Evidence of British Special Forces Collaborating with 'Khamis Brigade'

In digging through the headquarters of the feared 32nd Brigade on the outskirts of Tripoli, Channel Four (UK) found a little more than they thought they were looking for. They were there to investigate the reported killing of at least 58 suspected rebels, found burned in a farm shed, allegedly by fleeing Brigade members (an apparent war crime). They stumbled across evidence of systemic mistreatment of African migrants and actual evidence of British Special Forces (SAS) collaboration with the Khamis Brigade.



The report shows two noteworthy scenes. First is a potential war crime in the making, when a dozen or so Nigerian migrants are paraded and abused in front of the cameras. The rebels tell the UK reporters that they were all found with guns and that they are going to be dealt with as mercenaries. But after hearing their stories and the deadly scared looks on their faces, the news team obviously thinks they are being lied to. They bravely say they are not leaving, as nothing will happen while they are there. Then, after a while, all of dangerous mercenaries are allowed to go free - saved from who knows what by the chance appearance of some British reporters.

The second interesting scene, which has so far gotten absolutely no media play, is evidence of a dozen official Libyan identification cards bearing the names, photo and information of UK Special Forces (SAS) soldiers, who evidently were collaborating with the unit (the Arabic translation on the ID cards literally said "collaborators of the 32nd Brigade."

As Wikipedia says, "The Khamis Brigade, formally the 32nd Reinforced Brigade of the Armed People, is a special forces brigade of the Libyan military loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the de-facto leader of Libya since 1969. Commanded by Gaddafi's youngest son, Khamis Gaddafi, the 32nd Brigade was called "the most well-trained and well-equipped force in the Libyan military" and "the most important military and security elements of the regime" in leaked U.S. memos."

A bit of research shows that the claim of SAS training has been made before - in 2009 by a unnamed SAS source, who suggested a possible link to the release of the 'Lockerbie bomber' Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Up until now however, no proof of the claim had ever been produced, as Britain never confirmed or denied. We also did not know exactly who was being trained. Now we know it was Libya's most elite forces, the 'Khamis Brigade,' ie. those now accused of the war crimes. You can add that to the list of embarrassing revelations for the very countries who now have implemented their regime change policy (Wikileaks documents have shown how keen a bipartisan group of US Senators including John McCain and Joe Liebeman were to sell weapons to the regime).

The Impending Assault on Sirte

Rebels bringing their freedom towards Sirte

Let's rewind the clock a week. The Libyan rebels were consolidating their gains in Tripoli and fighting in several fronts in the East and Northwest of the country. The middle of the country - the spine stretching from Sirte south to Sehba was calm - as it had been throughout this war. The people there did not ask for trouble, they just wanted to be left alone.

But NATO and the rebels could not let that be evidently. Almost immediately after slowing down operations in Tripoli, NATO switched to bombing targets in the Sirte area. Then the rebels took off to begin the land attack. There is no other word for what is about the happen. NATO and the rebels are in the process of assaulting the center of Libya in order to violently bring them under their grip.

Now you would think that at least someone with a job at a newspaper might feel compelled to wonder why NATO thinks it is ok to attack a region that was not attacking anyone - particularly considering they are meant to be protecting Libyans from attack, per the UN Resolution 1973.

Instead when you type "Sirte" into Google News right now, the first story you see is titled "Human shields stall Libyan rebels' advance on Gadhafi's hometown." For the sake of fun, lets look into this allegation a bit.

Wikipedia defines Human shields as "a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers."

What exactly does the article accuse pro-Gaddafi's troops of doing? As far as I can tell, they are accused of moving defensive forces into position in a village on the road to from Brega to Sirte, in order to defend the area from the impending rebel attack.

The rebels call the residents "hostages" and this is repeated by the Western press, who apparently keeps forgetting how many times they've been lied to. This is an allegation we've heard before, without proof. Rebels fighting in the Nafusa mountains said the same thing about towns out of their control. We know their claims were false, however, because when rebels forces moved in they found that most of the people had left apparently of their free will, but decided to take vengeance on those who had stayed with the Gaddafi forces there (proving they did not view them as hostages).

The rebels and NATO seem to know they are not well liked in the middle of the country. A report quotes NATO and the rebels as saying "Sirte is a for haven for Qaddafi loyalists," which is another way of saying people there tend to like the current system.

The rebels talk about giving the town leaders a few more days to submit or they will take the City by force - with help from the most advanced air force in the world, of course. They will be rooted on by all good liberal interventionists. I'll just say that people don't like when they are disempowered violently.

A Note on Atrocities

There are appalling scenes everywhere in Libya. That is what war does. More than 22,000 have been killed in fighting across the country, not counting those killed by NATO. Each allegation of abuse needs to be fully investigated, with the perpetrators brought before a fair system of justice.

What we don't need, but the Western press seems intent on providing, is a one-sided feel-good nonsense that beds the truth. It seems obvious that the news media has learned nothing from the lies before Iraq and obfuscation of reality in Afghanistan.

The press has been almost completely silent about the blatant human rights abuses committed by NATO and the rebel forces, as well as the blatant disregard of the UN Resolution (1973) that supposedly authorized this mission. This truly amazing piece titled Gaddafi's Forces Killed Survivors (that landed on my Yahoo front page) is case in point of the former blindness. After detailing a long list of unproven allegations against pro-Gaddafi troops, they say:

So far, there have been no specific allegations of atrocities carried out by rebel fighters, though human rights groups are continuing to investigate some unsolved cases.

The reporter does not even have the spine to admit that ALLEGATIONS against rebel fighters exist. Never mind that all they would have to do is look in either of the recent Human Rights Watch or Amnesty Intl. reports they supposedly get their information from. AI reports widespread mistreatment of black migrant workers by rebel forces - many report having been beaten, tortured, shot and/or told they are going to be killed. HRW also documented a pattern of vengeance killings, arsons, looting, beatings. etc. on hold Gaddafi loyalist civilians in the Nafusa mountains (ie. those who invaded Tripoli) - often just because of their tribe or race.

We read about the supposed "missing 50,000" opposition members arrested in the month prior to the war - even through no one has any proof of such a figure. And we hear next to nothing about the thousands of pro-Gaddafi civilians rounded up and being "cleansed" from their positions. Hospital Administrators, Oil Refinary heads, members of neighborhood committees, etc are all appearing on lists being passed out vigilante style.

Of course all of this contradicts the NTC is saying about there not being any retribution and that pro-Gaddafi people without blood on their hands will not be pursued. Just another example of the folks in the East saying one thing and actions on the ground saying another.

Different Fates for Two Libyan Freedom Fighters

It's been about 24 hours since it was announced that the United States killed Al-Qaeda's number 2 in Pakistan, Atiyah Abn Al-Rahman. Not much about Al-Rahman is publicly known, except that he is Libyan (from Misratah) and got his start in terrorism in the banned group Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which officially merged with Al-Qaeda in 2004.

Meanwhile in Libya, in a striking bit of irony, it has been confirmed that the leader of the rebel force who took the capital is none other than the head of the LIFG, Abdel Hakim Belhadj (aka Abu Abdallah Assadaq). That's right, the commander of the Tripoli Military Council that led the invasion and is acting as head-honcho in Tripoli right now was called the "Emir of the Mujahideen" in Libya by none other than (AQ's new leader) Ayman Al-Zawahiri just 4 years ago.

Yesterday, The Independent on Sunday learned that the rebel military commander behind the successful assault on Tripoli had fought in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban and was an Islamist terror suspect interrogated by the CIA. Abdelhakim Belhadj, the newly appointed commander of the Tripoli Military Council is a former emir of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – banned by Britain and the US as a terrorist organisation after the 9/11 attacks.

The 45-year-old first went to Afghanistan in the late 1980s, where he fought against occupying Soviet forces. Arrested in Malaysia in 2004, he was interrogated by the CIA in Thailand before being extradited to Libya, where he was released from prison last year...

You would think this would be sort of big news. Or at least that some good journalists would start asking some serious questions, such as how this LIFG commander got in this strong position (who backed him) and whether this puts a damper on the whole Libyan freedom narrative? Maybe some reporter would go a step further and ask how one LIFG commander gets assassinated by our Government without trial (Al-Rahman), and another coordinates war and regime change plans together with NATO (Belhadj).

Instead, after more than a week to investigate this guy, I can count on one hand the number of Western media reports that have even mentioned the commander's connection to the LIFG and terrorism. And each of the reports seem to go out of their way to assure us that there is no problem.

The Independent (UK) goes as far as to try assure us that Belhadj has "renounced violence," despite the small detail that he is head of an armed insurgency that is currently toppling a government. In fact some basic research would find that the LIFG only renounced violence against Muslim leaders, deciding to concentrate on Western enemies instead. I guess Gaddafi's regime was not sufficiently Islamic (many of the rebels regard him as a Jew due to some obscure family history).

The other reports do not even call him Belhadj the leader of the rebels in Tripoli. They just say he's one of the leaders, "according to Arab reports" (they could just quote the rebel command, but that looks bad).

It is certainly a good thing for Mr. Hakim that the government he is overthrowing is one that the West agrees should go, not a shining light worthy of protection like Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan - where anyone would be liable to be killed by a drone for what he is doing.

Similarly, there is not one article in the world right now mentioning the different fates of these two LIFG brothers in arms, both dedicated to jihad against the West. it appears the Libyan rebel story is too good to tarnish with things like human rights abuses (particularly against dark skinned persons), Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist leaders taking the lead.

Today's Reuters report comes the closest to making a connection. It says:

"The killing is likely to be particularly highly prized by Washington as U.S. strategists would have been concerned about Rahman's potential influence in Libya's turmoil following the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, analysts say.

But they could not go that one extra step and say exactly why Al-Qaeda might have a potential influence in the new "free" Libya. Abdel Hakim Belhadj's name does not appear.