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
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
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,
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"
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
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
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.
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
emerged later that Qatar and Turkey were funding militia groups aligned with
the Muslim Brotherhood and Qaida (see GNA for
more on this).
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.
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" . 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.
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" , 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"
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" 
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" ?
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.
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 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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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";
after turning Libya into a "Jihadist
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
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.
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
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
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.
2292 is "not being very honest” about the presence of the
so-called "State" and other radical groups, and even harbours hidden
"to manage the flow of weapons to Libya", Russia was reported
to have said .
From the promised protection that never materialised, and from the current
state of misery Libya made to needlessly endure, such hidden agendas appear
more real than reality itself.
 Russia says UN has hidden agenda: http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12401.doc.htm
 Resolution 2291:http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2291(2016)
 Resolution 2292:http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2292(2016)
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 . The HoR's website however
does not publish the letter nor make any mention of its content (libyan-parliament.org/الأخبار/#).
LANA said the letter was sent to the UN via Libya's UN representative Mr. Ibrahim Dabbashi
, 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 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
The HoR's Letter warning the UN with international court
 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.
 http://lananews.com/ar/?p=9537 - LANA said the letter
was sent via Ibrahim Dabbashi