The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Gaddafi’s Warnings to Blair Have Been Proven by Today's Attack on Libyan Police Training Centre
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Libyan uprising always contained more extreme Islamists than portrayed by its supporters inside and outside Libya. There is a measure of truth in Muammar Gaddafi’s claim to Tony Blair that the jihadis had “managed to set up local stations and in Benghazi have spread the thoughts and ideas of al Qaeda.”

His claims sound particularly prophetic since the transcript of the Blair-Gaddafi phone conversations are published on the same day that a suicide bomber driving a truck packed with explosives killed an estimated 65 people at a Libyan police academy. The attack is likely to be the work of the Libyan branch of Isis which today controls Sirte, Gaddafi’s home region and last stronghold, and has been battling over the last week to take over Libya’s main oil ports.

But it is also true that protests which began in Libya on 15 February and turned into a general uprising had wide popular support among Libyans. By the time of the phone call, protesters had seized Benghazi, Misurata and many other cities and towns while part of the regular armed forces had defected to the opposition.

Gaddafi’s repeated claim to Mr Blair that there was nothing happening in much of the country shows that he was either eager to downplay the swift spread of the rebellion or he did not know what was going on. The latter seems the most likely explanation, given Gaddafi’s repeated invitations to Mr Blair, who was in Kuwait, to come to Tripoli and his belief that once foreign journalists arrived they would see for themselves that accounts of violence had been exaggerated. “Send reporters and politicians,” the Libyan leader says. “Talk to them [protesters] directly; see what kind of people they are and their connections to AQ [Al-Qaeda].”

It would be interesting to know whom Mr Blair spoke to between the first and second conversations on the same day. But after he did so he says that “if you have a safe place to go you should go there because this will not end peacefully.” Later on Mr Blair says: “I repeat the statement that people have said to me, if there is a way that he [Gaddafi] should leave he should do so now.”

This may have been an attempt to panic Gaddafi into bolting the country or it may be a sign that foreign military intervention in Libya, which began on 19 March, was already considered inevitable by some. Gaddafi appears to have interpreted the message relayed by Mr Blair as a threat of foreign military action. “It seems that this will be colonisation,” he replies. “I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight.”

It was NATO air support for the opposition that was decisive in determining the outcome of the war. At the time of phone calls, Gaddafi does not seem to have thought that his own rule was really under threat.


Foreign governments and media exaggerated the military capacity of the rebels and underestimated their extreme Islamic and regressive ideology. Secular supporters of rebellion were taken back when one of the first proposals of the transitional government that replaced Gaddafi was for an end to the ban on polygamy.

The Gadaffi-Blair conversations leave the impression that because it was so obviously in Gadaffi’s interests to suggest that his opponents were led by Islamic extremists, that the West was too swift to dismiss the idea. It also looks as if outside powers were determined to get rid of the Libyan leader whatever happened. Since the rebels were not strong enough to do this by themselves, this meant he would be overthrown primarily by a NATO air campaign and the result would be a political vacuum and the disintegration of Libya. Gadaffi may have been wrong about the way things were happening, but he was right about the final calamitous outcome.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Gaddafi, ISIS, Libya 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Mojo says:

    Look: the Neo liberal in Europe and Bush militarism regime in US were and are the slave to Saudi House of Kingdom, not forgetting the Erdogan Turkish Islamic regime. These governments are, were after their own political and economic interests siding with Saudis wanting to expend the kind of Islamization of those that were not willing, Iraq, Syria, Libya and others are not the willing governments. Such plan made possible by Paul Wolfowitz in two front, one against socialism which was the reason for Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright to divide Yugoslavia where Milosovich didn’t want to participate the US/EU schema changing the world to benefit Saudis by being against any kind of functioning democracy, that is because of the very good economic relation both Europe and US have with Saudis, among other selling billions of dollars, and Euro or pound of military hardware to Saudis and GCC. Erdogan family is profiting from Syrian and Iraqis stolen oil by ISIS, Saudis is they were the winner of the war in Syria and Iraq they would have established the very same Caliphate as they are running such regime in Saudi Arabia, now that they are not winning what the plan was they are willing to start yet another war with Iran and Russia and rest of the world. Tony Blair is a Neo Liberalist politician as David Cameron is, is just that Tony Blair will lie to his teeth lying about his political standing whereas David Cameron would listen and obey the British riches, aristocrats and House of either English Kingdom or the Saudis more then the British people. As they say, same S:::::T difference outlook.

  2. argos says: • Website

    Those that destroyed Libya and murdered Gaddafi should be held accountable.

  3. JEC says:

    Gadaffi was a clown, but it was folly to get rid of him.

    • Replies: @Jeff Davis
  4. both Sadaam Hussein and Kaddafi were deposed by America’s Zionist Occupation Government because they decided to sell oil for anything but the debtbuck; Sadaam wanted Euros, Col. K. wanted gold. If enough nations – esp. oil-producers, since it remains the prime commodity in international trade – drop the dollar, ‘Murka’s debt-drowned, dollar-monetized Ponziconony will go to hyperinflation and collapse, leading in turn to the collapse of the ZOG. Since Nick Dixon (read: Kissinger) de-coupled the dollar from gold, the buck has been backed by nothing but smoke, mirrors, and mass murder. These two most recent massacres are more of the same. That’s why countries like Iran/Norks want and get nukes. When you’ve got them, no more violent visitations from Uncle Sh’muel

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
  5. @JEC

    Gaddafi was no clown. He was an ambitious independent leader who had a vision for Libya and for Africa. His independence from the US/Zionist Imperium made him a target. It is my belief that once the Lockerbie matter was settled, sanctions lifted, and Libya “rehabilitated” — ie, allowed back into the community of nations as a member in good standing — once Libya was opened to foreigners, the intelligence community moved in and began the regime change operation that fomented the “popular uprising”. Classic USAID/NED Neocon subversion: organize “peaceful protests”, the regime response is characterized as “brutal”, accompanied by highly-charged reports of an impending “massacre”, followed badda bing, badda boom by a “Responsibility to Protect” — R2P — “humanitarian” intervention. (Formulaic per the Oded Yinon Plan.)

    I want some investigative reporter to go to Libya and interview the Libyans involved in leasing to the US State Dept the Benghazi “Consulate” property and the CIA annex nearby. I want to know when those locations were leased, before or after the “popular” uprising? If before, that would be the smoking gun — to me at least — that the entire business: uprising, NATO intervention, Gaddafi assassination, Libyan destruction,… was from the start a CIA/Neocon foreign subversion regime change operation.

    Calling Seymour Hersch…….. or Patrick Cockburn,…or Robert Fisk

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  6. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    100% correct! Paul Craig Roberts, who is an economist and makes sense when he sticks to economics, has said the same thing a number of times.

    That’s why many “red pill” men have decided to turn off the TV, disconnect their brains from the MSM Matrix of Lies, and start snooping around online to “alt-right” and other esoteric websites. It seems that the game of propping up the “debtbuck”, as you call it, cannot last forever. The Chinese, the Indians, and Goldman Sachs (I hear) are buying gold bullion now that the Powers that Be have forced the price down to absurd levels.

    Think of buying some “for a rainy day”. Squirrel it away in your American Eagle’s Nest with some .223 rounds (as currency) and fifths of Jack Daniel’s (as currency).

  7. Rehmat says:

    Mr. Cockburn – if you’re quoting Qaddafi correctly for a change which I doubt very much – did he warned America about murder of its ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, who was murdered in a Mossad engineered false flag operation.

    Canadian Jewish academic, Henry Makow PhD, who as a young Zionist spent a few years at illegal Jewish settlement in occupied Palestine – commented over the murder of Stevens, saying: “The US ambassador to Libya murdered earlier today was a martyr to Zionist attempts to draw the US into war with Iran.”

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr