse to even consider the fact that all of the reports are malleable and cannot be completely substantiated by either of us, and thus you speak of “who we choose to believe”.

I’ll tell yo what MP, since you have such a thick skull, I’ll “splain” it to you ONE MORE TIME: I never said I BELIEVED anything. I merely INTENDEED TO EXFOLIATE THE POSSIBLILITIES according to what was being reported, and made ASSESSMENTS AS TO WHICH SIDE MAY BE MORE CREDIBLE.

I also clearly outlined the evidence that shows there are many faction from many countries whom support for-hire security organizations such as Blackwater and Sandline. Which clearly precludes any supposition that their activities are inexplicably reserved to any one country or one government.

The battle being waged is against bombastic idealism, and the conflagrating religious extremism and hatred that it creates. This battle is being waged both inside and between the nations of the world, and it often crosses even the most securely guarded boundaries with little or no obstruction at all.

You are intending to argue within a vacuum that does not actually exist, and you are clearly intent on taking sides. I, on the other hand, am not…regardless of how craftily you attempt to make it appear as if I am.

One of the more glaring developments (which I have predicted often - read my other articles on here concerning the crisis) is the Libyan peoples’ reaction to their first taste of freedom. As well as the nature of the reports coming from those who are witnessing the crisis first hand, since they are the ones paying the ultimate price.

Yes, I understand that you are a religious extremist and love oppression and authoritarian rule because you believe that such doctrines of hatred and exclusion are effective structures for the governance of a society.

However, you are sorely mistaken, and the Qaddafi’s of the world whom you daily bow prostate in worship of will feed on your flesh and pick you bones clean once you are no longer useful to them.

GHD Australia
GHD Straightener
ghd styling