Libyan Rebels Inspired by Globalization
As NATO gloats over another assassination attempt against Colonel Moammar Qaddafi, resulting in the death of several workers, but again missing the embattled Libyan leader, the Libyan rebels are being lent ever increasing support from their long-time backers in the West.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague announced the approval of more “non-lethal” aid to the rebels including uniforms, bullet-proof vests, and communication gear. The UK also invited the rebels to open up a mission in London – an easy task as most of the opposition’s leadership have already lived in London and Washington for years. In fact the very call for the Libyan rebels’ February 17th “Day of Rage” was made by the NCLO out of London. Days later, Ibrahim Sahad, a co-founder of the NCLO and NFSL, would call for an international military intervention sitting directly in front of the White House.
Ibrahim Sahad of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya set the rhetorical groundwork for the US/UK/French military intervention in Libya. To this day his claims remain either unverified or in fact, verified lies.
Added to the mix of air strikes and “non-lethal” military aid, the West is also sending in “security contractor” firms to negotiate deals with the rebels in Benghazi. Of course “security contractors” in reality are armed mercenaries. One such firm, Secopex of France, was negotiating with rebels in Benghazi when the head of the firm, Pierre Marziali according to the New York Times, was shot in the stomach and later died. Secopex had done work in Somalia and boasts on its website that one of its specialties is the “training of national armies.”
While the governments leading this imperial adventure into Libya attempt to cling to the last vestiges of their legitimacy by denying recent attacks on Qaddafi’s family were assassination attempts, and while they claim ground troops are not part of the equation, Secopex’s presence in Benghazi is evidence that tacit support for a secret war has already been given. By claiming buildings, not people are the targets, and mercenaries from private companies, not soldiers define the current operations in Libya, the US, UK, and France make a mockery out of the supposed moral high-ground they claim to be fighting this war from.
Globalist Inspired Rebel Leader
According to US-educated Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally, interim prime minister of the contrived “Libyan Transitional National Council,” in a May 12, 2011 talk before the Brookings Institution, “what’s taking place is a natural product of the globalizational process that started in the mid-80′s.”
Mahmoud Elwarfally, self-proclaimed leader of the Libyan “Transitional National Council” speaks before the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, moderated by former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack. Elwarfally maintains that the rebellion against Qaddafi was a natural product of the “globalizational process.”He still claims the rebellion is “peaceful.”
Elwarfally talks about a “new global cultural paradigm,” “new global values,” common values, shared by many “young people.” These young people, he says, are calling for human dignity, democracy, and inclusion at all levels of national government, repeating verbatim statements coming from geopolitical meddler Zbigniew Brzezinski and the myriad of US-funded NGOs that promote these “new global values.”
Deriding 30 years of documented history showing that the current armed uprising is but the latest campaign in a long war of foreign-funded armed sedition against Qaddafi, and recent admissions by rebel leaders themselves of having direct ties to Al Qaeda, Elwarfally claims such accusations are merely “Qaddafi projecting fears” onto the Libyan people and the world abroad. Elwarfally, rewriting history in mid-sentence, claims that armed struggle was forced upon them – despite 30 years of history saying otherwise. He proposes that current fighting is merely defensive and that the rebel is still peaceful. When asked about comments he made just minutes before regarding “marching on Tripoli,” Elwarfally maintains it was merely rhetorical.
When asked by an audience member what Libya will look like in 2025, it turns out conveniently he was part of a study by Libya professors and “Libyan practitioners” in 2007-2008 titled “Libya: Vision 2025.” Not surprisingly, this project was conducted with input from the IMF and involved Libya’s placement within the “global scene.” Elwarfally laments that Libya’s oil reserves are limited and that the solution is a transition to a service economy. He also claims Vision 2025′s conclusion included an education shift, turning Libya into “a lake” to develop the skills of Africans to serve the needs of the European Union.
Surely Africans are eager to once again be in the service of wealthy Europeans, who at one point owned tremendous swaths of their continent, some tycoons naming entire nations after themselves in the ultimate expression of imperial megalomania. Elwarfally, a man educated in Pittsburgh, and apparently a lifelong fan of globalization, stuns us with his frank comments and his disturbing vision for the future of not only Libya, but the role it will play in directing Africa’s efforts and resources into the American and European corporate-financier interests. It is almost as disturbing as his breathtaking mis-characterization of the men who fight under him in what is most certainly not a “peaceful” rebellion.
Elwarfally concludes his talk by mentioning the “diminishing of the sense of the state” in Libya, due, he claims to a lack of “institutions” and “rule of law.” Kenneth Pollack, former CIA analyst and National Security Council member, chimes in declaring he hopes Elwarfally’s globalist dream becomes a reality even before 2025. Pollack, of course, is one of several contributors to the “Which Path to Persia?” report, within which open talk of funding terrorists, foreign-funded street protests, augmented with forms of US military support is made in regards to overthrowing Iran’s government. Quite obviously Pollack’s stratagems articulated in this treacherous report have already been applied to Iran as well as Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, and beyond.
If there was any doubt in the minds of those watching the “Arab Spring” unfold, doubts that haven’t been laid to rest by open admissions by the US that it was a plot of their own design, Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally of the Libyan “Transitional National Committee” himself declares fealty to the globalist agenda and his commitment to propagating the interdependency and exploitation of the developing world by the global corporate-financier oligarchy. When similar calls for “democracy” and “dignity” are made by similar revolutions now festering in Eastern Europe along Russia’s border, and throughout China’s “String of Pearls” in South and Southeast Asia, remember Elwarfally’s words spoken before the globalist Brookings Institution.