Video Study: Rebels Attack Libyan Barracks

July 7, 2011
last update November 12

We start with two videos collected at this page of the "Libyan War" blog/site, as showing "peaceful protesters open fire at direction of army compound in Benghazi." The actions described seem accurate. One video (below, posted Feb 22) shows an ambulance leaving a compound, followed by what I believe is an internal security paddy wagon. (Update Nov.11: Reader Felix says "The black "padded wagon" in video 1 is certainly no internal security van,as it is labelled in arabic (of course!) Inna Lillahi Wa inna ilayhi raji'oon : To Allah we belong and to him we return - إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّـا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ." This sounds kind of like a "hearse," indicating someone has died.)

They drive at medium speed down a dusty road amid a scattered crowd of apparent protesters, and dense gunfire they're not running from. Its youtube posting idiotically entitles the thing "Libya : Random Shootout Towards Ambulances and Protestors." Looks like the shooting is coming from the civilians, and only might have been towards the ambulance. More likely they're firing in the air, in celebration for the injuries it seems were inflicted on someone else prior to this point.

The next video shown, posted by the same user (LAKOMTUBE) on the previous day (Feb 21), supports those calls. This time, we're seeing "Live Fire between People and Gaddafi Regime." It shows a smaller and denser group of "protesters" hiding from lines of fire inside, while at least one aimed an assault rifle in and fired repeatedly, trying to "express himself." Something they got inside has also started a few of the trees on fire, starting the smoke chaos "non-violent insurgencies" seem to love. (the real smoke, we'll see below)

There was another video once shown at that Libyan War post, called "Protestors gather around a compound," but it has since been removed by the user. But in R. Breki Goheda's half-hour documentary video (part 1 embedded below) is a scene, perhaps the same as the one lost, of what I've decided is clearrly the same site. Shown at 5:40 (by luck with the scene in question chosen as the thumbnail), this is given as a military barrack besieged by hostile and, as we've seen, slightly armed criminals.


The narrator says of the response to thie civilian onslaught:

This video demonstrates that soldiers refused to open fire at protesters. Rather, they retreat into the center of the barrack, and open fire into the air as the attackers were advancing in the barrack.

Indeed, inside we see clustered soldiers and vehicles in the mid-distance. They seem to be armed but only at the ready. He says further the insurgents were later "able to storm" the place, among a list of three places (see below), between them seizing a fair amount of weapons.

Update, Nov. 5: More Views and a Location
The location of this incident, for one thing, vexed me for quite a while. Then recently while skimming videos from al Baida, in a playlist made by molibya, I saw the same scene explored here, in a slightly different video. Was this base in or around al Baida? The title doesn't help:
مشاهد حية للإشتبكات في ليبيا [trans: Vivid scenes of clashes in Libya]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mts_qRO4nLs
Uploaded by brqnetwork on Feb 21, 2011

It's apparently the same video from above with the one rifleman firing into the gate. It's lower resolution, but has some extra footage at the beginning that to me shows something interesting. A military hostage, perhaps, against the wall just on the right side of the gate. In an olive green shirt, fair skin and dark hair, he's facing the opposite way of most others. At first glance, he seems to be being frisked or manhandled somehow by another guy. Then he's briefly seen looking to the side, and putting his hands out submissively.

Then down the list I saw a video that made me jump - a very high-res version of the video I had to cite Goheda's video for above (saved a copy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8wPx9pgPII

Uploaded by hamd95 on Mar 1, 2011, and no further date given.

This helped me see more clearly the interior of the base and forces within, and everything else. I don't see much armed activity here, I have to say. People are bending over to pick up rocks, or throwing them. Some fiddle with other devices, perhaps (guy in trench coat, lower right in the image at the very bottom, for one)... many clues are available here.

The title of this posting is what help narrow down a location: اول كتيبه تسقط فى ليبيا من نظام القذافى ( مدينة شحات) [trans: Down with the first battalion in Libya of Qaddafi's regime (the city of Cyrene)]. I looked up Cyrene, and it's a modern small town as well as archaeological site (and clearly the origin of the whole region's name-Cyrenaica). It's on the northern outskirts of Shahet, just east of al Baida.

The army base at Shahet fell to rebel forces on February 19, I have heard, two days after the Day of Rage. The video location is not at Cyrene, but on Shahat's eastern flank. There I found an expansive walled compound, where an angled road passes a gate, in a heavily-treed area. Matching the video, this area has dense trees on both sides of the wall, making the gate area invisible from above, but with the right-hand-side (when facing in) more open.

Base and takeover details from reader Felix, as submitted in a comment, trumps my sloppy old guesswork:

The military barracks which the commentator around 6.00 in the causes and facts video 1/2 says "Attackers were able to storm Hussein al-Juweifi and Shahat Military Barrack..." Anmesty International, in their May 2011 report actually mentions Hussein al-Juweifi military barracks in Shahat (are they the same, or are there two barracks in Shatat?): In al-Bayda, a resident told Amnesty International that on 18 February, as soldiers inside the Hussein al-Juweifi military barracks in Shahat, east of al-Bayda, were beginning to lose control after protracted battles with protesters, he attempted to mediate to avoid more bloodshed:

“I asked to speak to a senior officer at the compound whom I knew from before… I gave him my word and said: if your soldiers surrender, they will be safe. As the group of soldiers were coming out to surrender, the protesters were very angry and shot dead two soldiers… they were Libyans, not foreign mercenaries… I feel guilty because was it not for me, they may not have come out.”

The barracks were at one time commanded according to this document by Colonel Al-Jarih Farkash. Several nephews of Gaddafi were Captains at the base..Abdul Qadir Saeed and Abdul Rahman Abdul-rahim al-atrash. The battalion was at Al Beida.(1993 data) (Libya's Qaddafi by Mansour O El-Kikhia, University Press of Florida, USA) [...] The barracks are also called Al-Jarah barracks, even though the arabic title says Medina Shahat - Katiba Al Juweifi in this video, Al Jarah Barracks battle (not really). A non-faked video shows it being demolished in May 2011.

It seems to all be the same place, now with a location and a name and, as we'll see, tons of more video views spanning, perhaps, nearly two weeks. But the soldiers were surrendering on the 18th. Why it was later torn down isn't clear.

After The Battle...
So... this is some part of the Shehat campaign, somewhere around the 20th. Earlier in the same Molibya playlist were mentions of a battle of Cyrene. One of them:
"20110218149"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R146AFzeJkc
Uploaded by coffeeaddict99 on Feb 19, 2011.

The title suggests a date of the 18th, Petri Krohn tells me Mediainfo gives its record time as UTC 2011-02-18 14:50:33. The description says, Google translated from Arabic:

This is the return of the al Baida youth after their return from the battle of Cyrene, which Lapid [??], the remainder of the brigade a battalion called the enhanced 32 Thurs [??} [??]

Felix suggests this may mean 32th, or 32nd, and may thus refer top the infamous and ubiquitous Khamis brigade, "otherwise known as the 32nd reinforced Khamis Gaddafi battalion, as noted in this Al-Jazeera interview with General Fatah Younis, Gaddafi's friend turns foe , uploaded early on 1 March 2011." Here on whichever day and after defeating whoever, we see "protesters" in general control of at least part of al Baida, returning from a raid with weapons. We see face-covered militants, machine guns, boxes carried. Rockets for RPGs are held aloft in one passing truck bed to fervent cheers, then tank shells, larger rockets, and strings of heavy bullets. Only a few rifles are fired into the air in celebration, however.

And here's another Coffeeaddict99 video from the 19th:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz2ZkHP1s-I
The title, translated by Google: "Young white [al Baida] city Mtugeon [??] to attack the camp of Cyrene This is one of a group of 106 anti-defender." We see a big barrel artillery piece in the bed of a pickup truck, surrounded by wowed, victorious, knife-wielding young militants. There are  no military defectors to be seen in any of this.


All Shahet "Battle" Videos: Feb 16-18

Starting from invaluable comments below, especially from reader Felix, I'll use this space to organize the videos covered above and others, in the hope of establishing what happened and when in Shahet. Reader Petri Krohn has tipped me off to software that will (usually) show the date and time a video was recorded  (if it's raw and converted from Youtube, not a FLV downloaded with Safari). This will be called on when relevant below.

The earliest - and often most fascinating - glimpses I've seen are compiled in this video: 

Sahat [sic] intifada story

http://www.feb17images.com/sahat-intifada-story

Source: ORWA31

duration 9:34. Credited on-screen as: "Cyrenaica for International Production."

Covering only a three-day span, this compilation suggests an "Initifada"of Feb. 16-18. It starts with video from the night of Wednesday the 16th. We see a peaceful march with chanting, but also a bonfire just outside some walled compound, with no one running from live fire, and another building roaring with flames inside it. 

Nothing is shown in this video for the 17th, which is strange. That was exactly the called-for "Day of Rage," where other cities were provoking state violence and reaping the PR windfalls on video. But along with much of what happened in other towns, Shahet's total activity shared on video seems to be zero.

Footage resumes on the afternoon of the 18th, from the angle of sunlight and deducing from the presence of "18" and no other numbers appaearing amongst the Arabic text I cannot read. It shows no clear fighting but sudden control achieved by angry, unarmed civilians. A walled compound has fallen, or at least its walls are vulnerable. A dump truck is backed into it, knocking a hole. To the left are two more rough portals through the wall, one smoke-stained. How many do they need before they can finally get in? 

The following edit makes it seem this is the same wall (and it apparently is) as the compound then shown, the same al Jarah barracks examined here. It's late afternoon, the gates are open, and people are walking in like they would to the zoo. There's some sort of white car to the right of the gate, which I thought seemed burnt. Atop the wall is the guard station, never shown manned, looking to like it was burned and soot-covered as well. Another video below confirms both hunches.

Here's another Youtube video claiming to be "Fighting in the city of Cyrene the first day of the Libyan revolution." It was only uploaded in late April, and mediainfo says April 28 - the date it was stamped in a program I presume. So we cannot say a certain date, but it seems a best fit with early afternoon of the 18th. The white car is seen at the beginning, trashed and tireless if not burnt. It's very shaky, bad camera work, filmed at the gate, panned in too close to give much detail. People are seen both walking in triumphantly, clapping, and also running out, at gunfire as if under attack within the base. Then they feel safe and keep going... There must be hundreds of "protesters" inside by now, burning a truck and piles of junk near the gate. No guns are seen, just clubs and sticks and a whole limb from a tree, held by people continuously running back out (like the masked militant at left). Then an ambulance and a black van drive out, in a clearly different scene from the one we opened with.

Back to the "Sahat intifada" video from ORWA31. The trashed interior is also shown after another cut, presumably some other time on the 18th. Within the expansive lot, rebel types mill about, loot, burn, and film freely. There are trees and green fringes, but it's smoke-filled, junk-strewn and spotted with wildly burning vehicles and buildings. Clearly, this was among the earliest of military mass defection to the side of the people, but none of the defectors are shown (except one, high-ranking, and dead - see below).

Then there's  a view walking down the street outside the base (2:57). Two trucks, their occupants elsewhere now, are seen burning fiercely, as smoke pours from the open gateway of the base itself. Along the way, a rebel flag is seen, chanting about Allah, a man with a hatchet, and just immense amounts of smoke.

Then we see an injured loyalist, it seems, carried out and into a mob that surrounds him. Two middle-aged men finally escort him through, forcing past the hot-heads. Then a bus with a rebel flag, at 5:40 military trucks full of people with machine guns are seen driving by at great speed. Other trucks are shown being filled with as many fighters as possible, and speeding off. A single artillery piece, several masked men, a cheering crowd, and light-hearted dancing with bullets are also seen in the video as it closes its coverage of the 18th. Fascinating work.

Another, more amazing video from ORWA31 shows some events that seem to fit with this day.
إقتحام كتيبة حسين الجويفي بمدينة شحات . [Break into the battalion Hussein Jawafa city of Cyrene]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nPg1YThjdo
Duration 10:09

This densely-packed video compilation starts with a night-time scene, perhaps the 16th or 17th, in front of the main gates. Men are waving knives and chanting. Then a day shot with burned buildings. Various scenes of marches, a funeral, and gate protests are shown quickly, with molotov coctails being dispened in pepsi bottles (1:43). Two swords at least are brandished (1:54, 2:00), then we see the car to the right is burning and belching smoke (2:03). The guardhouse also looks unmistakably blackened at this point (below, stitched from a couple different frames).

The "break into the batallion"video then shows a few brave men walk far into the interior, taunting the apparent security forces still lined across the way. None of them are shown getting shot. But we do see several injured people, civilians mostly, being carried out; one man with a mustache is quite convincing - he has his right foot bloodied and just dangling (3:50).

There's a high-speed bulldozer to the walls, knocking a big hole, perhaps one of the ones we've seen (5:47). Then two dump trucks, knocking two holes side-by-side. Then a man laden with many belts of ammunition.

Feb. 19 is the date I've previously cited as the conquest of the barracks in Shahet. That wasa"no later than," and based on a video posted by Coffeeaddict and perhaps others on that day (not sure who's version I first saw or the name of it). Labeled in Arabic, the title translates to "Cyrene (Shahet) yesterday after the attack on the camp." It has a distance view of the smoke rolling south out of the base, dominating the horizon. In the foreground is a major intersection, the street running up to the base, a large empty dirt lot, and a small, partly-collapsed building. Perhaps security-related, it's got a circular structure on its top, and sits well away from the base, half a mile away. 

The video cited above, "Libyan Crisis: Events, Causes and Facts," says this conquest supplied machine guns used on the 19th in Benghazi. That makes plenty of sense, especially if the base was conquered, as the video evidence suggests, by the afternoon of the 18th. 

Feb 19: Lights, Camera... Stupid!

On the 19th, per the description, occurs another battle! 

48 - al Jarah barracks battle

http://www.feb17images.com/48-al-jarah-barracks-battle

Saturday, 19 February, 2011

Source: kadekke6

Armed civilian men resist the Gaddafi thugs just outside the base's walls, on a day it's apparently rained heavily. They take turns firing machine guns into at least two holes knocked in the walls. Little sense of urgency is apparent. 

The location seems to be a roughly north-south wall, late morning, on the barracks' east side.The best match I could find, with no visible road next to it, is at the southeast corner of the northern portion of the compound, a more residential-looking part of the base. It's possible loyalists still held out in there,   but I doubt this would be the best way they had of rooting them out. 

Special mention goes to this gem of a same-day video: 

"Shooting at protesters outside the barracks."

http://www.feb17images.com/7-shooting-protesters-outside-barracks

Saturday, 19 February, 2011

Source: ahmadkadar

On this more famous side of the barracks wall, a few hundred yards away from the last video, the ground looks much drier than the other video, if still extremely moist by Libyan standards (the region is known for that, BTW). It seems to be afternoon and sunnier, so that could be.

People run and scramble to hide from the sound of gunshots - hundreds of feet away from these ...weaponless attackers? ... clustered on the main street. Some others lay there helpless on the pavement, un-helped, not carried away, but not bleeding either.

One of the victims sits up and looks around, waving at people. Another victims then wanders over and, apparently having been shot, lays splayed-out among them (at right, starting to kneel). As reader Felix describes it "this video clearly shows a "protester" ambling onto set (and it is essentially a film set with actors) then slowly getting down, then lying dead on his back, at about 0.16 onwards. He occasionally pops his head up just to check he isn't dead." Another victim in the struggle!

Indeed, anyone else take a look and see how ridiculous this is. Note also the creepy stiff man in a black trench coat who at the end walks right over to that same jackass and stands over him. As if to say "what the hell was that? Don't you realize what we're trying to do here?" He seems unconcerned that they're failing all around.

There are videos I'll link here soon showing some fighting near or perhaps inside the base, and of tanks being driven through holes in the wall, given as Feb. 19.

Next we turn to a sequel to the Sahet Intifada video, again by Cyrenaica, but this time on Youtube and starting on the 19th.
إنتفاضة مدينة شحات _الجزء الثاني . [Uprising in the city Cyrene _ Part II]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY4JNiq-Aa4
Uploaded by ORWA31 on Aug 3, 2011

Feb 19: a cloudy, rainy, windy day from random footage of the city. Already we see the Aruba School captives, who were captured at the nearby airport and held in Shahet. More of theseblack-skinned Libyan deputized security men seem injured in this view, but the location is the same and one captive at least is identifiable in common between this and the other video. The location, as Felix suggested, might be within the base they just captured. At 3:22 some apparent, alleged, generic viagra is shown, one pill already taken, along with paper (prescription?) and ID (foreign?) plus emphatic explanation of the significance (in Arabic of course). Apparently on day three of "protests," Gaddafi's "African mercenaries" were already coming to rape their women.

ORWA's "break into the battalion" video shows for the apparent 19th more barracks battles inside and out, on a rainy day, armed with the weapons they got wherever, running around, ducking, shooting, amid fire and smoke. We see firing a grenade, driving out tanks belching smoke. An anti-aircraft gun, two burning trucks, an old man injured, being carried. There's a parade with tanks, a hanging effigy, and a large rebel flag. It closes with two black men interviewed, one of whom might be Mohammed, the other the gray old man I recognize from the Aruba school prisoners. Both are said to be from Chad, among the five (2.5%) of these "mercenaries" who were not Libyans.

That they were captive on the 19th is interesting. It suggests the L'Abraq airport battle, starting on the afternoon of the 18th, was shorter than I thought, suggesting more of a mass surrender and capture than a prolonged struggle. 

Endless Struggle: Feb 20 and After
By the 18th they had their base, might've been bringing captives there by the next day as they drove out the heavy weapons. The 20th followed in "break into..." with armed crowds in town, driving over a large, dirty, barely recognizable portrait of Col.Gaddafi (3:42). It seems to be an incredible boring day.

But another flesh-and-blood col. Gaddafi is shown in another video for Feb 21:
Colonel Shahat Brigade
http://www.feb17images.com/50-colonel-shahat-brigade
Description: Colonel Mustafa Al Gaddafi killed by mercenaries while he was protecting civilians
Monday, 21 February, 2011
Source:  ahmedomran80

"Colonel Mustafa Al Gaddafi," killed for trying to save the people allegedly, yields no hits on Google besides the Feb 17 images video and now this article. Some amazing hero, then, this col. Gaddafi must've been. Even translated to Arabic "العقيد القذافي مصطفى" it yields nothing that doesn't actually refer to the villain Colonel Gaddafi. But his dead face is shown up-close (intact but pained, with blood on the chin) in an old rebel video three days or so after his base had fallen. He doesn't look decomposed at all, so one wonders if the video is days old, if he was just holed up until then, or if he was executed after his capture. How many officers under him were killed? By whom exactly and where did the killers escape to?

It's only at this point the videos I opened with were finally filmed, it might seem judging by the time stamps and posting dats suggesting the 21st. The "live fire" video, posted Feb. 22, is time stamped UTC 2011-02-21 07:24:21 - nearly three days after people had first gained apparent control of the whole place. But the time's off - the encoding is in the morning, with the action being afternoon. It's the same with the others: The longer "vivid scenes of clashes in Libya" version of the same video has an earlier encoding: UTC 2011-02-21 06:43:46. "Libya : Random Shootout Towards Ambulances and Protestors" is marked UTC 2011-02-21 08:42:01.

My guess here is these are the times they were processed and stamped with logos, 6:43 to 8:42 am by whoever exactly. The actual events could be from any point in the previous days. Further, the two versions of the same video can be neither derived from the other. The one has extra footage, the other better resolution. So both must draw from a previous version that may still be out there...

Interestingly, the wall-top guard house is seen in neither of these videos. It could well be burned up there out of view. The burnt car as well is kept out of frame with what seems more careful camerawork than used before. The smaller guard shack inside the gate to the left is visible however, with milder soot stains coming from its window.

Finally we have the very high resolution video "Down with the first battalion in Libya of Qaddafi's regime (the city of Cyrene)." This one pans all over and shows smaller fires inside, no rebel guns at all, and the army just inside. It was posted by Hamd95 on March 1, and as with all posting dates, it's only a "no-later-than." The media info timestamp is no different, as we've seen. But this looks like raw video, un-stamped, and it's from only the previous day: UTC 2011-02-28 15:35:38. This could even be the time of filming, judging by the angle of afternoon sunlight. But ten days after they first took the place?

What else stands out is that finally we can see the guardhouse again and it's pristine, un-burnt. Beneath is is what looks from a distance like a new white car resting high on fancy tires, replacing the burnt one we saw later (earlier?). I can't tell if any of the pointless holes they knocked in the wall are present here. That stretch of wall is distant and washed out with sunlight.

So is this really an amazing early video that's only gotten to us by this later re-posting? Or is this a staged re-enactmentafter they cleaned the place up, to cast a more poetic light? Was it the first staged video, aside from the obvious"Shooting at protesters outside the barracks," or the last in an awkward sequence? Why have we still never seen the footage of when the base apparently actually fell - on Feb. 17 and into the early 18th?

The Military Defected. Really?

Or: Fifty Ways to Leave Your Leader
November 5, 2011
last edits Nov. 7

The Army and the People are One. Really?
Nothing was a clearer benchmark of the Libyan uprising's claims to rightness than the widespread defection of government soldiers to the side of "the people." They refused the desperate and murderous orders of the Gaddafi regime to crush the uprising. Instead they demanded, as the people at large were doing, that the government itself step down. Or so goes the simplified narrative we've been given.

This wasn't an idea the Libyan massesjust invented, of course. It was fully in the esteemed and weeks-old "Arab Spring" tradition of allowing "the youth" - and always some opposition political leaders - to seize the country's future.  The military and the people and the Transitional National Council were now one, it was said, and they stood together, combining their strenghts, against the doomed regime.

As World Tribune reported, Feb.22

Units of Libya's military were said to be defecting to the opposition in the war to oust the regime of Col. Moammar Gadhafi. 

Opposition sources said [...] Gadhafi could no longer rely on his military and much of his police. They said the remaining loyalists were his Presidential Guard and special units comprised of foreign mercenaries...
[...]
"There have been several cases which a Libyan Army unit attacked Gadhafi's security forces rather than join them," an opposition source said.
[...]
The Qatari satellite channel A-Jazeera reported that Libyan military officers issued a statement that called on their colleagues to defect. It was not clear how many officers signed the statement.

Of course evidence was cited to support the powerful impression, and it wasn't completely untrue. However the reality was nothing like the cherished illusion it remained in the West. Back at the beginning, we heard from the insurgents that "the military units defecting to them are well-armed, well-disciplined and well- organised." [source] Where did they go when the fighting started? In March, we saw heavily-armed bearded civilians, who knew how to fire but not aim, being completely rolled back by a still-coherent national force.

Once NATO's aerial "protection"started, it required the systematic destruction, over several month, of probably tens of thousands of dedicated, loyal, and terribly brave members of the armed forces. That would have been an awkward reality, if we had bothered to notice it.

So what reason was there to ever believe Gaddafi had been stranded alone with his mercenary army as his people all walked out from beneath his authority? And if the military didn't side with the people, then why did they stop killing them, allowing revolutionary forces, armed with Libya's national weaponry, to come out in control of whole cities and regions?


Benghazi, Feb. 20: Like a Bolt From the Blue
As early as February 18, videos were claiming to show how in the uprising epicenter of Banghazi, just shy of three days into it, "Libyan army surrenders to protesters." A few soldiers amongst the people seem to be, for the moment, acting friendly and not firing, or being fired on. They smile and nod at the people proclaiming this victory. Two days later they'd be hunkered down in their barracks, under withering "protester" attacks.

February 20 was the big day for military defections in the big city of Benghazi, and the same day the "protesters" scored their new capitol. Sky News reported on that day about the most widely reported group involved in that:

Members of a Libyan army unit have told Benghazi residents they have defected and “liberated” the city from pro-Gaddafi forces. Speaking from Benghazi, a local man named Benali, told Sky News that members of the Libya’s armed forces have defected and that anti-regime protesters are now in control of the city. 

Habib al-Obaidi, who heads the intensive care unit at the main Al-Jalae hospital, appeared to confirm the reports, saying the “Thunderbolt” squad arrived at the hospital with soldiers who had been injured in clashes with Gaddafi’s men. “They are now saying that they have overpowered the Praetorian Guard and that they have joined the people’s revolt,” said Mr al-Obaidi. 

The same day, Reuters reported on this Thunderbolt defection, with a duplicateof Mr.al-Obeidi's line spoken by someone else:

In the port city of Benghazi, two residents said members of the army's Thunderbolt squad had arrived at the local hospital with soldiers wounded in clashes with Gaddafi's personal guard. "They are now saying that they have overpowered the Praetorian Guard and that they have joined the people's revolt," lawyer Mohamed Al-Mana said by telephone. It was not possible to independently verify the information.
[...]
One witness had earlier said that many police and soldiers had joined protesters. 

I can find no photos or video of this event, and little else about this brigade and its significance, before or since this dramatic abandonment of the Gaddafi regime. The only thing that popped up prominently was video of rebel units in June fighting against "Gaddafi's 32nd Thunderbolt Brigade."

Benghazi Feb. 20: The Younes and Barracks Defections
Besides this group, the other important true defection in Benghazi that day was by one man. The Interior minister and nominal military leader Abdel Fateh Younes, for whatever reason, joined the uprising late on the 20th. The whole military didn't necessarily follow him, however, nor even those in Benghazi and closest to his supposedly transformative defection.

He'd been sent there to reinforce the besieged al-Fadhil bin Omar Katiba barracks ("the Katiba"), Benghazi's main army base. This had actually been blown open by a suicide bomber earlier on the 20th (see image at right), as part of the fourth and final day of "protester" attacks there.

Soldiers were holed up in buildings within the stormed compound, gradually succumbing to insurgent guns, swords, and flames, as Younes arrived. As the UK Guardian reported, only two months after the fact, on the suicide bomber and what he enabled:

What followed wasn't pretty. "(The revolutionaries) were beating Gaddafi people they captured, it's true. When they captured a Gaddafi soldier they said: 'What was this man doing? He was shooting us.' Gaddafi's soldiers wanted to kill anyone. They were using anti-aircraft weapons on humans. It cut people in half. People were angry," says Fasi. So angry that some of Gaddafi's soldiers were lynched. At least one was beheaded. 

The remainder either joined the rebels happily, surrendered to them under force, were killed by them, or, for the most part, walked away in the opposite direction following the amnesty Younes negotiated as a term of his own defection. Already we can see that "defected" is a broad term applied to many things. Readiness can be signaled with a flashed victoy sign, a white flag, or red drips, like these down the basement wall of the Benghazi barracks. One way or another, they stopped opposing the uprising, and the one way sounds best, so it's used universally. They just "defected."

It should also be noted February 20 was by all accounts the deadliest day of the uprising in Benghazi. Reuters added this:

Habib al-Obaidi, who heads the intensive care unit at Benghazi's Al-Jalae hospital, said at least 50 people had been killed and 100 seriously wounded since 1300 GMT on Sunday.

"Today has been a real tragedy ... since 3 p.m. (1300 GMT) and up to 9.15 pm, we received 50 dead, mostly from bullet wounds," he said. "There are 200 wounded, 100 of them are in very serious conditions." 

The idea behind the rebel takeover of al Jalaa hospital (effective February 18) seems to have been, in part, denying treatment to soldiers. So if this number is credible, it's of protester deaths only. 50 martyr's from a six-hour pitched battle they threw themselves into isn't outlandish. The number of military deaths from the battle has never been compiled or broadcast, but it was likely higher yet. All we heard was that collectively they had "defected." And they were among the first, as the World Tribune heard it:

The sources reported the first defections of Libyan soldiers on Feb. 20 in Benghazi. They said both soldiers and officers refused orders by the military brass to shoot protesters and were instead allowing them to take over facilities and seize weapons. 

This seems to refer not to the Thunderbolts but to the conquest of the Katiba, where the military "allowed them to take over." If the bolded is true, it means they only "refused" to kill "protesters" starting the same day they were militarily defeated by them. 

Benghazi After the 20th: Wow, More Defections!
Others in Bengazi, apparently in less crucial facilities, took longer before deciding to follow their conscience and/or survival instincts and side with "the people" rather than trying to fight them. The Huffington Post reported on one of them, February 24

The security chief in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi announced his resignation on Thursday, voicing his support for the opposition to head of state Muammar Gaddafi in a video aired by Al Arabiya TV.

"I am Brigadier Ali Huwaidi, the director of Benghazi's security popular committee. I tendered my resignation and I am ready to stand behind the youth," he said in the video.

Russia Today obtained a video of more defectors in Benghazi on February 25. We see some camouflage jackets, and modified civilian vehicles with weapons that do look military, being driven through the streets. There's little discipline anywhere, however, just a whole lot of yelling, and a special emphasis on showing off shiny swords, machetes, and other blades, in the hundreds. 

It wasn't until February 26 that the holdout Naval base in Benghazi, the largest in the country it's said, came over, more peacefully than the army barracks had. Euronews covered this:

There is mounting evidence that a growing number of Libyan military personnel are defecting and joining the opposition against Colonel Gaddafi. At the nation’s biggest navy base in opposition- controlled Benghazi, officers have declared a ‘free Libya.’ 

People have resigned themselves to homes destroyed by natural disasters before. That doesn't mean they support the disasters, really, or that the disasters were winning moral victories.

Nationwide "Defections" 
It was back on February 21 that the Libyan Air Force joined the game. On the same day the first bombings of Tripoli were falsely reported (bombing wouldn't begin until NATO started it), two fighter pilots famously defected, stole their jets, and took them to Malta. The day after Benghazi had fallen militarily, they said they were sent to bomb "protesters" there, but just had to refuse.

There's no compulsion evident in this case. These guys were eager to defect, to be seen, and to have their wild stories heard widely. Considering the illogic of their alleged orders, the conveninece of them for villifying Gaddafi and greasing the way to air war, and the mysterious Frenchmen that they almost seem to have escorted out of benghazi, these defectors seem more the conspiratorial than the conscientious type. They fit better with schemers like Mesmari and Dabbashi than anything like the heroes of the people they were painted as.

Euronews trumpeted that "in the western city of Zawiya, amateur film shows soldiers being carried by protesters. “One Libya, one people” they chanted." The video is around, for example as Libyan Army With The Protesters, from February 24. About five armed, uniformed, apparent army defectors are shown and carried by the enthusiastic crowd. The rest of what happened in Zawiyah for the three weeks "protesters" had run of it is murkier and far more troubling than this one nice little moment. The army base was raided, many people were killed in often horrific ways, much was looted and burned. The army and police were ordered to keep back as armed gangs scored numerous rifles and RPGs on the 24th (but only the five "defectors" we've seen), and massive machinery including a couple dozen tanks following a morning raid on the 27th.

As for how the insurgents came to be armed, a UN Human Rights Commission investigation acknowledged defections and gifts were only part of the picture (how large a part is unclear):

58. According to information received by the Commission, the weapons and vehicles available to the opposition forces initially comprised equipment captured during battles with governmental forces or taken from military posts and warehouses upon gaining control of such facilities together with equipment belonging to the defecting military units. The opposition armed forces are also believed to be receiving equipment from foreign countries including uniforms and communication means.

A news video I stumbled across on Youtube called  Libyan Army Gives Weapons To Revolutionaries is of interest here. This staged media event, broadcast by NBC, seems to have been in the far eastern city of Tobruk, no later than February 24, per this other posting. The army guys aren't directly joining the fight, nor are they being killed or robbed. But neither are they shown. Rather, they're down in the basement, we hear, freely handing out weapons for the fighters to take. "They say now that the people and the military are together," the reporter says. 

Al Baida and Dernah: The Cyrenaican Hard Core

The cities of al Baida and Dernah, between Benghazi and Tobruk, were overwhelmed even earlier than their capitol. AFP (via Jihad Watch) has an interesting piece here, citing Libyan government sources on the creation, in Dernah, of an "Islamic emirate of Barqa." By this, a single defector helped allow a raid as early as Wednesday, February the 16th, scoring some serious weapons and started them towards conquest. When exactly they got control of the city isn't clear, but the Barqa people were, by this report, active in al Baida as well by the 18th, helping a mob hang two policemen among other things.

The combined insurgent forces in al Baida also attacked the army base that day and the nearby airport, both locations containing soliders and alleged "African mercenaries" (actually extra Libyan security flown in from Sabha). At the base, Time reported after speaking with one of the Sabha men, "a protest outside the base turned into an intense firefight" and "by the night of Feb. 18, soldiers began to defect, joining the revolution." Those who didn't were captured or killed when the insurgents conquered the base that same night. By the 20th, somehow, al Baida and Dernah had both fallen, along with the airport and all roads and towns between them. Unknown hundreds of loyal forces were killed in the process.

This spree of early conquest included the February 19 taking of the military base at Shehat, home of the ancient site of Cyrene, namesake of the eastern region Cyrenaica. Rebel video from there shows a mechanical digger tearing open the concrete walls of the barracks on that day; the base was apparently already seized and they were working at their leisure. There was a vary large hole there to start with, apparently blasted out by a tank from the inside. All this elborate hassle to circumvent the walls could suggest the gates were still locked and they didn't have any defectors left alive handing them the keys.

Army Person? Yes. Al Baida, Feb 22

However, we have been shown how a "Military Unit From Jab'al AlAkhthar (Green Hill) Defect and Declare Support For People." That's the title of a video posted by SaveLibya on February 22, though it might have been days old by then. Jabal al Akhtar is the name of the administrative district for for the city of al Baida, I found elsewhere. They had decided to defect, no more than four days after the main army base there was overrun, and here's the proof: a distracted youth and a bearded insurgent with rifle flash victory signs while flanking one uniformed officer who sits less at ease. The one clear representative of the military makes the announcement under rebel guard, reading from a sheet someone else probably wrote for him. The English transcription provided says, in part, "we declare that we have fully joined the youth movement and are under orders of the people." Which people exactly? Well the ones with guns might have some immediate influence.

Armed Amateurs

The first thing that really struck me as odd about the first days of the civil war is how non-violent protesters, whom I then believed were being shot dead in droves, were able with just anger, and despite the heavy losses, simply take military control, even briefly, of half of the cities in the country. I sensed we were missing something there, and the things I've found since are starting to reveal what that was.

Army weapons, yes. Army people? No. Benghazi, Feb. 20

For just one important example, the Katiba in Benghazi yielded much hardware like that seen at right. Tanks, Grad rocket launchers, and more, where wheeled out for use in the next battles. But as they made off with this arsenal, it was enthusiastic civilians doing the driving and handling, not military professionals. As we've seen, at the Katiba anyway, these were happy just to be allowed to leave the scene alive and intact, in the opposite direction.

Other weapons taken from Zintan to Zawiyah, Misrata to Dernah, were shown in other videos made by protesters, and largely included in R. Breki Goheda's documentary Libyan Crisis: Events, Causes, and facts. This explains that "rebels stormed most of the military camps in the country," along the way seizing "different types of weapons, including 250 tanks, 72 armored vehicles, 112 artillery, 176 anti-aircraft machine guns, 254 rocket launchers, 222 light [artillery] machine guns, 3,628 rifles, and a large quantity of ammunition." I can't vouch for all of that, but it sounds reasonable considering the small samples we've been able to see of rebel arsenals coming together all across "Free Libya" in those early days and weeks.

Army weapons, yes. Army people? No. Az Zawiyah, Feb. 27

Every time a new city center saw its display of rebel-held weaponry, the "freedom fighters" would trumpet that the military there had defected, bringing their weapons along. For example, consider the Youtube video "Army Battalion Joins Al Zawiya Protesters." Just their weapons, actually, are shown (still at left). It's Feb. 27 and they have anti-aircraft, artillery, and tanks all over the main square.The people holding the weapons are clear amateurs clearly excited to be far better armed than they deserved to be.

By the time of this March 2 PBS report, the tide was turning already. The initial victory phase had run its course, and now the only question was how deep into the ensuing government rollback things would be allowed before a NATO bail-out could be arranged.

At a nearby arms dump, where the guards had joined the rebellion, they're taking ammunition and handheld weapons to get them down the road to their colleagues. But what they have in supplies, they lack in expertise.

FATHI ABDUL MENOUM: We are taking most of the RPG and the other things, the machine guns, the -- it calls for -- to use for the planes.

JAMES MATES: So, anti-aircraft weapons?

FATHI ABDUL MENOUM: Yes, anti-aircraft.

JAMES MATES: Do you have enough people who know how to use them?

FATHI ABDUL MENOUM: Actually, no.

Shortly after this, the rebels would hit their first complete rout in Bin Jawad before beingpushed back east.

Consider also this video analysis by C.J. Chivers on the rebels in Misrata. Even into August, as "defections" intensified, and as the Gaddafi loyalist graveyard filled up, they still held far more weaponry than experts in running it. Not a person on the crew running this heavy artillery piece knew they were standing ten times too close to that wall for safety. At least two rebel fighters were injured by the sloppiness, including one whose femoral artery was severed and who likely died soon after. But they did the job - the place they were blasting was like charred swiss cheese, and had several very destroyed government soldiers and a mysterious carbonized boy inside.

The Power of the People, Overridden

World Tribune had acknowledged "for its part, the regime has maintained that the military remained under control but acknowledged the opposition seizure of military bases and heavy weapons." It was a well-planned, bold, surprise attack, a populist blitzkrieg whose advantage was now gone. The Libyan government and military, supported by much of the population in no mood for this rebellion project, pushed back. In Az Zawiyah and eastward, starting at the end of February, the minority status of the people demanding violent change was coming into focus. The Libyan forces remained coherent on land, sea, and in the air, and successfully crushed the armed rebellion in city after city. 

They pushed almost to the gates of Benghazi before the NATO bombs started coming down on March 19. This opened a second phase of military "defections," eventually numbering in the deep thousands, and by now pretty much the entire military force of Libya has stopped fighting the new government, one way or another.

That's people power, huh?

Massacring Protesters: Really?

The First Straw and Big Question Assessed
September 10, 2011
last edits, Sept. 29

The Order to Kill Demonstrators: Generally Accepted
Huge neon question marks have by now been affixed, usually to the less-visible  back sides, of most of the constructed accusations of the Libyan propaganda war. Human Rights Watch and others have repeatedly found against African mercenary claims, Amnesty International and others have found no basis for the general mass rape charges  (adding Viagra to the mix seems to done the field in). Even the US military acknowledged there was no evidence of aerial bombardment of Libyan cities and protesters as widely alleged, when there really should have been some. The emotionally potent charge of Children shot by Gaddafi snipers in Misrata might sound compelling, but anyone with the two shown x-ray images can see they're the same, fake, image (see link).

But one crucial accusation, the first and perhaps tallest construct, looms over the rest with no flashing sign yet, remaining generally accepted, even among such critics: the government order to shoot at peaceful demonstrators simply for daring to protest. The charges of doing so from the air are rightly ridiculed, but few go as far as I will here and directly question whether it was done from the ground either.

It's not a patently ridiculous claim, and one supported by numerous injured civilians we were shown. No one can deny that people who are described as protesters were injured and killed by live fire, at different times and places, often vague. Some were even cut in half (by anti-aircraft guns it's said) in pictures I've seen. At first, I myself accepted the basic accusation, thinking Gaddafi just didn't play the Arab Spring game. If his populace was to be weaponized against the "revolution" by the usual Western conspirators (as I'm sure he'd suspect after following events of the past decade) he'd move to destroy their weapons. You simply kill some, and hopefully send the others running in fear. It surely wouldn't have been the first time an unfree state used such sheer force to stay that way.

But while there is plenty of precedent, and proof of injured and killed people to support the accusation, what's never been scientifically proven (supported by clear video evidence, for example) is the exact circumstances of this violence - where were these civilians at and what were they doing when damaged so? The question is a complex one, and perhaps impossible to settle decisively. I've been considering this question but haven't until now created a dedicated post to best address it in one spot. Now that it's up, you can see why - it's a doozy of a post.

The Government Story: Defending Bases
We all know the official story in the international community, almost universally accepted at the moment: the insane and ruthless col Gaddafi ordered his citizens slaughtered for simply defying his rule, but damnit, now we would defy it too. They were simply protesting in some peaceful protest place when it happened. They did nothing to provoke or necessitate the violence they suffered. Troops fired indiscriminately, killing women and children, people not even protesting. They had snipers shooting those who tried to retrieve the dead, and so on. They did so consistently enough it couldn't be the actions of rogue commanders, but had to be an order from on high, presumably from Muammar Gaddafi himself.

This primordial sin, almost universally perceived worldwide, was the basis of Gaddafi's forfeiture of legitimacy in the eyes of world leaders. The exact death toll was always vague, but presented as alarmingly high and likely requiring some intervention. (note: the exact death toll is not clear, is important, but is not addressed here. This is about the qualities of death, not quantities.)

But below is, first, a video I made a while back, and then some text, that seek to first explain and then explore the Libyan government's own version, which hardly anyone's heard except maybe in passing derision.

In the video, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim can be seen at a February 28 press conference explaining their view, as opposed to that of "the media and the UN." At the beginning, there were "genuine, Libyan, peaceful protesters" with what he called "legitimate demands" for "much-needed political improvements." Some of them also waved the old monarchist flag while insisting that Gaddafi step down, which the government would not call a legitimate demand. But they weren't shot for anything they said, Ibrahim asserted, legitimate or not. This only happened after the protests were "hijacked" by violent Islamists, including members of al Qaeda, into a physical attack on Libya's government and people.

"[The Islamist-led "protesters"] immediately moved to attack and acquire weapons from police stations, army camps, and munitions depots. [...] the fights between the security forces and the armed individuals caused the deaths of hundreds of people. We never denied that hundreds of people were killed in the last few days. But those people were from both sides, and as a result of armed individuals attacking police stations and army [barracks] [...] the army and the security forces were not trained to deal with such a dramatic turn of events."

Also in the video, the leader's son Seif al-Islam Gaddafi says a total of 159 people, presumably on the civilian side alone, were killed in the rebellion's first days. "Most of them died when they attacked military sites," he said. This is from a July interview with Russia Today, in which he again denied any order to kill protesters, and explained the cause of the shooting so:

"The guards fired. That's it. The gurads were surprised by the attack of the people, and they started firing. They don't need an order to defend themselves and to defend their bases and camps."

As he rightly noted, this is standard for any country in the world, should armed and angry mobs attack a secure installation. The idea seems to be to avoid enemies, foreign or domestic, from killing your forces, sabotaging your hardware, or worse yet stealing your hardware. Because then it can be used to attack more bases in furtherance of a violent civil war, as the Libyan government alleges happened repeatedly in their country from the early days onward. The explanation fell on deaf ears (or hard-of-hearinng ones - see below).

Just for one example of an even softer response, protesters filmed themselves firing their guns into a military base around Feb 21, and suffering no violence themselves. But they did cheer with gunshots in the air as an ambulance took out someone injured inside. (see video study here) A documentary by R. Breki Goheda, based on the government's version with detailed information, shows this same camp (perhaps near Misrata), before it was finally taken by the armed civilian gang. Inside the opened gates, we can see in the distance soldiers standing at the alert, clustered with vehicles. Goheda's narration says they "refused to open fire at protesters," and instead only "opened fire into the air as the attackers were advancing in the barrack." It's said the protesters won there, as they seem to have everywhere else with a strange confidence against a bewildered enemy, in what Goheda artfully termed an "organized and coincident process." 

The Video Record: No Proof Either Way

Secretary of State Clinton said on February 28, in support of vigorous action against Libya, "we have seen Colonel Qadhafi’s security forces open fire on peaceful protesters again and again." Unless she and some associated "we" have access to secret videos and photos the rest of us don't, she's simply incorrect. We have seen it reported and alleged time and time again, but that's just not the same thing. 

The first problem I noticed in comparing Tripoli's explanation and that of the rabble forces was a lack of video proof either way.

The proof of the government's side might have been base security camera tapes, but these aren't likely available to them after each of the facilities was taken over. Whereas if the "protester" version was true, there would not likely be any lack of such proof; they'd end up with the tapes from the bases. And more importantly, the crowds had many, many iPhones and other cameras everywhere they went, and aside from their proud excursions into racist snuff films, we see in their  recordings people protesting, and then civilians injured and dead. There should be several videos, probably dozens, showing the crucial middle part - some of those hundreds of peaceful protesters visibly knocked down by government bullets. Instead we have three that I know of, discussed next. (see:  Video Study: Protesters Being Shot, Anywhere)

While the government's got no video of these base attacks either, one protester video at least provides a decent support for Tripoli's claims of repeated armed attacks. It's widely illustrated that on consecutive days, February 17-20, protests and/or funeral processions in Beghazi turned somehow into violent clashes with deaths on both sides. It probably didn't help that these kept happening next to the Al-Fadhil bin Omar Katiba barracks, Benghazi's main military base in the city's center.

On the third day, February 19, we have video of two injured "protesters," one apparently just deceased, the other being carried up a street from somewhere to the west-southwest, away from the setting sun. The spot it's filmed was identifiable in satellite imagery, and proves the injured man was being carried down al-Hijaz street, away from the Katiba's valued north gate four blocks back. (see map at left, and the post February 19's death toll  in Benghazi for more details). Keep that north gate in mind - it comes up again in the conquest by "protest" of that base on the following day. 

To be sure, some of Muammar Gaddafi's and the Libyan government's claims, freely mixing al Qaeda, foreigners, mass drugging, mass rape, cannibalism, and CIA manipulations, are questionable at best. But the part about a violent and apparently orchestrated turn of events is well supported. Any government would probably have responded at least as harshly as Libya's did. 

No Proof, but Evidence: Exceptions to the Rule?

Seif al-Islam said "most," not "all," of the killed civilians were involved in attacks. We don't know what "most" means from their point of view, but there do seem to be exceptions to the rule. 

There are two instances I'm aware of (and I admit my knowledge there isn't exhaustive) of apparently unarmed civilians shot dead on camera. These both happened during a funeral march on a certain street in al Baida on February 17, and were captured by three cameras, one from street level and two from above.  I've analyzed the videos and collectively, they show two unarmed people shot down in the street, at different times, some distance from a line of armed police/soldiers at the end of the street.   

No other gunmen are visible from these rooftop views or from the ground view (except maybe a couple), so the presence of security men in the area, some would argue, is enough to demonstrate the pattern alleged. But some evidence supports my strange hunch that anti-government snipers on rooftops - apparently next to the cameras filming - were responsible. 

There's video 2's strange camera move to consider - popping from behind a possible sniper nest to film the crowd again just as the shot is fired. And there's the possible rifle on that same rooftop filmed by a another camera (video 1 as listed). And then consider the line of sight. Each of the two protesters were shot as they came into camera view, which is also the line of fire for any sniper in the same location.

But my theory, even though better illustrated than I thought it would be, is not proven. But these possible sniper clues hover above all three of the videos and both filmed victims of unprovoked shooting that I know of. I will leave this space open for any other excepions to, or refutations of, "the rule" that I run across or have suggested. Evidence of apparent state brutality like these videos is not proof, but it is worth a look, and I challenge any reader who thinks I must be wrong to please dig around for anything to support that hunch.  

Defiance of the Order as Evidence of the Order
One of the more powerful illustration of the alleged commandment to massacre was the repeated allegation of government soldiers executed for refusing to follow it. We only know of this because their bound and executed bodies were then found by protesters with a magical knowledge of just why they'd been slain - "because they would not commit the brutality commanded to them."

On February 23, a total of 130 soldiers were reported by a sham Human Rights  group as executed like this and for this reason across Eastern Libya. There was no evidence to support that, and enough against to disprove it in at least 27 cases. First, 22 soldiers executed by rebels, as their own video proves, were boldly blamed on the regime for "refusing to fire on civilians," and included in the 130. Ironically, their rebel-issued death sentence has been translated as based on the fact they DID shoot at the armed people attacking their base (apparently Labraq airbase).

And another, more horrific case of fobbed-off rebel brutality, presumably also included in the same 130, concerns another five "soldiers" found charred in the conquered barracks in Benghazi. This find occurred on February 21, right after "protesters" there had burned to death five innocent men from Chad. That's 27 so-called mutinous soldiers executed. The oher 103 we just don't know the details, but the patterns illustrated so far do not line up with what the rebels asserted.

Evidence by executions, claimed by rabble forces, when the killings are demonstratably carried out by them, clearly does nothing to support their own claim. In fact, it goes strongly and ingeniously towards disproving altogether the legend of the order to cut down peaceful protesters.

Maj. Gen. Younes, Deadly Force, and the Benghazi Katiba
In his Russia Today interview, Seif Gaddafi explained how his reaction to news of massacres in his country was to get ahold of the man in charge of internal security - the interior minister, Maj. Gen. Abdel Fateh Younes.

"My father called the general Abdel Fatah - he's in Benghazi now - he's one of the leaders of the rebels. He called him, and I called him, and the calls are recorded. We told him many times: "don't use force with people." He told us: "but they are attacking the military sites. It's a very difficult situation."

Younes apparently won that dispute, and by the 20th, as Benghazi teetered on the brink, the secretary himself rolled a major reinforcement in personally, ready to negotiate or fight. Instead he defected, marking a major turning point in the war no one even knew was a war yet.

He was sent to re-enforce the Al-Fadhil bin Omar barracks. Many sources agree the base was decisively takend Feb 20, following an attack by a suicide car-bomber who'd blended into the fourth day of funeral processions-turned-to-battles there. After he destroyed the valued north gate with a truly powerful explosion (also not seen on any public videos), the insurgents were able to enter the base full-force. They reportedly killed an unknown number of soldiers, beheading at least one, before Younes had even arrived. The remainder, holed-up in various buildings, were spared and allowed to leave only by the bargain Younes struck that night.

The French terrorism and intelligence groups CIRET-AVT and CF2R made a joint investigation in Libya and issued a report in May, 2011. Speculating on reasons for the lack of protester shooting they saw evidence for, they offer a little conspiracy theory about the eventual star defector:

The government, surprised at the escalation of the insurgency, did not want to start a blood bath, so as not cut themselves off from the tribes, nor to create the problem of vendetta (revenge.) It is not inconceivable that the interior minister (Abdel Fatah Younis) deliberately gave orders to do nothing, so the insurgency could take hold, from the perspective of his imminent departure for Benghazi.

That is, perhaps Seif was lying and such an order was issued, but blocked by Younes. Either way, if there was such an order from on high, it didn't get sent down the chain, judging by the evidence - and lack thereof - for its execution.

They did get the Weapons
The first thing that really struck me as odd about the first days of the civil war is how non-violent protesters, whom I believed were being shot dead in droves, were able with just anger, and despite the heavy losses, simply take military control, even briefly, of half of the cities in the country. I sensed we were missing something there, and the things I've found since are starting to reveal what that was.

The "protesters" did, starting on February 19 at the latest, acquire heavy weapons of war from military bases they somehow conquered, despite just protesting. For just one important example, the Katiba in Benghazi remained in protester hands thanks in part to Younes' defection. But as they made off with many many more weapons, it was civilians doing the driving and handling, not military professionals. These were happy just to be allowed to leave the scene alive, in the opposite direction.


Some of the hardware taken from the Katiba is seen at left from a Russia Today news video - tanks, Grad rocket launchers, and more. Other weapons taken from Zintan to Zawiyah, Misrata to Dernah, were shown in other videos made by protesters, and largely included in my own video up top.

Goheda's video explains that "rebels stormed most of the military camps in the country," along the way seizing "different types of weapons, including: 250 tanks, 72 armored vehicles, 112 artillery, 176 anti-aircraft machine guns, 254 rocket launchers, 222 light machine guns, 3,628 rifles, and a large quantity of ammunition." I can't vouch for all of that, but it sounds about right considering the small samples we've been able to see of rebel arsenals coming together all across "Free Libya" in those early days and weeks.

Every time a new city center saw its display of rebel-held weaponry, the "freedom fighters" would trumpet that the military there had defected, bringing their weapons along. We see claimed defectors in original uniforms and such in a few videos, and some later in rebel non-uniforms. The people holding the weapons are usually clear amateurs so excited to be armed like Rambo they can't help but fire into the air incessantly. Consider this video analysis by C.J. Chivers; not a person on the crew running this artillery piece in Misrata knew they were standing ten times too close to that wall for safety. At least two rebel fighters were injured by the sloppiness, including one whose femoral artery was severed and who likely died soon after. (But they did the job - the place they were blasting was like swiss cheese, and had several very destroyed government soldiers and a mysterious charred boy inside.)

Brutality and the Boys in Blue
Libya's Internal Security Organization, being the usual force to control and deal with crowds and riots, would have been the main people expected to fire on protesters on, before, and after the "Day of Rage" that brought "peaceful protesters" out to tear down the state. It was Internal Security who held that line in al Baida, and were blamed for the shootings of the 17th and many others. But according to Goheda's video, they were given orders "not to open fire under any circumstances." Other than the al-Baida videos discussed above, I've seen no evidence to counter that.

Another video I made:

Instead, as we can see there, the brutality was generally against them. Several among the dead at in the "al Baida massacre" wear the blue camouflage, along with another black-skinned ISO cop, tortured horribly and shown off as an African mercenary in Az Zintan. Not included in the video, another ISO soldier, by his blue jacket, was killed and badly mangled in some town, his limp and disjointed body then hoisted up joyously in the gate of some official building by a meat hook under his chin. (this is visible here)

The CIRET-AVT/CF2R report cited above also discussed the three weeks in which az Zawiyah, just west of the capitol, remained in protester hands unmolested. “During the three weeks, the police received written orders not to do anything against the insurgents, not to shoot, not to confront them. The police also had to evacuate their own buildings due to the attacks by the rioters. […] The local authorities and the police complained openly about the absence of orders from Tripoli…” As for what happened during those weeks, I have a great analysis here, and the report added:

[A]ll public buildings were pillaged and set on fire. [...] Everywhere, there was destruction and pillaging (of arms, money, archives). There was no trace of combat, which confirms the testimony of the police [who claim to have received orders not to intervene] [...]

There were also atrocities committed (women who were raped, and some police officers who were killed), as well as civilian victims during these three weeks. [...] The victims were killed in the manner of the Algerian GIA [Armed Islamic Group]: throats cut, eyes gauged [sic] out, arms and legs cut off, sometimes the bodies were burned. [...]

Another Official Story Assessed: The UNHRC Report
The United Nations Human Rights Council sent a three-person fact-finding mission to Libya in May to investigate the alleged crimes of the regime and/or rebel forces. They issued a report (the Advance unedited version is still the only one available - PDF link) on June 1 that came out at least somewhat more reasonable than what the rebel-fed Media had so far patched together. They explain how the charge of Gaddafi's protester massacre was their primary focus:

The catalyst for establishment of this Commission of Inquiry was concern over the use of force against demonstrators in mid to late February. The Human Rights Council in Resolution S-15/1, expressed “deep concern at the deaths of hundreds of civilians,” referring also to “indiscriminate armed attacks against civilians” and “extrajudicial killings.”[p3]

What they found confirmed, to their satisfaction but not mine, that there were apparently orders to kill peaceful protesters. From their conclusion:

99. The Commission considers that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Government forces engaged in excessive use of force against demonstrators, at least in the early days of the protests, leading to significant deaths and injuries. The nature of injuries inflicted in several locations (with high proportions shot in the head or upper body) is indicative of “shoot to kill” operations. From the common style of response in many parts of the country, it would appear likely that the forces were given orders to engage in the harsh crackdown of demonstrators. Such actions represented a serious breach of a range of rights under the ICCPR including the right to life, the right to ... [p 37-40]

The question, again, is "under what circumstances did these killings happen?" The report does acknowledge the government disputed the prevailing story: "The particular circumstances, leading up to the use of force by security forces against demonstrators, have been contested by the demonstrators and the Government." The latter said what I've related above, and "protestors have reiterated the peaceful nature of their demonstrations." The facts, as I note here, do not clearly support that, but the commission accepted it anyway.

"In the early days of the protest there was little evidence to suggest that the protestors were engaged in other than peaceful assembly," the mission noted. "Little" evidence is a relative call. There's a decent amount and it's consistent. There is even less evidence that those "protesters" who were killed were engaged in anything other than starting an armed insurgency.

The report's relation and refutation of the government story:

96. The Commission was told that when the demonstrations erupted, instructions were given to security forces to withdraw from police stations and security premises. The Government has stressed that the live ammunition was only employed in response to demonstrators’ violent actions. The Government also noted that demonstrators attacked police stations, destroying approximately 17 stations several of them in various cities and towns of Libya, and that demonstrators took up arms against the security forces. The Government was thus of the view that any use of force had been justifiable.

97. The majority of information collected by the Commission, however, indicates that the Government forces used live ammunition against unarmed peaceful demonstrators in many instances.

Generally they just catalog the numbers of dead as reported, focusing on the shoot-to-kill clues, presuming peaceful actions only on the victims' parts, and accepting every report possible to suggest government forces fired "indiscriminately," often killing people who weren't even involved in protests. The whole way what's missing is any proof their basic presumption of peaceful victims. Since this has not really been established, the report, at least in this regard, is an exercise in faith-based "investigation."

It is accepted by both the Government and the demonstrators that Government forces used significant force, including the use of firearms and other weaponry against persons participating in demonstrations in various locations within Libya during the period studied by the Commission. 

Adding "participating in demonstrations" makes this statement untrue. Attacks to secure weapons are not "demonstrations." Scratch that phrase and what they say here is true.

They acknowledge in Misrata, "on 21 and 22 February, demonstrators attacked Revolutionary Committee offices, police stations and military barracks, taking arms and weapons from these locations." But as they heard it, this was only after days of brutal attacks on completely peaceful people who were suddenly, when angry, able to actually take over and remove weapns from military bases - with sheer Arab Spring enthusiasm, we're to presume.

In al Baida, "at least 40 persons were killed during peaceful demonstrations between 16 and 19 February," they noted. Problem is, police station were burnt there as early as Feb 15, anti-government snipers might have been behind any of these killings (and apparently are behind the recorded ones), and by about the 19th, the city and surrounding military bases - including Labraq (or al-Abraq) airbase - were completely in the hands of the "peaceful protesters."

93. On 18 February, at the demonstrations near Al-Abraq Airport (east of Al-Bayda town), the Commission received information that 11 persons were killed by security personnel of Khamis Katiba, including the Commander of Husein al-Jiwiki Katiba. According to several sources, the Commander was killed when he refused to shoot at demonstrators, and was shot as a result of his refusal to shot at demonstrators. 

Yeah, you'll get "several witnesses" when, for example, several people involved in a killing agree to a cover story. The big clues is the old "killed by his own forces for being a good guy" schtick. It was a lie in the "al Baida massacre," and in the burned soldiers in Benghazi thing, and probably here.

Why do they know it was the Khamis brigade that killed an officer and 11 of their own? Why were they "demonstrating" at the airbase to begin with? The people involved themselves told the media, if not the UN, that they went there, on the 18th, to capture or kill "African mercenaries" they thought were coming to kill them. They took it militarily on about the 20th, after a couple days of fighting, executed some prisoners, and kept 156 black Libyan soldiers alive long enough to be proven not mercenaries. That some of their own were killed in the process should be no surprise, to us or them, prepared as they were for martyrdom.

The claim of government orders to kill demonstrators weren't just on the word of rebel sources but also, the report explained,"corroborated through information collected from some security personnel."

One member of security personnel, currently in detention, stated that he was among 250 soldiers deployed by the regime to “contain demonstrators” in Benghazi on 17 February. Interrogation records provided to the Commission by the Benghazi General Prosecutor’s Office state that members of the security forces were given orders, by their commanding officers, to use force against demonstrators. In at least one transcript, there is an admission of involvement by a member of the security forces in the random shooting of protestors in Benghazi on 20 February.

February 20 is the day Benghazi fell, as the Al Fadhil bin Omar Katiba was overrun. The report did pass on that "government opponents assumed control over the Katiba premises in Benghazi," but made no mention of the suicide bomber that allowed that, or of the soldier killings inside. And it even has the date wrong, citing the 19th when the decisive brutality that took 60 lives, by their own numbers, occurred on the 20th, mostly following the suicide bombing and the pitched battle within the walls. Why on Earth was anyone firing randomly that day, when a concerted militant force was attacking the base and hacking off heads? 

His "admission" to doing this is just not credible. This claimed evidence from the inside is quite likely the result of forced confessions, and the commission's inability to spot that (or to admit they did) is telling.

The report is deeply flawed. But it formed the basis of explaining why the intervention the UN's top member nations were already deeply invested in was not completely unjustified. In fact, they seem relatively in tune with the existing mission in an accompanying press release, again of June 1:

The team, led by Professor Cherif Bassiouni, an Egyptian jurist and war crimes expert, calls on the Government to immediately cease acts of violence against civilians in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, and to conduct “exhaustive, impartial and transparent” investigations into all alleged violations.

Even if this statement had been issued on February 18, it would have been poison advice to a besieged government. But here it was June, and they called for a current, one-sided cease-fire. There was no mention of the fact that by then the "civilians" were trying their damndest, with half the nation's stolen hardware, and with eager NATO air support, to attack the capitol and everything between. Mr. Bassiouni, like the power structure pushing this war through, was in effect calling for Libya's government to surrender abjectly to the armed insurgency.

This bold move of dubious propriety was based, it would seem to most, on the team's exceptionally clear findings that the government had proven itself brutal to the point of falling outside the normal rules of respect for nations the United Nations was supposed to ensure.

But the reality wasn't really as clear as all that, was it?