Libya fights back: ship with aid for Gaza

Our Libyan Charity Foundation organized in June 2010 a ship with aid for Gaza. The ship was blocked by Israel, Greece (member of the NATO) and Egypt. 
Greece and Egypt are closely related to the U.S. and Israel. 
I don’t understand why everybody is demonizing my father. The U.S. are delivering for billions of dollars to Israel. Israel uses this money for weapons and air planes. All the U.N. resolutions critical of Israel. are actually blocked by the U.S. and its allies. That’s why Palestinian people are driven from their homes and why Gaza is bombed.

They accuse my father from bombing ‘his own people’… 
In 1986 the US launched air strikes on Libya.
At least 100 people have died after USA planes bombed targets in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and the Benghazi region.


4 thoughts on “Libya fights back: ship with aid for Gaza

  1. kruitvat Post author

    Obama Defends Libya Fight
    President Says Massacre Prevented; Republicans Want Plan to Remove Gadhafi
    MARCH 29, 2011

    In a speech Monday evening, President Obama laid out the reasons the U.S. military intervened in Libya and what role the U.S. will play in that country going forward. Video courtesy of Fox News.

    President Barack Obama made his case for military intervention in Libya in a speech to the nation on Monday, saying the action he directed was in U.S. interests and had already succeeded in preventing a massacre of “horrific scale.”

    He said the U.S. would work to remove Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power, but made clear that he would rely on political, financial and other pressures—not military force—to drive him out. That left open the central question of how Col. Gadhafi’s removal would be accomplished, and how the U.S. would deal with Libya should he remain.

    More broadly, Mr. Obama set out the most detailed explanation to date of a new model for how the U.S. will approach international crises, laying out what may be seen as an Obama doctrine in which the U.S. acts as a coalition-builder, spreading the costs and burdens among nations.

    “The burden of action should not be America’s alone,” he said. “Our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action, because, contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone.”

    After Mr. Obama spoke, some Republicans said he still had not laid out a clear benchmark for success in Libya, and that he was wrong to exclude regime change from the military mission. “If I were Gadhafi, I might feel a little better tonight,” said Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), Mr. Obama’s GOP opponent in the 2008 election.

    “The president should have acted weeks before he did, and done so using much clearer guiding principles and with a more clearly defined strategy,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), in a statement.

    Mr. Obama, in his first major address on the military operation in Libya, sought to reassure war-weary Americans that the action in Libya was succeeding and, 10 days after the first strikes, U.S. involvement already was ratcheting down.

    Mr. Obama said the alliance took action as the Libyan leader threatened to conduct a “massacre” in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi “that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. … And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”

    Mr. Obama drew an explicit contrast with the U.S. experience in Iraq, in which the U.S. deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by inserting a large ground force. The U.S. wants Gadhafi gone, he said, but it will use nonmilitary measures to try to remove him.

    “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. . . . But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars,” he said. “That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

    The alliance against Col. Gadhafi has made significant gains in the days since the U.S. and its allies first began military strikes, with French jets launching the first attacks.

    Still, the forces loyal to the Libyan leader have maintained a grip on Tripoli—where explosions could be heard late Monday night—and other coastal cities in the country’s west.

    The next major conflict was likely to take place in Col. Gadhafi’s hometown stronghold of Sirte, where a rebel victory could open a pathway to Tripoli.

    While the U.S. led the initial military strikes in Libya, Mr. Obama emphasized that command was now shifting to NATO.

    He said the U.S. would now play a supporting role, providing the coalition with intelligence, logistical support and assistance with search and rescue operations.

    He said this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition will “significantly” reduce the risk and cost of the continued operation to the U.S. military and taxpayer.

    Mr. Obama’s 27-minute speech, at the National Defense University in Washington, delivered his most extensive remarks on Libya since the bombing campaign began.

    They followed bipartisan criticism in Congress that he hadn’t done enough to explain his rationale for committing U.S. forces. Some Republicans said that the military action in Libya wasn’t speedy or forceful enough, and some liberals and some conservatives said that the U.S. shouldn’t have intervened militarily.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) laid out a series of questions about the mission in a letter to Mr. Obama last week, and on Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R., Ky.), offered a similar list.

    After Mr. Obama spoke, Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.) said the speech “did not provide a substantive plan for the future and in that it has not provided the type of clear, coherent leadership needed.”

    By contrast, Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) said in a statement that Mr. Obama “did the right thing” by moving to stop Col. Gadhafi at Benghazi.

    He also said Mr. Obama had “clearly explained how we’re involved in a limited campaign” in the country.

    Mr. Obama’s approach in Libya reflects the experiences of some of his most senior foreign policy advisers, who made their names in part by arguing that the West’s inaction during the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s made it morally complicit.

    The speech made clear what the White House has long said: that the U.S. would use force to protect civilians, but that it would rely on political tools in its effort to dislodge Col. Gadhafi from power.

    But that risks a scenario in which a defiant Libyan leader manages to stay in power in Tripoli.

    U.S. intelligence agencies worry that Col. Gadhafi, who has extensive stockpiles of mustard gas and high explosives at his disposal, could resort to acts of terrorism against Western targets, and become a long-term menace and international recluse.

    —Siobhan Hughes and Naftali Bendavid contributedto this article.
    Write to Laura Meckler at

  2. kruitvat Post author

    Obama Defends Libya Fight – MARCH 29, 2011
    ‘U.S. President Barack Obama will address U.S. involvement in Libya in a speech Monday evening. The speech comes a day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates downplayed Libya’s role in U.S. affairs, even as he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to defend U.S. military action there. Reducing the U.S. military footprint is a key goal of the Obama administration, which insisted its role would be circumscribed and employed in concert with international allies.
    Shown here, President Obama led a briefing on the situation in Libya aboard Air Force One on March 21.’

  3. kruitvat Post author

    White House: ‘Libya fight is not war, it’s ‘kinetic military action’ 😉

    30 Mar 2011 …

    In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?

    In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said. “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”

    Rhodes’ words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration contemplated action in Libya. “Military steps — and they can be kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range — are not the only method by which we and the international community are pressuring Gadhafi,” Donilon said.

    Rhodes and Donilon are by no means alone. “Kinetic” is heard in a lot of descriptions of what’s going on in Libya. “As we are successful in suppressing the [Libyan] air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a meeting with reporters in Moscow Tuesday. In a briefing with reporters the same day from on board the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, said, “The coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral damage when we have to take kinetic operations.” On Monday, General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, said of the coalition forces, “We possess certainly a very significant kinetic capability.” And unnamed sources use it too. “In terms of the heavy kinetic portion of this military action, the president envisions it as lasting days, not weeks,” an unnamed senior official told CNN Saturday.

    “Kinetic” is a word that’s been used around the Pentagon for many years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent fighting like cyber-warfare. At times, it also appears to mean just taking action. In a 2002 article in Slate, Timothy Noah noted a passage from Bob Woodward’s book, Bush at War:

    For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going “kinetic,” as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way?

    Now, White House officials are referring to the war in Libya not as a war but as a “kinetic military action.” As common as “kinetic” might be among those in government, it still seems likely to strike members of the public as a euphemism that allows the Obama administration to describe a war as something other than a war.

    Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook

    Read more at the Washington Examiner:


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s