• UN Bombs
  • 1970
  • 1973
  • 2174
  • 2259
  • 2292
  • UN Violations







Unintentional Mistakes !



The UN resolutions to protect civilians by all necessary measures apparently had hidden, implied objectives to effect regime change and topple Gaddafi, but consequentially they toppled the whole country instead. Thus, the "troubled foray" of the "Libya Expedition" was later declared an "unintentional mistake" after placing the Libyan civilians and the whole region in greater danger than ever before.

Blaming the Libyans for their mistake is sheer audacity, simply because no matter what the UN now says or does many Libyans have said from the start that arming civilians, rebels and "moderate militants" should not to be tried at home, and that encouraging teenagers to use violence to gain political change is something responsible diplomats should never have in mind.

Let it be known that peace and science are the only principles for lasting stability and prosperous success; and if the [hijacked] UN is yet to see this simple recipe and lead by example then they are more than welcome to tour the "jihadist wonderland" they helped create and see for themselves the wreckage once was "sovereign Libya". 

The UN ought to be 100% neutral, promote peace, and never authorise violence no matter what. The UN ought to know that it is wrong to bomb a sovereign country and force millions to beg for asylum elsewhere because of a handful of terrorists or because of one dictator. People's homes should not be destroyed because of a handful of criminals because everyone knows that armed gangsters in the street is purely a police matter. Unless of course the hidden objectives also include dividing Libya into three countries.


The UN's Mistake

The United Nations general assembly has unanimously suspended Libya's membership at the UN Human Rights Council. The reason is using violence against "unarmed, peaceful protesters" and violating basic human rights. The Libyan government responded by saying they were protecting themselves from "armed gangs" supported by Qaida-backed foreign groups. The odyssey that dawned made it clear that neither of them was telling the whole truth; naturally always lies in between - if not inbetween the lines.

The peaceful civilians were indeed infiltrated by armed groups, some of whom were masked, shooting at mosques, burning government buildings, and destroying government infrastructure, and hence they were described by the world's media as "rebels" or "armed rebels". According to local and foreign reports the Libyan civilians began to use "arms" against government forces from the 19th of February 2011 – long before the UN's no-fly zone to protect "unarmed, peaceful protesters" was imposed on Libya without an exit strategy or a referendum; while according to the report of the Independent Civil Society Fact-Finding Mission to Libya, "The UN Commission of Inquiry noted 24 February 2011 as the date of commencement of the armed conflict".  

Moreover, the International Committee of the Red Cross began calling the events in Libya an "armed conflict" from the 10th of March 2011 – seven days before the fuzzy NFZ was imposed on Libya without an exit strategy or a referendum. This means that the so-called peaceful protestors were armed from the start and infiltrated by mysterious armed groups who appeared intent in triggering violence, just as they are still allowed to spread havoc across Libya ever since the UN bombing campaign came to an end. After the grotesque murder of Gaddafi and the plunging of Libya into violent turmoil, it became clear that rebel fighters were indeed infiltrated by foreign radicals and jihadists from 12 countries, some of whom were reportedly supported, trained and armed by some of the states authorised by the UN to bomb Libya back to the stone age.


The Imaginary Massacre of Benghazi: ?

The Imaginary Massacre of Benghazi is the whole foundation of the UN's morality to protect civilians by bombing Libya back to square one, and yet it was a complete lie. Everyone knows Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who slaughtered countless Libyans in the past 42 years, and who was welcomed back into the international community as the "great statesman" by the British in 2004.

Readers need to note (before jumping into hasty conclusions) that Gaddafi is not the issue here; the issue is destroying Libya's entire infrastructure for absolutely nothing but killing an "old man" and plunging the whole country into complete anarchy.

All Libyans know that Gaddafi in his historic speech was specifically referring to "armed rebels", whom he said he will hunt down door by door if they refused to surrender their arms – just as the installed NTC, GNC and the HoR found themselves (still) doing right now, if not much worse.

Of course, take no one's word for it because the best evidence for this is the speech itself which every Arabic-speaking student of Libya can listen to if they need to verify the correct terminology used by Gaddafi. What western politicians and readers are told by their media is something beyond anyone's control, but the "secret government" ruining the world.


Muammar Gaddafi's speech; Thursday 17 March 2011.

Gaddafi addressed the residents of Benghazi late on Thursday, warning them of an impending military operation during which "no mercy" will be shown to rebel fighters who refused to lay down their "weapons".

He also said that if they laid down their arms (at minute 03:33 of the video), then they have his "amnesty" and protection. This was interpreted to mean no mercy for the whole city and thus the so-called "massacre of Benghazi".


There was no reference to killing unarmed civilians or massacring Benghazi anywhere in his entire speech. Note that he also urged the Libyans to not surrender their honour to Qatar.

A year after Gaddafi's murder Libyans across the state of Libya were burning Qatari flags, and by 2017 Saudi Arabia, Egypt and UAE cut all relations with Qatar which they classified as terror-sponsoring state. It emerged later that Qatar and Turkey were funding militia groups aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and Qaida (see GNA for more on this).


gaddafi addresses  Benghazi

This is what al-Jazeera wrote on the screen during Gaddafi's speech: "Gaddafi tells Benghazi residents "we are coming tonight & there will be no mercy"". Now this sentence is misleading because it implies that there will be no mercy for the whole residents of Benghazi, whereas, as we heard above, there was no such threat to the people of Benghazi - he was specifically talking to criminals and terrorists who are carrying illegal weapons according to Libyan law at the time.

Making war-decisions based on an imaginary situation from the future based on exaggerated allegations should not warrant the total destruction of Libya's infrastructure without an exit strategy. This gross "misrepresentation" of truth was pointed out by Alan J. Kuperman, a professor at the University of Texas, in this interview: https://youtu.be/j02uvYMKbh4

In 2015, when the damage has been well established, questionable reports began to emerge. For example, on the 28th of January 2015 The Washington Times published an article titled: "Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war", in which one learns that American officials told The Washington Times "that Mrs. Clinton’s strong advocacy for intervention against the Libyan regime rested more on speculative arguments of what might happen to civilians than on facts reported from the ground" [1]. But wait a minute, haven't we been told that the decision was the UN's decision to protect the Libyans by bombing them back to the savage age? And good morning; why 2015?

Apparently, according to this report we are led to believe that the American government was misled to effect war based on misguided information propounded by 3 American women, despite the fact that many Libyans including government officials were warning the UN and its military allies of the foreign radicals being armed by some of the countries they authorised to bomb Libya.

The notion that they were "misguided" is also questionable because if like the report says that the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community were worried that, "Mrs. Clinton was selling the war on exaggerated pretenses" [1], why then bomb a sovereign country without having the facts on the table, why reject the exit strategy proposed in Istanbul, and why leave the country so soon once destroyed and without protecting the civilians the UN resolution called-for?

Why leave so soon without protecting the civilians the country was destroyed for? In fact the reckless actions of the UN had placed the Libyan civilians in greater danger than ever before in Libya's entire history. This would lead to conclude that it is not easy to reconcile this tragedy with simple misguided speculation; and like the New York Times had said, "We will probably never get to have a meaningful discussion about this, as long as we are tantalized by theories about conspiracies or political malfeasance" [2].

[1] washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/
[2] nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/the-deeper-blame-for-benghazi.html?pagewanted=2&_r=4&emc=eta1



Gaddafi Calls For United Nation Investigation

05/06 March 2011: Muammar Gaddafi, in an interview with the French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche, said: "First of all I would like that an investigatory commission of the United  Nations or the African Union comes here to Libya". "We will let this panel work unhampered . . . I am surprised that nobody understands that this is a fight against terrorism . . . We have helped you a lot these past few years. So why is it that when we are in a fight against terrorism here in Libya no one helps us in return?"

Shortly after the UN-authorised bombing campaign came to an end, reports from Libya and from the world's media began to openly talk about (new) Libya becoming a "Jihadist Wonderland", else known by MI6 as "Tesco" of the world's illegal arms trade". This was not the kind of protection the Libyans thought they were blessed with, but nonetheless it is what they ended up with without being consulted.

Assuming Gaddafi's warnings were dismissed because of who he was, one still needs to understand why the warnings voiced by NTC's rebel government in that "the United States was allowing Qatar to arm extremist groups opposed to the new leadership" [1] were seemingly ignored. Was it because "NATO . . . had to be alerted not to interdict the cargo planes and freighters transporting the arms into Libya from Qatar and the emirates, American officials said" [1]?

And assuming the warnings voiced by NTC's prime minster were premature, as many Libyans were told to be patient because democracy "is untidy" and requires time to mature (while terror groups were left to expand in the open background ), one still needs to explain why in 2015 Libya's elected leaders from the House of Representatives (HoR) still say the same thing - the international community is still refusing to help the Libyan army fight terrorism, just as Gaddafi had said in 2011. Strange but 100% not a lie.

[1] nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



UN Sends Mission To Tripoli

07 March 2011: the UN responds to Gaddafi's plea and sends an investigatory commission or a humanitarian fact-finding team to Libya. The UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon appointed Abdelilah Alkhatib, the former foreign minister of Jordan, as his special envoy to Libya to undertake consultations with the Libyan government. Gaddafi also invited foreign journalists to Tripoli to see for themselves what was going on, and even though they were accompanied by government officials no evidence was provided for violence against unarmed civilians, and no planes were reported to have been bombing civilians targets.


UN Imposes A No-Fly Zone Over Libya To Protect Civilians

17 March 2011: Security Council imposes a no-fly zone over Libya to "protect civilians", and authorises "all necessary measures" (including violence) to enforce the resolution. The resolution demands an immediate ceasefire and a complete end to violence and attacks against "civilians" in Libya, even though there were no attacks against civilians. The resolution failed to mention if Gaddafi has the right to continue his attacks against "armed rebels" and the "foreign radicals" who were engaged in armed conflict with government troops long before the UN's resolution was imposed.

Ten of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution on Thursday, while Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil somehow preferred to hang in between, as if straight "yes" or "no" is not substantial-enough to not-abstain! Despite choosing not to use its veto to block the resolution, China's foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said they "have serious reservations about some of the content of the resolution"; while Russian officials, according to Reuters, accused the allies of overstepping their mandate by helping rebels overthrow Gaddafi via a UN resolution which they compared to "medieval calls for crusades".

This clearly indicates the level of transparency entertained by a small group of 15 countries, collectively known as the United Nations of the whole world; where some of the members of the UN felt they were deceived to agreeing to resolutions that hid "implied objectives". The head of the mostly-dictatorial Arab league was shocked to see the scale of destruction Libya endured in the first day of the bombing campaign and angrily faced the cameras saying that was not what they understood by the no-fly zone; but by the evening he was brought back to the "table" by dedicated diplomacy, of course.

It later emerged that the resolution contained "implicit objectives", experts say, to change the regime, back the rebels with bombs, and destroy Libya's entire infrastructure in order to weaken the government that was perceived as a threat to civilians, because, like one Western leader had said, as long as Gaddafi remains in power the threat to civilians will not go away. Hence, it was no secret to Lord Dannatt that "the mission under UNHCR 1973 is . . . to protect people but of course the implied task . . . is the removal of Colonel Gaddafi".

This is clearly a new application of UN powers to effect regime change in designated states. No matter what the UN now says or does, arming civilians, rebels and "moderate radicals" should not to be tried at home. Encouraging teenagers to use violence is the last thing responsible diplomats ought to have in mind, simply because peace and science are the only principles for lasting stability and prosperous success; and if the UN is yet to see this simple recipe, they are more than welcome to tour the "jihadist wonderland" they helped create and see for themselves the wreckage once was "sovereign Libya". 


Libya Declares Ceasefire

The UN Resolution 1973 calls for an immediate cease-fire in Libya; a dialogue between the parties involved in the armed conflict; and the protection of civilians by all necessary measures. The Libyan government responded immediately by announcing that they fully agree with the resolution and declared a cease-fire on the 18th of March 2011.

The NTC and reportedly the UN rejected the offer, stating that there was no withdrawal of government forces from the "rebelled areas". Some western leaders followed by declaring that Gaddafi cannot be trusted, especially after the mysterious incident of shooting down a military plane over Benghazi, and as a result the bombing of Libya commenced shortly afterwards.

The video tube shown by the media to prove that Gaddafi's forces continued to fire at "armed rebels" in Misrata can hardly be acceptable evidence, since al-Jazeera itself (and all other media outlets) always say the footage "cannot be independently verified" - a kind of disclaimer that follows every amateur Youtube video shown as evidence. If the video shows anything at all it has to be the fact that Gaddafi's troops were fighting armed fighters and not peaceful civilians, many of whom were "bearded men" firing at invisible targets (presumably government soldiers).

Here is the full story of shooting down the plane over Benghazi, which appears to have been staged in order to show that Gaddafi cannot be trusted with his ceasefire. The video was first broadcast by al-Jazeera and uploaded to their Youtube channel on the 19th of March 2011 - coincidently just one day after Gaddafi declared a ceasefire.



"The downing of a plane above Benghazi; shot down by pro-democracy rebels;
it now appears this may have been an own goal; the rebels shooting down one of the jets on their side

Al-Jazeera said the plane took off from Benghazi and was shot down by rebels from Benghazi, and specifically used the term: "own goal". Of course, about one hour later, the  media said the plane was shot down by Libyan government forces. A few hours later, precisely at 16:45 GMT, 20 French planes began the bombing campaign of Libya.

Why should rebel fighters fly a plane over Benghazi when they knew there was a no-fly zone in effect?
How come this was the only plane, ever, to be used by the rebels in the entire war at that crucial moment?
What is the evidence provided that the plane was shot down by Libyan government forces?
Was the downing of the plane a rebel stunt to show that Gaddafi cannot be trusted with his ceasefire?
Why did al-Jazeera change its story around an hour after it first made the announcement?


The UN Military Operations In Libya

The UN military operations in Libya began on the 19th of March 2011, and continued until the 31st of October 2011. The implementation of the UN authorisation for military operations against sovereign Libya was first commanded by American forces, before it was handed over to European forces. In total 18 countries took part in the military operations against Libya, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Canada, Belgium, Bulgaria, Romania, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, UK, USA, Qatar, Jordan and UAE; with 32 more countries provided non-military support for the war on Libya.


Other False Facts Engineered To Impose The No-Fly Zone

  • Air Force Zero: even though there was no evidence showing the Libyan Air Force bombing "civilian" targets, the propaganda was used to introduce the need for a "no-fly zone" to protect civilians. The BBC claimed that Gaddafi's planes were firing at protesters, and these claims were repeated by the UN's Secretary General Ban Ki-moon without questioning. A few weeks later American officials confirmed that there was no evidence for such  [fake] reports. Of course, the implied objective of the zone, as was admitted later, was not only to change the regime, but also the consequential destruction of Libya's entire infrastructure; thereby sending the country back to medieval times by turning sovereign Libya into a Jihadist Wonderland, complete with "Tesco" for world terrorists to plunder. These are the practical results of the [hijacked] UN's morality to protect, regardless of the intention. 

  • Exaggerated Casualties: the initial reports of 50,000 Libyans killed and 50,000 more injured, widely circulated by western, eastern and southern media outlets without providing a shred of evidence, were later found to be complete lies. Fifteen months later, the newly-created Libyan Ministry of Martyrs & Missing Persons has reduced the outlandish figure down to 5,517 rebels, soldiers and civilians killed during the bombing campaign - a mere 10% of the number given by foreign politicians and government journalists. The reason, of course, was to create the impression of a massacre taking place in Libya during the early days of the bombing campaign. Imagine the true figure of causalities reported from Syria.

  • Fakebook Lies:  apparently the UN resolutions to bomb Libya were based mainly on "media reports" that were largely drawn from social media websites such as Facebook. The reports coming from Libyan media regarding the foreign radical activity then taking place in Cyrenaica were ignored as government propaganda; culminating in bombing the Libyan TV Station by the UN-authorised forces. Immediately after the violent uprising hit the airwaves the western media (including al-Jazeera) began showing all kinds of amateur YouTubes and shaky videos of anonymous atrocities that are impossible to verify. To get around this tricky paradox, news readers always say they "cannot independently verify the video" – after they show it, again and again, of course. Why bother showing home-made footage implicating people of horrendous crimes and putting their lives in danger when one cannot independently verify the material at hand? Where are the high standards previously claimed to be the foundation of proper journalism? Understandably, three years later (after Libya was plunged in darkness & chaos) the western media began blaming social media websites for exaggerating the atrocities committed by the Libyan government.

  • Libyan Mercenaries: the early reports of foreign mercenaries fighting alongside Gaddafi's forces were also unconfirmed reports, seemingly used to effect social discord and tribal tension as per house rule: "divide and ruin". Illegal immigrants (who had no documentation) were arrested and tortured by the rebels for being mercenaries. Libyan black Tawerghans and black Tuareg Berbers were persecuted, arrested, and tortured for being mercenaries and "greens". This kind of propaganda has resulted in the persecution of hundreds of thousands of Libyans as well as African blacks, with the entire inhabitants of Tawergha being expelled from their town – seemingly with no one in sight to protect. One can only presume that showing Gaddafi bringing in African mercenaries to kill Libyans is good for turning Libyans against him, and against each other, just as shooting people in mosques, raping women and Vaiagra propaganda were. It emerged a few months after the bombing campaign started that foreign mercenaries including radical jihadists from around 12 countries were indeed fighting with the rebel forces against the forces of the Libyan government. When Aljazeera asked some rebels for the apparent contradiction, the rebels replied the foreign mercenaries were helping them with the so-called "revolution" (for some).

  • Fake Liberation: the UN's objective to protect civilians from an imaginary massacre by all necessary measures was a complete farce, simply because liberation was declared after the real massacre of civilians was effected. On the 23rd of October 2011 the NTC declared the premature liberation of Libya while the whole country was still in a state of war, as confirmed a year later by the transitional president Dr. Magarief himself. On the 31st of October 2011 the United Nations declared an end to its bombing campaign, apparently success "with precision", while blasting civilian homes was still going on across the stricken country; thereby igniting the real massacre of Benghazi with a barrage of assassinations and bombing campaigns that continue to this day (2015) – with neither protection nor solution in sight but a possible second bombing campaign – this time to protect Europe from the immigrants and the radicals effected in the protected state. 

  • The reverberating morality previously employed to destroy the old has now evaporated whence it came; forcing foreign diplomats and UN representatives to flee the country they helped destroy.

  • It is "probably" Okay to remove dictators as long as civilians do end up "protected", as promised. But with destruction and bloodshed effected everywhere and hell let loose on earth, one can only say: shame on you UN.









UN Resolution 1970





Resolution 1970 (2011): United Nations No-Fly Zone Over Libya Resolution. Adopted by the Security Council at its 6491st meeting, on 26 February 2011.






















UN Resolution 1973


Security Council Distr.: General 17 March 2011 Resolution 1973 (2011). Adopted by the Security Council at its 6498th meeting, on 17 March 2011. Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011


Download The UN Resolution 1973

Download The UN Extended Support Mission in Libya



















UN Resolution 2174



Waiting until hundreds of militias and terror groups took full advantage of the chaos inflicted on Libyans in 2011;
and after ignoring all the cries from the Libyan people and independent media for help during the past three years;
and after Libya was flooded with illegal immigrants, weapons, drugs, corruption and crime;
and after all traditional values in Libya were destroyed in the name of protection;
and after many foreign groups took full advantage of lawless Libya;
and after creating "Tesco" for world terrorists to enjoy";
and after turning Libya into a "Jihadist Wonderland";
and after bringing Libya to its knees;

the UN has at last decided on the 27th of August 2014 to merely call for a ceasefire and apply "sanction" to those who decide to threaten the "stability" and "democracy" of Libya. It is not clear what kind of democracy or stability the UN is referring to! The resolution even "condemns the use of violence" when the UN itself authorised violence against the wishes of  many Libyans who called for dialogue instead.

The alleged objective is to protect civilians, no doubt, but like the previous resolutions this latest resolution may also harbour "implied objectives" the Libyans and others could only endure in years to come. For example, by declaring a number of installed organisations as "terror groups", and from the scale of the immigration disaster effected after the bombing campaign, Libya will become a future bombing target simply because it is now perceived as a threat to the whole region including Europe, of course.

If foreigners want to help Libyans then they must provide (in advance) a complete program with a proven exit strategy to demonstrate the expected results. Such exit strategy would then be put for a referendum by the Libyan people to approve or else reject. Imposing destruction on sovereign nations in the name of protection only to turn round and say it was a "mistake" is an absurd tragedy unfortunate nations could only endure. 



Download UN Resolution 2174 of 2014

Source: https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/sc11537.doc.htm

















UN Resolution 2259


After repeated failures and disagreements the UN-imposed Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) was signed  in Skhirat, Morocco, on the 17th of December 2015. The UN's decision was outlined by its resolution 2259. The agreement imposes a "Presidency Council" on the Libyan people, while ignoring the democratically-elected HoR government.

According to the Guardian the UN's "appointed government" is a "calculated risk" taken by the UN after turning its back on the elected HoR. But the reality, of course, the imposed government is a calculated "dictatorship" in violation of the signed draft agreement and in violation of the UN's mandate which stipulates only "mediation" between the elected government and outlaw militias.

Such UN-imposed dictatorship had effectively forced the elected government of Tobruk to "cut its own throat" by cutting a deal with the armed militias that hijacked Tripoli. (See GNA for more on this disagreement.)

It took the HoR nearly eight months to respond to this violation (see UN Violations tab, above).


Download UNSC Resolution 2259

Download The Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) - English

Download The Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) - Arabic























UN Resolution 2292


More shoddy resolutions from the so-called United Nations. Resolution 2291, adopted on Monday the 13th of June 2016, extends the mandate of UNSMIL by six months, while Libya continues to suffer the destructive consequences of the UN-authorised bombing campaign.

Followed by resolution 2292, adopted on Tuesday the 14th of June 2016, which "authorizes inspection of suspected embargo-breaking vessels off Libya’s coast", after irresponsibly letting loose Libya's arsenal for the world to reap.

Resolution 2292 is "not being very honest” about the presence of the so-called "State" and other radical groups, and even harbours hidden agenda "to manage the flow of weapons to Libya", Russia was reported to have said [1].

From the promised protection that never materialised, and from the current state of misery Libya made to needlessly endure, such hidden agendas appear to be more real than reality itself.


Download UN Resolution 2291

Download UN Resolution 2292




[1] Russia says UN has hidden agenda: http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12401.doc.htm
[2] Resolution 2291:http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2291(2016)
[3] Resolution 2292:http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2292(2016)















UN Violations


HoR Warns The UN With International Court

رئيس مجلس النواب يهدد الأمم المتحدة بمقاضاتها أمام محكمة العدل الدولية في حال إستمرار تعاملها مع الرئاسي وحكومته


24 August 2016

The HoR's president has threatened to take the UN to the International Court (at the Hague) for the violations committed by the UN against Libya's sovereignty and against the Libyan constitution.

The HoR's president had stated in a letter addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday (23/8/2016) that the conduct of the UN is unacceptable [1]. The HoR's website however does not publish the letter nor make any mention of its content (libyan-parliament.org/الأخبار/#).

Benghazi's LANA said the letter was sent to the UN via Libya's UN representative Mr. Ibrahim Dabbashi [2], and that the HoR asked the UN to stop dealing with the PC and its unapproved GNA after the HoR's vote (of the 22nd of August 2016).


For example, the letter states that the representation of Libya at the UN creates more problems that may lead to further divisions among the Libyans. The letter said if the UN continues with such behaviour then the HoR shall be forced to take the UN to the international court for violating both Libya's sovereignty and the Libyan constitution.

The letter also warned that the UN's premature recognition of the GNA government (as occurred in its resolution 2259 - see tab above) long before the GNA itself is approved (and still has not been approved to date) does not grant the UN the right to violate the Libyan constitution.

The letter said that the UN has no right to impose a group of people under the name of GNA on the Libyan people and consider this group as the only legitimate government in Libya, and even give this government a seat at the UN.


The letter said the Libyans had sacrificed thousands of lives to get rid of dictatorship and thus will not accept any form of "new dictatorship" even if this dictatorship came via the United Nations, the organisation that chose to walk over the Libyan constitution (للأمم المتحدة التي اختارت أن تدوس بالأقدام على الإعلان الدستوري الليبي ). [Wow]

The letter said the UN knows very well that the GNA does not exist yet, and that all there is is the PC which is instructed to form a GNA government and present it to the HoR for approval. [This point is very important because other western powers apparently began their second bombing campaign of Libya in Sirte in August 2016 based on an invitation from a government that does not exist - namely the GNA - just like the imaginary massacre of Benghazi for the first bombing campaign.]

The letter stated that the unconditional support of the UN to the PC, which acts as if it is the GNA, had contributed to the deterioration of the situation in Libya and also allowed the PC to be under the control of militias as well as to violate the LPA.

LANA said Mr. Dabbashi had asked the UN to formally direct its invitations to the legitimate authority in Libya as represented by the HoR and Althni's government [2].




HoR warns the UN with international court


HoR warns the UN with international court

The HoR's Letter warning the UN with international court




[1] alwasat.ly/ar/news/libya/115806/ - Alwasat said the letter was originally published by Libya's UN representative Mr. Ibrahim Dabbashi in his Facebook page.

[2]  http://lananews.com/ar/?p=9537 - LANA said the letter was sent via Ibrahim Dabbashi

[3] Download the HoR's letter to the UN - page 1

[4] Download the HoR's letter to the UN - page 2