In the Brother Leader's bunker

On the surface, life goes on. Beneath it, Libyans nervously watch and wait

See article

Readers' comments



Shame on me, I an African who had supported the West all my life. I finally see the light in Libya and in Cote D'Ivorie crisis.

Ghadaffi is a madman , yes but Libya is the only country in Africa that is in the top 100 in HDI at #55, Educational, Health Srevice etc all work. It is basically the best run African country in terms of meeting the needs of her citizen.

As usual, the West had to ruin that for the citizens of Libya. Despite Ghadafi's attempt to appease the west by paying UK billions of dollars for Pan Am, stopping his nuclear weapon program, awarding all the oil contracts to BP and Tamoil. It is still not enough, what exactly do they want.

Libya has the 6th largest bullion of Gold in the world, so if Gordon Brown sold all of UK's gold it needs replenishment but France won't share the loot equally. So is this about Gold? Nato and its allies needs to tell the truth of what this is all about


The Libyan Ministry of Health released, on June 28th, Current Statistics Of Civilian Victims Of Nato Bombardments On Libya, dated 3/19/11-6/27/11. During the first 100 days of the Alliance’s airstrikes, 1,069 Libyan civilians have reportedly been killed, out of whom 260 were women and 141 kids. Another 5,052 have been seriously injured, 1,959 of them women and children.

On July 1st, hundreds of thousands Libyans gathered at Tripoli’s Green Square in their protest against NATO’s bombings. Many of them carried photos of Qaddafi in support of their leader, who now resembles, more than ever, Omar Mukhtar in his 20-year defiance against Italian colonization of Libya almost a century ago. Not everybody agrees with Qaddafi’s rules, but nobody welcomes foreign intervention.

Equally unreported by most Western press are the atrocities being conducted by the rebels—ethnic cleansing and lynching of black Libyans in rebel-controlled towns. One moment of truth appears in an article published by the Wall Street Journal:

People from the Middle East and Africa have seen the ways in which the West “brought freedom and democracy” to Iraq and Afghanistan. They will not allow their uprisings to be hijacked by anyone trying to control their wealth under humanitarian pretext. Sadly, it’s their blood against NATO’s missiles.


Even better, google this guy samenleving is recommending as an authority, he's a 9-11 conspiracist. Sounds like an unbiased and believable source to me. Thanks I'll stick to the reporters the Economist has got on the ground, the 33 who recommended this fool can keep listening to those voices in their head.


US invaded Iraq for oil based on the trumped up accusation of WMD. Not a shred of evidence has ever been found.

NATO bombed Libya with the fabrication of impending "mass murder and mass rape". No evidence of mass murder and rape has ever been found.

In the Iraq case, Western propaganda declared that invading US troops would be welcomed with open arms. In the Libya case, Western media claims that people welcome the bombing with open arms. It is getting ridiculous, but not funny at all, considering how many innocent people have died in the bombing so far.

The real motivation for NATO bombing? The same old same old: oil. Obviously, Qaddafi finally realized that the Libya economy would never take off because of the subjugation of Western oil companies. So he planned to reign in foreign profit taking, and even nationalize some oil fields. So he was promptly bombed by NATO and US.

The only hope for the poor Libyans is to support their government, stay alive through the bombing, and be prepared to fight the possible NATO invasion. Only victory can bring the fortune of the high grade Libyan crude to the poor and powerless. Do not believe in Western propaganda.



You believe that stuff? If you take a fishing boat out, America will send in a drone strike? Really?

Let me get this straight. That is credible. Economist is propaganda.

Nice analytical skills there.


It would be best for the Libyan people if Qhadafi would go. He was to cozy with China, Russia, Brazil and Turkey. Some Western countries didnt like that...

He and his sons have enriched their selfs enough, killed enough civilians. Its time to leave.

However i was looking at youtube and saw some vids about him, sometimes he tells the truth..

Muammar al-Gaddafi Exposes the Puppet Hypocryte Arab Rulers


Love samenleving's logic.

Don't believe this media source, but believe this one that I provide!

Well they do say that half of war is propoganda..... thanks for proving it samenleving.

Sense Seeker

@D. Sherman

Yes, in the short term the ICC may seem a stumbling block on the road to peace. But in the long term, the knowledge that everybody - including the most powerful dictator (but except US citizens of course) - can be held to account for their misdeeds may help to promote peace. There should be no safe havens for murderers.

It all depends on your framework of reference, though. Some would like to believe that we are moving towards a united world in which all countries agree on some ground rules and are willing to enforce them; i.e. that there is a role for justice in international relations. (Count me in.) Others believe that the world is a dangerous place and that international relations can only be based on power and negotiation; the powerful will always determine the rules.

As an aside, I haven't heard the rebels argue against the ICC's arrest warrant. The Libians quoted by TE may be a biased sample, but the rebels should be trusted to speak their opinions.

The Speaker

Unless the various countries military units go in divisively and sweep with a supporter, they will not get the SOB out. Stop the bombing, waste of resources, and conduct a fast extraction in collision. We are already in, so minus well just finish the job, or be called the joke of the pack. Announce to the people of Libya the western forces are going in and they will vanished from the capital while a sweep is conducted. But do so through the rebels.


"Libya has qualified for many years as a social basket case" you say.

Absolute rubbish. It has (or did until March this year) the highest per capita income in Africa, and ranks highly on the UN's Human Development index.

More importantly, it distributes oil revenues more equitably than any other oil producer country - including Britain.

Focusing on Gadaffi when trying to work out why the West is bombing the crap out of Libya is a waste of time.

Dian Cecht

Libya has qualified for many years as a social basket case, whose citizens depend on the patronage of a dictator for advancement, at huge cost to the rest of the population.

It would not surprise me to see the country degenerate in to further lawlessness and be ripe for an opportunistic religious intervention.

The jails of Libya will be full, today and tomorrow and in to the future, although the jailers will change.

New heads will be adorned by Giorgio Armani caps.


Here are a few reasons, why WE (including The Economist) should Stop Focusing on the Leader:

People like the King of Libya, are just Weak FigureHeads!
He isn't the one Pulling the Trigger, that Dirty Work is left to an Army of Psycopaths, that Wantonly & Willingly spread Fear & Mayhem among the People!!

The object of our Focus & Fury, should be these Sinister & Shitty Systems (EveryWhere), that have led US(ALL) that much closer to the edge of the ABYSS!!!

This type of "Selective(IN)Justice", that's being meted out by the ICC Stinks of.......!!!!
This "Impotent Stance", that the UN has chosen to Take is Shameful!!!!!
This "Callous & Criminal " act, carried out by NATO can come back to Haunt them. In-Fact, it will even prove to be their Ultimate Undoing!!!!!!

These Desperate attempts to Distract US, will NOT work.............

Peace, Love & Respect.

D. Sherman

The most dangerous man is the one who has nothing to lose. Thanks to the politically correct but strategically foolish ICC warrant, Mr. Qaddafi now has nothing to lose. Part of the time-tested method of deposing dictators, proven in innumerable instances over the past two centuries is to offer them the carrot of peaceable exile in some out-of-the-way country along with the stick of irresistible military force. Without that carrot, why should any dictator give up? Now the only thing the revolutionaries and the "international community" have is force. Their force does not seem to be very good, aside from pinpoint bombing which never by itself has won a battle or a war, while Qaddafi forces are still loyal, professional, and well-armed despite some well-publicized defections.

From many pre-revolutionary news account, Mr. Qaddafi appears to be a man who enjoys the finer things in life, and for whom fighting is a bracing sport but his whole reason for living. In other words, he's exactly the kind of man, at the right age in his life, to be well tempted by a comfortable exile. Let him keep $100 million or so and move to Argentina, the Bahamas, or wherever on the condition that he keep his head down and his mouth shut henceforth. Instead, the Europeans have forced him to fight to the death in order to satisfy their notion of justice. I would ask how just is it to condemn tens of thousands of innocent Libyans to rape, torture, and murder, and all Libyans to more months or years of civil war simply so that one man can be "brought to justice"? That seems like very expensive "justice" to me.

It would be much better to leave one door open and then kick his arrogant ass out of it than keep gradually demolishing a whole country just to create a photo op of the dictator in the dock in The Hague. It reminds me of the line in Dr Zhivago, after the Bolsheviks burn a village randomly to punish the peasants for selling horses to the government. The Bolshevik leader says, "What does it matter? A village betrays us, a village is burned. The point's made" to which Zhivago replies, "Your point. Their village." Here it's the ICC's point, and the Libyans' country.


Here's where the Economist's "no byline" gimmick really comes into its own.

This is just blatant propaganda - there is no way for the writer to be held responsible for any of his/her assertions. Why should we believe a word of it?

As it happens, in Tripoli right now is Webster Tarpley - and his reports can be found at


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



