Adonis Diaries

Archive for March 9th, 2012

Federal Libya: As I predicted?

Ahmad Zubeir Sherif Sanoussi, a close relative of late former king of Libya,  and who was jailed by Qadhafi for 31 years, is leading a coalition of over 3,000 tribal leaders, politicians, and intellectuals in Eastern Libya, named the Federal State of Barca.

This Benghazi province produce three forth of Libya’s oil and is on the border with Egypt. This province was neglected by Gadhafi for 3 decades because his tribes were not from this location and Al Qaeda was mostly concentrated there

This eastern coalition that met in conference in Benghazi is “waiting for Libya Transitional National Council to get in touch with it and start negotiation…”  Ahmad Zubeir Sherif Sanoussi was recently selected to be a member of the Transitional Council.

The Federated Barca adopts the Constitution of 1951 as the starting source for any revision and reforms on any Constitution.  The Constitution of 1951 called for 3 Federal States of Barca, Tripoli, and Fezzan (south-west Libya).

Libya Transitional National Council is headed by Chairman Mustafa Abd Jalil who blurted out the strong military alternative for any negotiation before retracting

In a surprise move, US President Obama scheduled hurriedly a meeting in the White House (March 8) with Abd Rahim Kib, Libya PM. Obama urged Kib to work on the promise for a Parliament election in late June.

Libya Transitional National Council is facing serious problems in demonstrating its validity:

First, the border entrance of Ras Jadir with Tunisia is taken over by the people of the nearby city of Zuwara,

Second, the Capital airport of Tripoli is held by the Zentan militias,

Third, the port and airport of the city of Misrata is in the hand of the militias,

Fourth, all crucifix on tombs have been removed by the extremist Moslems…and the list is long on the fact that Libya is not under appreciable control

The international oil companies are worried for any renegotiation of contracts:  Every Federal State, relying on oil production would prefer to get the highest bid possible…

In a previous article, I predicted “Libya after Qadhafi and stated:

“The most plausible resolution, after satisfying the pre-requisite of ceasing the power of Qadhafi and his bloody sons, is the following:

First, Libya would be federated into two States:  The eastern State based in the Capital Benghazi, and the western State based in the Capital Tripoli.

The Federal government would be relocated to the city of Sert, in the middle of the long coast line of 1,700 kilometers, the historical dividing line between the two concentration of people and tribes (and where Qadhafi was born).

Second, the oil revenue (constituting 90% of the GNP) will be split into three parts: 40% to each State and 20% for maintaining the central government and its key federal institutions such as army, foreign affairs, currency…

Third, federal revenues will be proportionally budgeted and allocated to the people living in the deep desert oasis such as Kufra and Sebha“.

Revisiting hilarious “acts of violence” in history: Divide all “facts” by a hundred

You read “facts” in history books about armies, one million strong, facing in battlefields. You read of warlords massacring 100,000 civilian inhabitants in cities. You read all kinds of fictitious “facts” that makes you feel disgusted of mankind specie…

You would rather watch armies of ants, each carrying a twig in his powerful mandible, and hitting another ant silly until death…

Fact One: In the middle of 1800, mankind was less than one billion. If you factor out China and India, maybe mankind was less than 300 million, barely surviving, committing genocides in colonies and at home, chopping hands in the Congo, about 5 million hands, for failing to produce the requisite quota of rubber, or harvesting thousands in India to “set examples”, or displacing entire race of “Red Indians” thousand of miles away to “settlements”  so that the land can be developed…

How come thousand of years ago, any empire, however vast it was, however the power was absolute, could any empire regiment one million soldiers? It is not possible.

Fact Two: No battlefield could hold one million warriors. It is not a matter of logistics for feeding these hordes. It is not lack of enough parcels to sleep upon.  It is how all that crowd find enough spots to shit! It is not feasible. Period.

It is recounted that the Arabic General Tarek bin Ziad burned all the ships after landing his troops in Spain and said: “Ahead of you is the enemy. Behind you is the vast sea. You deal with these facts…” There are not many imaginative army generals.

If I were a general, I would space-out my army half a yard away, order the soldiers to dig a small hole and pond their shit in. I would then harangue them: “Ahead of you is the enemy. Behind you is a mined-shit field. You deal with these facts, if you care to retreat…”

Fact Three:  Why you see in movies Greek and Roman soldiers wearing skirts? It is not that they had no concept of pants or underwear.  How can any dignified warrior engage in war, feeling less than half a man, having “dirtied” his pants before the battle even started?  The soldier in skirts, legs and buttocks heavily ventilated from below, would simple spread their legs and do the little or the big ones where he stood.

It stand to reason that a couple thousand Greek or Roman soldiers would easily defeat a million-strong army of Parthians or Persians wearing pants, however loose the pants are. Ancient empires exaggerated their feats, and the sane person should divide by a hundred any number offered as “facts”

Fact Four: How long do you think any healthy and experienced soldier, fighting with swords, daggers, or something of somewhat sharp implement, body to body, at very close range, can hold his ground before taking a resting break from the “fight”?

These kind of close range fights with short hand weapons didn’t permit any experienced soldier to neutralize more than four enemies in an hour…Suppose the battle lasted 8 long hours with frequent breaks, before sundown…

I bet you most of the dead soldiers on the battlefield were slit while stooping, catching their breath, or sprawled, faking death…

I bet you most casualties slipt on their shit or the adversary shit, and the enemy also slipt and his weapon happened to be extended forward, or inward and committed suicide accidentally, collateral damage kinds…

I bet you most victims died of asphyxia, stampede style, one slipping and toppling on the other…This is not war. This is soccer game event.  This is not even mass gladiators show-off ceremonies: The fighters were not that fit.  Most soldiers lacked one sandal, the other sandal was lost, stuck somewhere, irremediably unretrievable…The remaing sandal was just glued, under a heap of something…

I bet you the smart General kept a sizeable reserve of soldiers to engage during “break time”…to slice the rotten, fallen tomatoes…

I bet there were countless gentleman agreement among the warriors.  For example: “Hey man, I feel like going. How about you?”  “Fine with me. The pressure is killing me. Let’s fake the fight. Our congested and red faces would suggest that we are archenemies…”

Fact Five:  There is this story of warlord Tamelan butchering 60,000 men in the Iranian city of Isfahan.  That was in 1400.  How could any city at the time hold more than 100,000 men, women, and kids? Every soldier was assigned a quota to slaughter Asfahani men, every day, for an entire month… I have questions:

First: When a soldier sliced a victim and the blood drenched his military tunic…would he wipe his slippery hands on the ground and rub his sword with dirt, before moving to the next waiting victim?

Second: Did Tamerlane issued red butcher overhaul to his quota-engaged soldiers so that they save time on washing and shining their military outfit? Did they wear boots? That would be a much time-consuming endeavor to keep shining…

Three: Did the soldier have breakfast before or after the first round of slaughterhood? In any case, most breakfasts were vomited. What a waste.

It pains me to watch action movies of ancient wars, exhibiting tall, vigorous, ferocious warriors.  Fact is, people were short, skinny, malnourished humanoids…They barely lived to be 30 of age. I am not talking of rotten death and eating on gums and suffering from hemorrhoids…

Those who survived the infantile phase, had already taken a severe beating before the age of twenty: They barely lived through small pox, malaria, dysentery, yellow fever…Wretched fighting wretched.  

The noblemen warriors mounted horses, decked in metal outfits, holding a sword too heavy to manipulate, peacocks leading wretched men for the show in the killing fields…

Most dead were the result of infections from rusty and dented weapons: Dying the slow and painful death, abandoned on the field, devoured by vultures and wild dogs…Humanoids fighting humanoids.

This illusionist of modern man wants to invent glorious ancestors.

Who is the more violent? The archaic warrior or the modern soldier, sitting tight, thousand of miles away from the battle field, bored, playing with his balls, pressing a stupid button, launching a missile, from a drone?

Those were the good old times…

Discussion out of context: Non-violence movements, Gandhi, Nazi Germany, Colonial England, power of the media…

Someone in the TEDx audience said: “If Gandhi non-violent movement was carried out under Nazi Germany domination, Hitler would have harvested million of Indians without blinking an eyelid…If Gandhi was successful, it is because India was ruled by the “most civilized colonial power”…

How wrong! This argument is a fallacy and totally out of context.

One whispered: “most civilized colonial power my ass“.  Why?

First, one of the Generals of the British forces in India harvested more than a thousand peaceful Indians in 1914 for gathering in the courtyard of a Temple. The General closed the exits of the premises of the temple in Amritsar and machine-gunned the upset worshipers, simply for ” setting an example”.

The General received a slap on the hand and was shipped back to England.

Second, while Gandhi was carrying on his movement, England was in deep trouble in Palestine. The about one million Palestinians conducted a civil disobedience movement for over 4 years, starting in 1935, and England had to dispatch 100,000 soldiers to squash the movement.

During this period, England exercised and put in practice in Palestine the most horrific torture methods and military laws ever conceived in history. Why?

The Palestinians wanted municipal and parliamentary elections, and England refused any “democratic procedures” such as those applied by France in Syria and Lebanon since 1920. Why?

The Zionist movement refused any election until the Jews in Palestine become majority! (The Jew represented less than 20% in the 1930’s)

The irony is that Nazi Germany was observing and documenting all the British and French violent tactics in their colonies and didn’t have to even fine-tune these torture and mass execution operations.

Actually, if England and France let Nazi Germany consolidate its power, it was because they were scared of Germany making public their tactics in the colonies: Nazi Germany had a potent propaganda machine that could destabilize the colonies, if it wished.

If England let Gandhi proceed with his movement it was because simple math proscribed sending over 30 million British soldiers to India…while Germany was increasing steadily its economic and military power…

Nazi Germany didn’t even had to meddle in rounding up the Jews in France: Colonial France was more than expert in these operations, and better than Germany that had no colonies to practice upon.

France even sent all the files of every single French citizen to Berlin!

Note 1: In which context this post was inspired from?

Note 2:  First Palestinian Intifada




March 2012

Blog Stats

  • 1,516,570 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 822 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: