Home » blog, Featured, The Arab World

Libya: ‘U.S. took a back seat’ myth takes another hit as Obama admits Americans flew French jets

7 November 2011 20,824 views 7 Comments

By the Editor.

One of the many myths of the Libya war is the claim that the Americans took a ‘back seat’. Discerning observers will acknowledge that U.S. niche capabilities such as Predator drones for bombings and intelligence gathering have played a crucial role. On top of this, political skulduggery on the parts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have played a huge part in expediting the war, in tandem with CIA assets on the ground since very early on.(1) These factors, coupled with a very revealing recent development, completely blow the ‘back seat’ myth out of the water.

The October 20 assassination of Muammar Gaddafi was preceded by an airstrike on his convoy, which was travelling in the Sirte area. An American Predator drone performed the first strike, with a follow-up attack by French jets.(2) In a revealing November 04 Department of Defense press release,(3) Barack Obama admits that American pilots flew French jets in Libya:

“He noted that American pilots flew French fighter jets off a French carrier in the Mediterranean Sea during the operation. “Allies don’t get any closer than that,” he said.”

Thus, it is highly probable that the airstrike on Muammar Gaddafi’s convoy was an entirely American operation, as were many of the ‘French’ airstrikes on Libya.

This is all the more significant because, as of August 4, French planes had flown a whopping 33% of all strike sorties.(4)

Further underscoring U.S. involvement in the airstrikes on Libya, an October 30 New York Times report(5) finds that American planes flew 25% of all sorties, while ‘French’ and British aircraft provided 33% of total sorties:

“While U.S. planes flew a quarter of all sorties over Libya, France and Britain flew one third of all missions – most of them strikes,”

The notion that the Americans took a ‘back seat’ in the war can now be added to the long list(6) of big lies that have characterised the criminal, genocidal destruction of Libya.


(1) ‘Libya: Barack Obama ‘signed order for CIA to help rebels” – The Telegraph, March 30, 2011
(2) ‘The ‘rebel’ assassination of Muammar Gaddafi: a NATO operation from A to Z’ by Martin Iqbal
(3) ‘Obama: Libya Mission Underscores NATO’s Effectiveness’ – U.S. DoD, November 04, 2011.
(4) ‘National Composition of NATO Strike Sorties in Libya’ – Atlantic Council, August 22, 2011.
(5) ‘NATO’s Success in Libya’ – The New York Times, October 30, 2011.
(6) ‘The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya’ by Maximilian C. Forte.


  • John Friend said:

    Hey Martin, good post! I think it’s pretty clear EVERYTHING coming from the US government and media is a lie about, well, everything.

    I’m not convinced Ghaddafi is dead though. You’ll be interested to read this. It’s from a few weeks ago, but I found it quite interesting. It’s not a subject that I’ve focused too much on, but you may find it useful for a future post.




  • dave said:

    And this is a surprise? You do know that ‘Israel’ has never won even one so-called war? Everytime, their ‘victory’ has been down to external military forces and personnel, mostly American, operating disguised as part of the Israeli war-machine. Indeed, in reality, Israel is a figment of the imagination- an artifice used to counter-balance the pretend arab/Muslim control of the oil-states.

    Likewise, America was fighting the forces of Hitler long before the USA declared war. And America, of course, is merely an extension of Britain. There never was a real war of independence. The entirety of the philosophical construct that defines the USA was defined and supported to the max (politically and financially) by British elites. The so-called War-of-Independence was a necessary trick (like the ‘creation’ of the modern-states of ‘Israel’ and ‘Saudi-Arabia’), crafted to allow the sheep to believe in the fantasy.

    Tony Blair wishes to create a United-States-of-Europe- though the original ambition of the plan is looking less likely. The reason he desires such a monolithic political block is for the same reason the USA exists. So vastly differing groups of people (ethnically, religiously, etc) can be effectively coerced to act as one. The intention is to have New Britain (the USA) joined by Super Britain (the British controlled EU). Of course, as with the USA, propagandists are supposed to make it seem as if the intentions of ‘Super Britain’ run in contradiction to those desired by actual Britain.

    It is, of course, one giant game. To craft the United-States-of-Europe (or Super Britain), a COMMON PURPOSE (note that phrase) must be found for Europe, and this, as history always shows, means war.

    Tony Blair negotiated for Libya to pay to have the leader of France elected- the same leader that then demanded the destruction of his Libyan supporters. How hilarious Blair and Sarkozy must have found this plan. Gadaffi, British trained, was seen as a chump who would trust a ‘sincere’ British plan to establish Libya as a modern African state fully accepted by the powers that matter. Humans the world over have been trained to ‘trust’ a certain type of British ‘gentleman’.

    Now, Obama and his masters could not accept another ‘hot’ war at this time, but they jumped at the chance to semi-covertly exterminate an old foe. The French and the Italians were to pretend to lead the attack on Libya. Closer inspection was supposed to reveal the UK in the lead. The actual American presence was to be downplayed at all times, when at all possible.

    Only a moron did not understand that this was an American act of military aggression- the American fist pounding Libya into dust, as America has done to so many nations in the past, usually on direct orders from those that really rule the UK.

    Anyway, sadly, Libya is an irrelevance (and think how sick that fact is for all those hundreds of thousands murdered or maimed). Libya was nothing but practice. No-one outside of Libya really gives a damn one way or the other. Libya was largely about getting the populace of Europe thinking about how cool it is to smash nations to pieces, with no possible legal or military blow-back. It does not matter that asked individually, most citizens of Europe are against ‘war’- so were most citizens of Nazi-Germany pre-1939.

    Our team must be seen as an automatic ‘winner’. Their team (whoever ‘they’ are) must be seen as no-hopers who will go down at minimum cost.

    The ‘clever’ analysis you try to do on this site (which seems to consist of parroting zionist propaganda of a flavour crafted to appeal to your type) is merely taking one step closer to the endgame.

    Blair and his people are about one thing only- crafted the circumstances most likely to lead to a global war, in which mankind will use its creative skills to create the most destructive scenarios possible. Why? Same reason as a ‘madman’ stocks up on weapons, storms a location full of helpless Humans, and tries to kill as many as possible, fully aware that his own life is almost 100% certain to be forfeit.

    However, this global war is intended to end Human life on this Earth (bio-weapons finishing what nuclear weapons only partially achieve). This is not some mad population reduction scheme, as truly naive people suggest (although plenty of Blair’s high level supporters believe this is the intent). No, this is a supreme and ultimate act of evil, glorying in the same hate and same hurt (magnified billions of times) that a serial child rapist, torturer and murderer strives for.

    Only by seeing the big picture can we hope to change our fate. Thinking oneself a genius for noticing that the world’s biggest war-machine is really behind current wars gains nothing and teaches nothing, because even the dumbest sheep already knew this to be obvious, and decided that even so, they couldn’t afford to care.

    Blogs like this try to be ‘clever’ and thus become easy prey for the simplest propaganda manipulation. Your taste in ‘food’, Martin, is well understood by those that master your thinking, so they feed you like one would feed a dog.

    All that matters is that the world marches relentlessly towards global war. Their side has nothing but victories. Our side nothing but losses. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH STRAW FINALLY BREAKS THE CAMEL’S BACK, JUST SO LONG AS THEY CAN KEEP ADDING THE STRAWS, AND WE CAN DO NOTHING TO STOP THEM. Look at the march of the police-state in the West. Look at the death of two-party-politics (at least in the past they had to pay lip-service to the idea that the party of the left is different to the party of the right). Look at the growth of instant communicating mass-media. Look at the switch to female voter dominated elections (which people like yourself are, no doubt, too ‘politically correct’ to understand).

    Hitler’s Germany was a female run society everywhere that mattered. Hitler needed the support of the women, not the men- the men he could take for granted if he got the women. The same happens now- the politics the sheep sees is aimed at owning the female mind. Then the females can push the message, and close down local males who dare to oppose the message. Why? Because the ‘truth’ from the TV and papers is ‘happy’ and ‘mainstream’ and the ‘current reality that the family must accept’. Opposing opinions from family males are ‘unhappy’, ‘dangerous’ and likely to cause ‘strife’ and ‘conflict’ in the family setting.

    Why did the BBC, for example, choose such a blatant propaganda lie, when they showed video footage from some old Indian political event, and claim it demonstrated mass support by Libyans for the NATO invasion of Tripoli? BECAUSE THIS FORM OF PROPAGANDA GOES DOWN HOOK-LINE AND SINKER WITH FEMALE VIEWERS. It re-affirms a world-view most likely to make them feel contented. And in modern societies, it is females that make up the ‘chattering-classes that matter (at least for 95% of the population). Crowds cheering for the latest reality show winner- or crowds cheering for the fall of Tripoli- it’s all the same to the average female brain- it represents simple-minded safe happiness. To not believe makes the average female feel pain, and the average female already feels they have more than enough pain stemming from their local existence.

    There is another, almost accidental side to this. The ‘enemy’ can be painted (with a lot of truth) as mostly unfairly male-dominated nations that attempt to give little value to women (their rights, and place in society). So the supporters of Blair can think of themselves, almost, as moral crusaders. This angle was certainly used in Afghanistan. This angle is certainly played up for the coming extermination of Iran. The hypocrisy of eliminating female equality in Iraq and Libya is neatly glossed over, because the females of the West didn’t really give a damn anyway.

    Where males are considered, it is merely to give them war propaganda as entertainment- mostly films, TV dramas, and computer games. There is a thinking that if you do a thing in fantasy, and consider it enjoyable, you are much more likely to consider accepting the same thing in reality, if given enough coercion. This is NOT the same argument as saying that ‘violent’ video-games make players more violent in real life (which is patently absurd). It is about ensuring that people are more likely to unwillingly accept the inevitability of organised violence, if pushed in that direction hard by other family members, the press, and governmental authority.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Show us you\'re human! *