Anniversary of Gaddafi’s Murder – Part II

Dear Readers:

Today finishing up  this piece by Darya Mitina.  Commemorating the 5-year anniversary of Colonel Gaddafi’s brutal murder at the hands of American-backed violent jihadists affiliated with Al Qaeda.  (Just tellin’ it like it is, bros…)

A Debt Delayed Is Still A Debt To Pay

Russia’s role in the Libyan disaster was totally un-laudable.  Yesterday we discussed how the earlier pro-American Russian government of the 1990’s went along with Western economic sanctions against Libya, even refusing to pony up some cash that was owed to Libya by the former Soviet Union.  Two decades later, and the Russian Federation had partially dug its way out from under American vassalage, and yet still tended to bend to the West in key international issues.  Even after the Iraq War; even after it was crystal clear to a foetus in the womb that America was pursuing a policy of hegemonistic aggression directed at the overthrow of secular Arab governments — even then Russia turned a blind eye to the vicious economic, political, propagandistic, and ultimately military campaign that was being waged against Libya.  In March of 2011 Russia had the opportunity to veto UN Security Council Resolution #1973, which laid the basis for the destruction of this sovereign Arab state.  As with many U.S. crimes against humanity, the resolution was worded using pseudo-humanitarian language, setting up a “no-fly” zone to protect the Al Qaeda militias who had taken over parts of the city of Benghazi.  Recall that Gaddafi called these guys “terrorists” and “rats” and vowed to drive them out of the nest they had set up for themselves in Benghazi.  America and her allies (especially France, playing a leading role here) took umbrage at the words “rats” and rushed to protect their client jihadists.  They instituted a no-fly zone over Benghazi.   This no-fly zone then morphed into an all-out air war against Libya.  In effect, NATO became both the air force and the air cover for Al Qaeda in its Libyan base.

Russia washed its hands of Libya, and now is forced to fight in Syria

The resolution to destroy Libya passed the Security Council by 10 votes, with none against, and 5 abstentions.  The 5 abstainers were:  Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Russia.  By abstaining they allowed the dogs of war to prevail.  As Mitina points out, there are times when abstention is an even greater crime than engaging on the wrong side.

For the next five years the more sentient among the Russian citizenry, those who follow international news, were horrified (in the main) at the ensuing ramifications:  the bombing of Tripoli, the triumphal jeep convoys of the Mad Max jihadists bouncing across the desert, the thousands of innocent victims, the final gruesome denouement.  Russian public opinion was affected, at a gut level.

“Rationalists” claim that the Russian reaction was based on economics:  The fact is that a Russian “colony” used to exist in Libya.  This was a remnant of Soviet times, when the Soviet Union exported to various Third World nations military and civilian specialists, engineers, construction workers, other laborers, doctors, teachers and diplomats.  The Russian enclave in Libya consisted of around 15,000 people.

After a NATO bombing strike in Tripoli

The USSR had constructed a series of infrastructure objects in Libya:  An airbase and railroad in Sabha, a nuclear plant in Tahura, a gas pipeline in Misrata.  Hundreds of Libyan students were sent to study in Russian universities — in Moscow, Petersburg, Rostov and Voronezh.  NATO’s destruction of Libya caused economic damage to Russia as well:  There were contracts in place worth tens of billions of dollars.  But all of this was just in addition to the gut reaction which the Russian public experienced on viewing the destruction of Tripoli and the battle for Sirte.

Sirte fell, and the world witnessed the gruesome martyr’s death of a man who had become a symbol of resistance to the Evil Empire.  Even people who had not cared so much for Gaddafi before (his eccentricities, his blunders) respected how he fought back, and felt human pity for how he died.

A Happy Life

On the whole though Gaddafi enjoyed a happy, blessed and full life.  He was a poet, a philosopher, a revolutionary leader.  He was the classic “modernizing” leader of a bygone era of secular modernizers.  Gaddafi was beloved by many, and hated by some.

Gaddafi wrote the “Green Book” laying out his political philosophy.

Muammar was born in a bedouin tent in the middle of the Sahara desert.  He grew up to be the founder of a wealthy and important nation, the leading nation of the African continent, a country teeming, under his leadership, with gardens, irrigation canals and oil pipes.  Oil aka “black gold” was the foundation of Libya’s wealth.  Being a socialist by ideology, Gaddafi believed that the nation’s wealth belonged to all the people, not just to the 1% or 2%.  He worked out his own unique political philosophy and wrote it down in his famous “Green Book”, which was not just a political party platform, but also the foundation of the Jamahiriya social system.

Libya has an ancient tradition of poetry, starting with Callimachus

The fundamental credo of the Jamahiriya system is the notion of “human dignity”, the idea that every human being possesses inalienable dignity and inalienable rights.  Including the right to employment, health, education, well-being, and a cut of the national wealth.  This is the idea of the “welfare state” in a nutshell.  And a welfare state can work well when the nation possesses actual wealth to share.  Plus the technological know-how to extract that wealth.  Though far from being a perfect human being, Gaddafi was such an astute and talented political leader, that he was able to bring Libya, in the course of just 40 years, from a primitive bedouin society, to a modern industrialized and highly literate nation.  As a socialist and a fervent believer in literacy, Gaddafi gave special perks to poets.  He wrote poetry himself.  If you were a poet in Libya, then you essentially got a free ride.

Gaddafi’s ambitions did not stop at his nation’s borders, and this is one of the factors which did him in.  The Libyan leader had ambitions to unite all of the Arab world, along with sub-Saharan Africa, into a continental force with its own currency, freed from the domination of Western capital and the American petro-dollar.  As a socialist and a revolutionary, Gaddafi assisted other liberation movements throughout the world — again, a factor in his downfall, because the Empire always fights back.  And the Empire seeks to destroy anybody who challenges the supremacy of the U.S. dollar.

Gaddafi enjoyed a happy family life.  His first wife Fatiha Al-Nuri  bore him one son, Muhammad.  That marriage did not last, but Gaddafi and his second wife, Nadia Farkash, were together for almost 40 years.  She bore him seven additional children.  Except for one daughter, Aisha, all the children were sons.  Gaddafi’s children all loved him, and none betrayed him during the final ordeal.  One of his Gaddafi’s sons, Mutassim, died with his father in Sirte.

Mutassim was a Libyan army officer.  Showing an extraordinary level of filial piety, Mutassim fought alongside and protected his father until the very end.  Severely wounded and captured by the terrorists in Sirte, Mutassim’s final minutes were recorded on videotape.  There are various versions out there on the internet, some more gruesome than others.  All show a calm heroic persona who reacts with dignity to the taunts of his captors and dies bravely without begging for mercy.


Along with the Colonel and his sons, the nation of Libya also died an agonizing death.  The same people who firebombed Vietnam back in the day, also bombed Libya.  The weakened corpse was then given over to the jackals.  Tribal animosities take the place of Jamahiriya equality and fair-dealing.  Without realizing it, Gaddafi has become the symbol of a by-gone era.  The man is dead, but his vision of human dignity, of Arab unity and prosperity lives on.

This entry was posted in Human Dignity, Military and War, The Great Game, True Crime and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Anniversary of Gaddafi’s Murder – Part II

  1. Jen says:

    This is a very informative and moving article. The last sentence had me wiping tears away from my eyes. Yalensis, you’ve become a very good writer!

    I would like to add that Muammar Gaddafi wrote short fiction and essays which were collected into a small anthology “Escape to Hell and Other Stories, with a preface by Pierre Salinger, one-time White House press secretary to JFK and Lyndon B Johnson. I read these years ago and while I don’t remember that much of them, they are an excellent insight into Gaddafi’s worldview and thinking. Most reviews of these stories ridicule them, as you can imagine. and I was only able to find one review at this link that gave a fair treatment of them.

    While it’s true that Gaddafi did provide money and weapons to the IRA, his decision and actions in doing so stem from his belief, mistaken no doubt, that the IRA was a genuine revolutionary force representing the aspirations of all the Irish people. He could have had no idea that the IRA had been infiltrated by the British and that many if not most of its most violent actions had been proposed, planned and carried out by British agents working within.


    • yalensis says:

      Thanks for your nice comments, Jen!

      You make a good point about Gaddafi and his relationship to the IRA. Gaddafi wasn’t the only socialist revolutionary who was fooled by them. Since they fought against the English, it was normal to see them as an anti-colonialist force and perhaps overlook some of their more egregious terrorist acts against civilians.

      Besides being a patron of poetry and literature, Gaddafi also supported film-makers. I don’t remember if you said you saw Lion of the Desert . Everybody should see it. The Libyan government helped to fund it.
      This is a very good movie, Anthony Quinn is perfect in the role of Omar Mukhtar. The production values are good, Hollywood level, and the actors are top notch.

      Mukhtar of course was the Libyan freedom-fighter who fought against the Italian colonialists. Gaddafi idolized Mukhtar and modeled himself, as a leader, on Mukhtar. Watching the movie gives one a really good sense (I think) of Libyan bedouin life, and how Libya came into the modern world.
      The ending is sad: Mukhtar suffers a martyr’s death, just like Gaddafi. One scene is very poignant: After Mukhtar is hanged by the Italians, a young boy approaches the scaffold and picks up Mukhtar’s glasses — a symbol of reading, of literary, of what Mukhtar was trying to accomplish for the Libyans. Some critics say that boy was meant to represent a very young Gaddafi and how he took up the banner, so to speak.


      • Jen says:

        No, haven’t seen “Lion of the Desert” but I’ll keep an eye out for it.


      • saskydisc says:

        Regarding that film, I see that it makes no mention of Italian use of Somali and Eritrean soldiers in their crimes in Libya. That was particularly kind of Qaddafi, as that matter remains a sore point among Libyans.


        • yalensis says:

          Interesting point. I don’t know how much Gaddafi personally was involved in the script-writing. I imagine that he had influence. I would guess the intent was to not open old wounds — especially given Gaddafi’s tilt to pan-African unity.

          Similar phenomenon in Soviet movies, by the way: Movies about the Great Patriotic War tended to focus on the crimes of the Germans and gloss over the collaborationism of other nations who now were back in the Soviet fold and all had to get along together, after the fact. Hence, the glossing over of ethnic Ukrainian and Baltic collaboration. And there was also a tendency to gloss over the Nazis specific crimes against Jews, such as Babiy Yar. Not out of anti-Semitism, as some allege; but I think because the Soviet authorities didn’t want to keep drawing attention to the Banderite situation in the Ukraine, or just how much support the Nazis had among certain subgroups..

          So reality was all just levelled out into a bland “us vs them” type narrative. With all Soviet peoples fighting as one against the invading foe.

          I imagine a similar thing going on in Gaddafi’s Libya: It’s just all good Libyans, Africans and anti-colonialists fighting as one against a single enemy: Italy.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s