What is known about Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Libyan usurper?

Post Reply New Topic

The reports are in that Abdel Jalil claims leadership of Libya, replacing his former boss Muammar Qaddafi. He is claiming leadership from the city of Benghazi and presumably under King Idris' flag. What is known about him? What is his background, his biography? The Arabic-speaking world should know something, but outside of that there is nothing. Zero. Scandalously, there is no interest in trying to find out. Well, I have tried to find out and the bits and pieces paint a disturbing picture.

He became Libya's justice minister sometime in 2009. The first mentions of him in news reports begin in September 2009. One report suggests that he was appointed by Qaddafi to appease the West, and he was often at odds with Qaddafi through his time as justice minister. He was thus always an outsider and always someone that did not have real power but was there to make the West happy. So why is it that news reports claim that he was a "trusted" Qaddafi lieutenant? Why are they taking seriously his impossible claims that Qaddafi ordered the downing of Flight 103? The evidence was presented in court and was found wanting. The judges struggled painfully to justify its verdict despite the evidence, shoehorning the facts into the guilty receptacle with endless "it can be inferred that"...

One reason Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds was to avoid his possible exoneration as the appeals process was headed in that direction. The media claims that this man was an insider who would know these things and yet he was not and he is clearly lying. Why is he lying? He's telling the West what they want to hear. He was put in his post as a sop to the West. Could it be that the West specifically said they wanted him there? Could he in fact be a Western agent?

The second high profile defector by the way is the Interior Minister who would have power over the police. He was someone whose task was to do business with Libya's new Western military allies in the War of Terror. One report describes his close links with the SAS. Is it impossible that he got his troops to gun down demonstrators after several weeks of protests and then started the rebellion? Could Qaddafi be right when he says there's a conspiracy to unseat him and put these two people in power?

Let's look at some more facts about Jalil. He recently accused Qaddafi of deliberately infecting people with HIV! He called for NATO military intervention. Clearly this man is not to be trusted. Why is the opposition allowing this man to run their council? Why isn't the media more curious about who this man is?

Without a doubt, large numbers of Libyans are tired of Qaddafi, don't like his children and their lifestyles, don't like the direction that Qaddafi took Libya in recent years (and the appointment of that awful justice minister was part of the process), would like something different and Qaddafi is loaded with 41 years of baggage... but it is possible to be ruled by even worse people, people who will heighten the negative tendencies of recent years there. Is Qaddafi such a monster that it's been decided that anything is better? Clearly, no. But in the West, Qaddafi has a lot of baggage too. Don't forget also what the neocons said during their "rogue state rollback" chatter ten years ago - the principle is that anyone who in any way offends the Americans ever MUST die violently as a lesson to all others... and the people of the country in question are irrelevant, or worse, they are to be subject to free market dogmatic experimentation as Iraqis were.

Eric Margolis predicts a new King Idris-like regime in Libya should Qaddafi fall and I can't help but think that he is right. This is why I hope that he does not fall. Mr Jalil's irresponsible behaviour and outrageous statements make him unfit to govern, that's for sure.

He may be surfing the moment but they'll turn on him just as quickly if their democratic aspirations arent realized. But he has the political chops to get the tribes to back him, and that's good enough for now.

There isn't much out there about how and why, that's for sure. For all we know they all might only agree on one thing, but what happens after is unknown. By the way, he may claim leadership but reports out there suggest that his authority and that of those people is not accepted by everyone fighting Qaddafi. There is not much uniting these people other than distaste towards Qaddafi. However, if one person claims leadership, happens to be a Western agent and thus will get the recognition, and then say "NATO, prop me up", and they show up, this could be very ugly.

Well, it's a council and he's the leader of it. Many things could happen.

But the council has been saying for days now that they may want airstrikes and a no fly zone. They just said it again today. I would expect that to happen if Khaddafi isnt beaten within a couple of weeks.

That's a pretty ridiculous assumption there. The Justice Minister is supposedly pro-west so the whole revolution is a CIA/SAS conspiracy? Occam's razor, dude. Gadaffi is an insane dictator who has made it abundently clear that he is willing to go "all the way" to stay in power. I don't blame them for looking towards NATO or the UN for help when they've seen crowds of unarmed protesters get mowed down with military aircraft. They know they may be faced with a bloody protracted war.

Now saying that, I don't support intervention but I can understand why some Libyans might suport it. However, I too am suspicious of our military maunuvers in the region. I thinks it's probably more of a case of "never let a serious crisis go to waste" than a conspiracy tho. I hope the revolution in Libya can succeed by themselves before that happens.

What typically happens on that continent: you have one ruler who last a few years, and who makes himself and his immediate friends and relatives fabulously wealthy. Then, someone overthrows him. He takes off and retires to the French Riviera, while someone new holds the leashes of power for a few years and makes himself fabulously wealthy.

There's so very little known about these people. Surely the media should try to get some info about these people. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. When LURD was marching towards Monrovia in Liberia there was very little interest to know who LURD was. Funny thing LURD just disappeared after the war ended. When Charles Taylor marched to Monrovia over ten years earlier they had his biography ready. They have really cut back on their foreign affairs budgets, these media have.

As'ad Abukhalil, who runs the Angry Arab blog, has been very enthusiastic about seeing Qaddafi go down. However, he doesn't think much of this leader of the opposition.

Well hopefully other figures come forward for free and democratic elections once they move to the governing stage but I think they're most concerned about winning the war against Gaddafi first. It's becoming increasingly clear they're not going to just be able to march into Tripoli and end this quickly, this is going to be a drag out for a while it seems. Bad news for us non-interventionists because the longer this goes on the more likely foreign intervention is.

Gaddafi has been executing pro-democracy leaders for decades. It isnt like there much of an alternative beyond ministers and tribal leaders.

In Egypt they had the advantage of a western trained military class who could step in. Libya has a weak army and that's how he designed it.

The top of the Egyptian military hierarchy is Soviet-trained...
People are starting to bring up the spectre of Iraq 1991...

The Egyptian military has received billions of dollars worth of equipment from the United States since 1977... US interests are always more than just personal. If Mubarak is a liability they don't mind saying he has to go. Also, his being a Western ally protects him in the West and in countries under its influence. Still, even without the U.S. the events are as they should be. The Egyptian army was more powerful than Mubarak. The army there also has a history of not shooting Egyptians. In Libya, Qaddafi knows that he is in danger if he loses his power. There are no very powerful institutions. There's tribalism also.

And youve just repeated what I said.

I'm talking about the events of March and April 1991.