<![CDATA[AlGaddafi.org  (English) - More Resources Libya ]]>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:07:51 -0600Weebly<![CDATA[Saif Al Islam Gaddafi has been released by the Zintan tribe of Libya!]]>Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:26:18 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2017/06/saif-al-islam-gaddafi-has-been-released-by-the-zintan-tribe-of-libya.html Latest Happy News of 11. 06. 2017 - Saif Al Islam Gaddafi has been released by the Zintan tribe of Libya!
Still the European "International" Criminal Court, is searching for him, as of """Crimes Against Humanity""".
As usual, beside Serbia, only Africa is in the focus of that """Court""".
What is about the bombing and killing of more than 100.000 Libyan people, by US, Britain and France?
Saif went to a safe place.
Thanks, to the Zintan tribe, and all supporters of the truth!

<![CDATA[As Predicted: Overthrow of Qaddafi Led to Horrific Migrant Crisis in Europe]]>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 22:29:02 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2016/11/aspredictedoverthrowofqaddafiledtohorrificmigrantcrisisineurope.html With the death toll in one of the most devastating humanitarian crisis continuing to climb, many are pointing to the fall of Muammar Qaddafi, and the destabilization of Libya, as a factor in the deaths of nearly 900 individuals in the Mediterranean Sea.
It sank on Sunday morning. Packed with migrants fleeing the African continent, a ship capsized off the shores of Tripoli, killing hundreds. Estimates suggest as many as 900 people lost their lives over to the incident.

As high as that number may be, it only accounts for half of those killed trying to cross the Mediterranean so far this year. Before the weekend’s shipwreck, another 900 had already died since the beginning of 2015. That’s a sharp rise when looking at the first four months of 2014, when only 90 had perished making similar crossings.

The European Union has already taken criticism for its response to the weekend’s tragedy. On Wednesday, Amnesty International placed blame on the EU’s decision to cancel an Italian search and rescue operation known as Mare Nostrum. But major decisions made even earlier could have played the largest role in the sharp increase of migrant deaths. Namely, the power vacuum left by the ousting of Libya’s former leader, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.

Our Man in Tripoli

By the time of his death in 2011, Qaddafi had adopted a reputation as being – at best – an eccentric. Travelling with an all-female bodyguard squadron known as "The Revolutionary Nuns,"and sleeping in bulletproof tents, the leader occasionally made controversial comments. Mosquitos, for instance, were “God’s armies which will protect us against colonialists.” By all accounts, he became, in his later years, the Dennis Rodman of world leaders.

He had, however, established a relationship with Libya’s European neighbors across the Mediterranean. In 2004, Qaddafi began formalizing deals to help control the flow of migrants into Europe. Preying on European prejudices, he warned Italian President Silvio Berlusconi about a Europe which "might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in."

"What will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans," he said, according to the Christian Science Monitor. "We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions."

The appeal to European racism paid off. In exchange for 5 billion euros a year – later renegotiated to 50 million euros – Qaddafi agreed to essentially shut down the Libyan coast. Watchtowers were built along beaches, and internment camps were set up to house those caught mid-transit near the Italian coast.

It wasn’t pleasant, but illegal migration through Libya dropped by 75% in 2010.

A New Land of Missed Opportunity

One year later, Qaddafi was dead, dragged through the streets by "rebels" after being captured with the assistance of a NATO bombing campaign.

In the years since, the situation in Libya has grown worse instead of better. Lacking a centralized government, the country is torn between rival militias. Traveling is more dangerous than it has ever been.

But that lawlessness has once again made the nation a major thoroughfare for migrants seeking asylum in Europe, and many militias along the coast are looking the other way in exchange for money.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the ship that left Tripoli Saturday morning included individuals from Eritrea, Syria, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Mali, Senegal, Gambia, Ivory Coast, and Ethiopia.

"There have been no similar figures since the Second World War," Rosa Otero UNHCR spokeswoman told Sputnik, in reference to the increase in migrant traffic through Libya.

Europeans may have disliked Qaddafi, but he maintained some sense of stability. After he was overthrown with NATO's assistance, members of the alliance have only themselves to blame for the wave of immigrants headed to their shores. 
* Source: Sputnik News
<![CDATA[The Arabs and the Jews - ISRATiN]]>Mon, 08 Aug 2016 09:35:54 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2016/08/the-arabs-and-the-jews-isratin.html
Muammar Al Gaddafi wrote in his book ISRATiN follow: There is no enmity between Arabs and Jews. In fact, the Jews are Adnanite cousins to the Arabs on the father’s side, who was a descendant of Abraham, peace by upon him. When the Jews were persecuted, their Arab brothers invited them to live alongside them in the town of al-Medina. 
They even gave them the land of Wadi al-Qura, thus named in reference to the Jewish villages [Al. qura]. Following the emergence of Islam under the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, the Jews found the notion of a prophet from outside their number unpalatable so, they showed hostility towards him. 

Some attacks against them took place, just as there were attacks against those from the Quraish, who refused to accept Islam and against Arabs who initially accepted Islam but subsequently rejected it. The Jews, along with the Arabs, were expelled from Andalusia at the end of the 15th century. They all found refuge in the Arab countries. That is why there is a Jewish quarter in every Arab country. There, they lived in peace and friendship with their Arab brothers.

Proposed Solutions Based on the establishment of a Single State - Read more about: ISRATiN
<![CDATA[Situation update for Libya]]>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:13:00 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2015/10/situation-update-for-libya.htmlAccording to Home Office (UK);
Heavy fighting on large parts of Libya, included Tripoli. Car bomb attacks in public areas in Tripoli, Tobruk, Darnah and Benghazi have caused serious casualties.
  • Still current at:
     16 October 2015
  • Updated:
     8 September 2015
  • Latest update: Summary - intense fighting continues in Benghazi, Sirte, Darnah and parts of southern Libya; the situation remains dangerous throughout the country
Intense fighting continues in many parts of Libya. The situation remains dangerous and unpredictable throughout the country. It’s unclear in some areas which faction has control. 
Heavy fighting continues in residential areas of Benghazi city. There have been ongoing violent clashes in the southern cities of Awbari, Sebha and Kufrah.
It’s unclear in some areas which faction has control.

Canada - Trave Advise Lybia

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada advises against all travel to Libya due to persistent insecurity throughout the country, including sustained armed conflict, a high risk of terrorist attacks, an unpredictable political situation and a high crime rate. If you are presently in Libya, you should leave now by the safest means possible.

 Department of State warns U.S

The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all travel to Libya and recommends that U.S. citizens currently in Libya depart immediately. On July 26, 2014, the U.S. Embassy suspended all embassy operations in Libya and relocated staff outside of the country because of ongoing violence between Libyan militias in the immediate vicinity of the Embassy. The security situation in Libya remains unpredictable and unstable. If in Libya, make contingency emergency plans and maintain security awareness at all times. This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning issued on January 20, 2015.

Due the destruction of all function government structures of the Libyan Jamahiriya, by November 2011, the situation in Libya can only be described as anarchistic and chaotic. 
Many Thanks to USA, GB, Canada, France, Italy and Australia!
<![CDATA[African Union Rapid Reaction Force - Saif Al Islam Gaddafi]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:14:10 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2015/10/african-union-rapid-reaction-force-saif-al-islam-gaddafi.htmlSaif Al Islam Gaddafi: Long-term stability in Africa depends on Africans. We cannot expect the rich countries of the world to continue to police Africa indefinitely, and we do not want a future where our regional stability is at the mercy of the foreign policy aspirations of nations from outside of the region
How Might the ARRF be Organized? Establishing the right command and control architecture is the first step towards the achievement of our aim and we have a number of successful models to choose from. However, our particular security environment would suggest that an organization modelled along the following lines would be appropriate:

Command and Control

Total personnel strength of this headquarters would probably be around 400 with static, regional, subsidiary headquarters/reporting stations in countries to the north, east and west of the continent. An initial location for this headquarters might be in South Africa, where there is excellent infrastructure with access to ports and airfields. The Civil Affairs element is a vital part of any peace support operation. 
Generally speaking, in the initial stages the military are in complete control because they have to create the secure environment necessary for progress. Initially the military commander on the ground is the overall commander, but he is being advised by the Civil Affairs Element, who will be planning for the longer-term establishment of civilian control. As the situation improves, at some stage (approved by the African Union) the military commander will hand over control to an appointed African Union High Representative, who will then assume overall control with
the military in direct support. Once the situation has improved sufficiently, on the advice of the African Union, the High Representative might hand back control to a re-constituted national government. The headquarters would be organized along the following lines and it would be sensible, in the first instance, to adopt the most commonly acknowledged staff system that would be replicated at every level, in every headquarters throughout the ARRF.

Organization of HQ ARRF

Land Element 
● 1 x Mechanized Brigade (1 x Light Tank Battalion; 3 x Wheeled Armoured Personnel Carrier Battalions plus a 105 mm light gun battalion and supporting troops) ● 3 x Light Brigades (Each Brigade has 3 x Light Infantry Battalions and 1 x 120 mm Mortar Battalion plus supporting troops) ● 1 x Special Forces Battalion ● 1 x Independent Engineer Battalion ● 1 x Independent Communications Battalion ● 1 x Independent Combat Service Support Battalion ● 1 x Field Hospital
This land element would require at least 20,000 personnel. We would envisage each brigade being under the command of a capable ‘lead’ nation with contingents from other nations included in the brigade structure. In the initial stages, and for ease of training and coordination, the four brigades could be stationed in locations to the north, south, east and west of the continent.

Long-term stability in Africa depends on Africans. We cannot expect the rich countries of the world to continue to police Africa indefinitely, and we do not want a future where our regional stability is at the mercy of the foreign policy aspirations of nations from outside of the region

Possible organization of an ARRF Light Brigade

Air Element 
● 3 x Fighter Ground Attack Squadrons ● 3 x Tactical Heavy Lift Squadrons (C-130 types) ● 1 x Air to Air Refueling Squadron ● 1 x Attack Helicopter Squadron ● 2 x Support Helicopter Squadrons ● 2 x Light Helicopter Squadrons (some aircraft armed) ● 1 x Command and Control Group ● 1 x Administrative Support Group ● 1 x Aircraft Engineering Group ● 1 x Ground Engineering Group
Approximately 4,000 personnel required for this air element, which would have to be at an extremely high readiness state. 
Libya is one of the few nations in Africa that has the strategic airlift capability required for such operations. And the comprehensive Libyan air transport fleet includes two AN-124 Condor aircraft. Peacekeeping operations in Burundi, which were led by South Africa, were hampered by the nonavailability of such aircraft.
Sea Element 
● 2 x Command Vessels ● 2 x Frigates (for naval gunfire support) ● 2 x Amphibious Landing Vessels ● 1 x Hospital Ship ● 1 x Marine Battalion ● 2 x Logistics and Administrative Support Groups ● 3 or 4 Fleet Support Vessels
Possibly 4,000 personnel will be required in this sea element. Because of the length of the African coastline, it would make good sense for this force to be at the Southern tip of the continent (in South Africa) providing the strategic option of deploying to either the west or east coast as the situation demands.
Article first published: RUSI JOURNAL DECEMBER 2002
<![CDATA[An African Answer to an African Problem: Keeping the African Peace in the 21st Century - Saif Al Islam Al Gaddafi]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:49:49 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2015/10/an-african-answer-to-an-african-problem-keeping-the-african-peace-in-the-21st-century-saif-al-islam-al-gaddafi.htmlSaif Al Islam Al Gaddafi is [was] the president and founder of the Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations. He is [was] also a reservist in the Libyan army

It would be pointless in an article such as this to go into detail regarding the long list of African problems. Think of a problem that affects the human condition and you will find it in Africa. Wars of aggression, civil wars, famine, disease, natural disasters, ethnic cleansing, political instability, corruption and much more – we have it all. Africa is the world’s most warridden continent, with thousands of casualties each year through tribal or factional conflicts and arms proliferation adding to the continent’s woes. Last year, it was possible to count eleven major conflicts taking place on the continent with dozens of smaller conflagrations: more than on any other continent. Together these conflicts have produced over eight million refugees. We have a lot of help from the more affluent nations in trying to remedy many of these problems and for much of that we are grateful. 

Assistance from governments and NGOs is extremely valuable and without it who knows how many more would have died. However, this assistance is generally given as a reaction to events and does not provide the long-term fix that Africa really needs. That long-term fix we Africans require is peace and security across the whole of our continent and for all of our people. We have to ensure that peace in Africa becomes the norm and that war and related instability become the unusual. Without peace and security our people will never
prosper, and the future could well be a re-run of the past thirty years – almost a case of ‘one step forward and one step back’. In some areas – and it cannot be denied – the recent past has probably been a case of ‘two steps back’. For Africans to have a future in this ‘global village’ we have to be responsible for our own African problems. We have moved on from blaming everything on colonialism. I, for example, have never lived under a colonial government because I am too young, and the same goes for untold millions of Africans. We have to pay respect to our history, but the future belongs to us and we are the ones who are going to have to get it right. 

The solutions have to be African, possibly with a bit of assistance when we ask for it and hopefully less as time goes by. Who knows? If we can establish real security in Africa, the idea may well catch on in other continents. While attending the Burundi summit held in Pretoria, South Africa, in October 2001, I noticed during the discussion on forming a peace force in Burundi that a number of problems concerning the airlift of troops had to be confronted. This gave me the idea of forming a peacekeeping army in Africa. After returning home to Libya, I took this idea to the Leader, pointing out that it was time to form a unified African army which should be one of the goals of the African Union. This article is a draft – someone had to fill in the blank sheet of paper
and make some suggestions and I hope that my ideas will generate discussion. The more discussion and constructive criticism the better. Not only discussion in Africa but in the United Nations and amongst all of the other influential international institutions. However, the reality is that if we are going to generate an improvement in the security situation in our continent we have to start almost immediately. Delay means more chaos and confusion in the continent, and any measures that we implement now will take time before they generate results I do not claim that what I have here is ‘the plan’ but at least it is a beginning. 

In 1598, the English sea captain Sir Francis Drake said: ‘there has to be a beginning to every great undertaking’. Let us hope that this is the beginning of a very great undertaking. The Political Background Following the September 1999 extraordinary summit convened at Syrte in Libya, an ‘African Union’, a new political entity on the lines of the United States of America (or at least the EU) was proposed, to replace the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The theme of the summit was that Africa ‘is not 50 states; it’s one nation, one people, one culture and one economy’. Following the Durban African Summit in July 2002 the OAU was replaced by the African Union and it was agreed that the African Union would have a ‘Peace and Security
Council’, broadly modelled in concept and function on the UN Security Council. The African Union will have the right to ‘intervene’ in a member state ‘pursuant to a decision of the Assembly [of heads of state and government] in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity’. Member states will be able to request intervention from the African Union to restore peace and security. 

The Peace and Security Council (PSC) will plan and direct these interventions. It will have the power to deploy forces for peacekeeping and similar security operations in Africa. The African Union Assembly will in addition have the authority to instruct it to conduct peace-enforcement operations or even offensive operations by a pan-African force to counter aggression against a member state. The forces for such operations are to be drawn from the AU member states. 

The PSC will have fifteen members. Five will be nominated by one country from each of five regions (West, North, East, Central and Southern Africa) for an extended term of about three years. Those countries will be required to have democratically elected governments, adequate economic resources, the political capacity to respond quickly to a crisis, and the military power to respond effectively. The other ten members will be delegates of two other countries from each region, serving a two-year term. The intention is for the PSC to be
supported by an early-warning system to alert it to potential security crises as they develop, and an advisory ‘group of elders’. So at last the African Union is a reality, and I am proud to be able to say that Libya has been one of the prime movers in getting the organization up-and-running. 

The African Union faces many challenges, but the most immediate has to be the establishment of peace and security on the ground. Without peace and security nothing else can be achieved, so we have to look at the process over the long term – possibly twenty years but probably much longer. Maybe the right way to approach the problem is to look at the task in two, major, initial phases: 

Phase 1 - Peace, Security and Stability: The involvement of African Union nations in peace support operations both peacekeeping and, if necessary, peacemaking. To achieve the stability that we would need would certainly take the best part of ten years and there will always be a requirement for such operations. This is the really difficult task, and history tells us that there are no easy answers. During Phase 1 we have to target regional wars, civil wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing and natural catastrophes. 

Phase 2 - African Institutions and Longer Term Development: If we can get some measure of success from Phase 1, we will be able to concentrate on Phase 2. This phase

2001, it was possible to count eleven major conflicts taking place on the continent (Africa) with dozens of smaller conflagrations: more than on any other continent. Together these conflicts have produced over eight million refugees

would be aimed at economic development and closer political integration. If we could create a reasonably benign African security environment, it might be possible to create a whole raft of lasting African institutions. These might include an African Parliament, an African Supreme Court, an African Central Bank and an African Common Currency. It would be foolish to think that both these phases would operate in isolation and that Phase 2 would only start when Phase 1 was complete. 

The groundwork for Phase 2 would need to start at the very early stages of Phase 1. Let us also recognize at the very beginning of this process that trying to maintain peace and security in the continent will be a task that our grandchildren and, almost certainly, their grandchildren will probably continue to be involved with. This leads us on to the really difficult part of this equation. How do we achieve some form of peace and stability in the African continent? How do we do it? The reality is that stability will almost certainly consist of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations, the execution of which are extremely complex and militarily demanding at all levels. In many cases, peacekeepers or peacemakers will not be welcomed in the areas where they have to operate, and any intervention will require political legitimacy. During
May 2001, Libya sent troops to Bangui, capital of the Central African Republic, to help the government of President Ange-Felix Patasse control army mutineers who had tried to seize power. We did this because we wanted to help, but at the time we did not have the political legitimacy that a resolution from the African Union would have given us. Such political legitimacy will be provided by the African Union Charter that has been drafted with a distinct African flavour. 

The Charter provides the legitimacy we require and provides a signal to everyone that we Africans are responsible for what goes on in our ‘backyard’. We are already beginning to get the firm foundations in place that we require to go about our task, especially at the political level. All this obviously means that, for the successful implementation of Phase 1 and the establishment of peace and security, we need an African Union Rapid Reaction Force (ARRF). 

This force will have to be highly mobile, well trained to common standards and well equipped with interoperability of some essential items such as radios and small arms. The ARRF, which would consist of land, sea and air elements, would be directly responsible to the African Union. The authority for the deployment of the ARRF would be vested in the President of the African Union and the African Union Military Committee. One of the things that we have to avoid is a situation such as the recent one in Sierra Leone
where peacekeepers were held hostage by rebels and only foreign intervention from outside the African community stabilized the situation. With an African Union Rapid Reaction Force there would be no need for an action such as that in Liberia, where a regional force (ECOWAS – the peace force of the Economic Community of West African States) led by Nigeria tried to impose stability. Success became difficult to achieve there due to some of the peace force national contingents taking sides in a dispute between rebels and the government. We certainly need to be able to stabilize a situation such as that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where troops from a number of African countries are assisting both sides in the dispute – possibly for their own gain. 

Once again we have to put our own house in order to reduce the requirement for intervention from outside the African community. Who Would Participate? All African nations would be invited to participate, but in the first instance the nations with the largest and most capable forces would provide the bulk of the personnel and equipment. Initially, the ‘lead’ nations would be drawn from South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Libya and Algeria – but everyone would be offered a role of some sort, however small their military forces. This would have to be a ‘coalition of the willing’.

The whole point of this force is its ability to deploy quickly and attempt to defuse a situation before it becomes a major security problem. Air assets and especially troop lift aircraft will have to be almost immediately available. The key to the deployment of the ARRF would be its capability to quickly move troops and equipment to crisis areas. The tactical heavy lift squadrons would be one of the key elements of the entire force. The whole of the Land Element would have to be at ten-days notice to move but inside the Land Element other units would have to be at much higher readiness states. Possibly one infantry company group at six-hours notice to move, a complete battalion group at twenty-four hours, and the lead brigade (with its complete headquarters) at seventy-two hours.

The ARRF would have to be trained to the highest standards (imposed by the HQ of the ARRF) and this would set the standard for the rest of Africa. Before a unit, squadron or ship could be accepted for service in the force, it would have to be inspected and evaluated by an HQ ARRF inspection team and then each unit would have to undergo an annual inspection to confirm its operational readiness. Training of formations will be vital. In the beginning, at least, the brigades will have to exercise together; in the longer term, the whole force will need to come together in a large-scale exercise designed to test all of their procedures
Individual personnel will have to be trained to understand the problems that are unique to Africa, and two major training schools would need to be established. One would be for senior officers and the other for junior officers and non-commissioned officers, who would then be able to go back to their units and instruct their soldiers. An African Union Staff College for training senior officers of the rank of major and above will obviously be necessary in order to co-ordinate the activities of the ARRF, and this is a task that Libya would be happy to sponsor. We have the facilities and the first course could be underway in about a year from now. 

Junior officers and noncommissioned officers would require a comprehensive course during which they would qualify as instructors. They would need to be taught and understand International Law, the African Union Charter, the UN Charter of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, standardized military tactics, a common administrative system, African history, social cultures, geography, first aid, and a little psychology. And there will have to be a common language. Officers will require a working knowledge of both French and English and a hard decision will have to be taken as to which of these two languages will become the command language of the force.

Where possible we should use African military equipment and, in the longer term, it would be advisable to standardize as much of this equipment as possible. South Africa is obviously the leader in the area because it has the largest defence manufacturing capability in Africa. However, there are many other African countries with a defence manufacturing capability such as Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Kenya, and they will be able to make a valuable contribution.

The real problem is going to be money and our initial costings suggest that funding just the HQ of the ARRF will require at least $250 million1 per year on an ongoing basis. The hard part of this whole concept will be getting nations to donate money to the African Union to fund the force. It would almost certainly have to be done on a basis of each nation contributing a percentage of its GDP or allocating a small slice of its defence budget. The current defence budget situation in Africa is as follows: ● North of the Sahara The six African countries to the ‘North of the Sahara’ currently spend approximately $7.1 billion on defence. 

The biggest spender amongst this group is Egypt ($2.1 billion) and the lowest Mauritania ($25 million). The mean average expenditure amongst the top five nations in this group is $1.43 billion. ● South of the Sahara The forty-four African countries ‘South of the Sahara’ spend approximately $6.9 billion on defence. Of these, the most powerful nation is South Africa with an annual expenditure of $2 billion (almost 30 per cent of the total figure). Another six countries spend $2.53 billion on defence (Sudan: $580 million; Angola: $500 million; Democratic Republic of the Congo: $400 million; Ethiopia: $400 million; Nigeria: $340 million; and Kenya: $340 million). Between them, these six countries account for a further 37 per cent of the total expenditure, leaving 33 per cent of the ‘South Saharan’ total of around $2.36 billion to be shared around thirty-seven countries. 

Expenditure in these countries varies widely from a low figure of $9 million for Cape Verde to $221 million for Botswana. The average annual defence budget for these thirty-seven countries is $64 million. Financial support for the ARRF will therefore fall on the more affluent nations in the African defence architecture, those with defence budgets of over US$1 billion: South Africa, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and, possibly, Algeria (currently preoccupied with its own internal security problems). In the initial stages it is these nations that will have to provide the majority of the financial support required. How much money might be available? Overall, Africa spends about $14 billion on defence. If each country were to donate 2 per cent of its defence budget to the ARRF and be prepared to pay for contingents that it earmarks for the force, the finances are available. Would Libya provide $24 million for the ARRF? The answer is yes – and more if necessary. I am absolutely convinced that everyone will play their part – even small states such as Cape Verde, which might be asked for $180,000. It is such a small price to pay when the longer-term benefits are so great.
Libya’s Contribution 

Libya would contribute as many troops, aircraft and ships as our resources would allow, especially in the early stages of an operation when rapid deployment is most necessary. We could provide staff officers for the ARRF headquarters, at least three infantry battalions, an engineer battalion, and medical support. For the air element we could produce fighter ground attack aircraft, heavy lift transports and helicopters. For the sea element we might offer a frigate, an amphibious landing vessel and fleet support vessels. Other African countries would be delighted to make contributions and I have no doubt that the African Union would be able to achieve its force goals very quickly.
Some Conclusions 

Long-term stability in Africa depends on Africans. We cannot expect the rich countries of the world to continue to police Africa indefinitely, and we do not want a future where our regional stability is at the mercy of the foreign policy aspirations of nations from outside of the region. The recent intervention by both the French and the Americans in the Cote d’Ivoire underlines the magnitude of our problem. At the very beginning of this crisis it should have been a properly mandated African Union force that stepped in between the warring parties. Only then could an effective solution to the problem have been quickly identified. What we have now is a long wait as a regional force is assembled and dispatched to the country. In the meantime, France and the United States are doing their best to ensure a certain amount of stability. But the understandable priority of both of these countries is protect their nationals, guard their assets and leave as soon as is decently possible. Only an African Union force with a proper mandate, a sound chain of command and properly trained forces will have the motivation to stay for the long term, and achieve the lasting solution that will ensure real peace and security. Given the legitimacy that the African Union can provide, it is absolutely vital that we Africans share the future peacekeeping burdens in our region. This would inevitably enable peace to emerge from the darkness of the African jungle, which is something that the long-suffering people of Africa deserve. ■
Article first published: RUSI JOURNAL DECEMBER 2002 
<![CDATA[A tale of two strategies: Russia destroys ISIS command, US hits Afghan hospital]]>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:34:19 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2015/10/a-tale-of-two-strategies-russia-destroys-isis-command-us-hits-afghan-hospital.htmlSource: RT.com - As if to underscore Russia’s decision to initiate airstrikes against Islamic State on the territory of Syria as Western forces don’t appear up to the task, NATO jets unleashed a deadly barrage on a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan.
No sooner had Vladimir Putin wrapped up his speech at the United Nations, where he roundly criticized the manner in which US-led forces have been trampling on the sovereignty of nation states in its global pursuit of terrorists, Russia opened a stunning aerial campaign against Islamic State fighters on the ground in Syria.

Read More of this article at RT.com (New Window)
<![CDATA[Assad: ‘West uses terrorism as new instrument to subjugate Middle East’]]>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:28:42 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2015/10/assad-west-uses-terrorism-as-new-instrument-to-subjugate-middle-east.htmlSource: RT.com - Western countries are using terrorism as an instrument of control, Syrian President Bashar Assad said in a recent interview. He also said that he is ready to step down if his departure is the solution to the four-year-long conflict.
“From the beginning it was clear to us that there were foreign hands behind terrorism in Syria,” Assad said in interview with Iran’s Habar TV.
President Assad thinks that the US-led coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is ineffective because the West does not want to defeat terrorist groups. In fact, it wants to preserve the balance between the warring sides to “perpetuate the process of erosion in Syria and Iraq and later other countries of the region, so that we all remain weak for decades and maybe generations.”
“How can the United States and its allies fight terrorism or ISIS in Syria and Iraq while their closest allies in the government of Erdogan and Davutoglu are supporting terrorists and enabling them to cross the borders and bring weapons, money and volunteers through Turkey?” he asked.

Since the US-led coalition was formed, terrorism expanded geographically and its recruits multiplied, the Syrian president said.

“God willing it [Syria, Iran and Hezbollah] will be able to defeat terrorism which is a new instrument for subjugating the region,” he stressed.

Unlike the US-led coalition, Russia together with Iran, Iraq and Syria have “great chances of success.”

“It must succeed. Otherwise, the whole region, not only one or two countries, will be destroyed,” Assad said.

Russia, as well the Soviet Union in the past, [has] never tried to impose anything on Syria, especially in this crisis,” he said stressing that, as opposed to the US, Russia is against interferences, hegemony and violations of the UN Charter.

‘If my departure is the solution, I will never hesitate to do that’President Assad once again stated that he is ready for political dialogue with all Syrians – but not with foreign powers. “Any talk about the political system or the officials in this county is an internal Syrian affair,” he said.

“When the Syrian people decide that a certain individual should stay, he will stay; and when the Syrian people decide that he should go, he will go immediately,” the president said. “If my departure is the solution, I will never hesitate to do that,” he added.

Assad stressed that no state in the world conducts dialogue with terrorists and that they should be subject to the laws and brought to justice.

“However, the state might conduct dialogue with terrorists in one case, when the objective of the dialogue is for the individuals who carried out terrorist acts to lay down their arms and embrace the state and the law,” he added, noting that this has actually happened in Syria, with the government having held talks with various reconciliation-seeking groups, granting them amnesty and giving them an opportunity to go back to their normal lives.

<![CDATA[US pesidential candidate Donald Trump: Middle East better off with Saddam and Al Gaddafi]]>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:53:25 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2015/10/us-pesidential-candidate-donald-trump-middle-east-better-off-with-saddam-and-al-gaddafi.htmlAsked by NBC's Chuck Todd if the Middle East would be more stable with Gaddafi and Saddam in power, Trump replied, "Of course it would be."
Now is it out; The U.S. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said on Sunday, that the Middle East would be more stable if Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were still in power in Libya and Iraq, saying it's "not even a contest".

Trump mentioned the countries in comparison to current efforts to drive Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power.

"You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there, it's a mess," Trump said on NBC.
"If you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there, it's a mess. It's going to be the same thing in Syria", Trump said.

Asked by NBC's Chuck Todd if the Middle East would be more stable with Gaddafi and Saddam in power, Trump replied, "Of course it would be."

Trump, who leads the field of Republicans seeking the presidency in the November 2016 election in public opinion polls, has said he supports Russian efforts to fight Islamic State militants, even though Russia has backed Assad.

Trump said last week "Assad might be replaced by someone worse if he were ousted".

The United States White House "opposes" both Islamic State and Assad, blaming Syrian official and democratic elected president Al Assad for "attacks on civilians", that have "radicalised the opposition". Not including, that USA has trained the most of this so called "moderate" "opposition", which have now changed sites to ISIS, costing US Taxpayer officially more than 500.000.000 $US.

President Barack Obama warned Russia on Friday that its campaign in Syria would pull Moscow into a "quagmire".

Beside, that Russia was able within few days of attacking ISIS hot spots successfully, eliminating many command centres and bomb making factories, US is still claiming, that Russia is attacking mainly civilians...

Latest now, after US troops bombarded a hospital in Afghanistan by "mistake" and killing included 9 foreign doctors, should everyone have received an "eye-opener", what the real purpose of US Bombings in the Middle East and Afghanistan is mend for! Creating terror, under the umbrella of bringing "Peace" and "Democracy"
Russian fighter jets have attacked 10 Islamic State targets in Syria in their latest airstrikes, destroying arms depots, training centers and infrastructure, Defense Ministry says. In the last 24 hours, Russian military aircraft have performed 20 sorties.
<![CDATA[Life under Gaddafi`s Libya - Video]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:01:06 GMThttp://english.algaddafi.org/4/post/2015/09/life-under-gaddafis-libya-video.htmlSee below video, of Muamar Al Gaddafi browsing the streets of Tripoli.
The video was shoot, whiles US and NATo already bombarded Libya and Tripoly...