With Gaddafi as determined as ever to cling to power in Libya, tensions between Nato's member states are becoming increasingly exposed.
Misplaced optimism:rebels celebrate the recapture of the village of Al-Qawalish last week Photo: REUTERS
By Con Coughlin
8:51PM BST 10 Jul 2011
152 Comments
Four months ago, when David Cameron led the international call for military intervention in Libya, the general assumption within government circles was that Col Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, would realise the game was up the moment Nato warplanes began bombing his forces.
It did not seem to matter to Mr Cameron and his principal allies in the anti-Gaddafi campaign that the main purpose of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which provided the legal justification for military action, was to protect anti-Gaddafi rebels from the possibility of being massacred by forces loyal to their leader.
Together with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, Mr Cameron demanded that the military offensive would end only when Gaddafi was removed from power, so confident was he in the operation's likely outcome. At a stroke an operation conceived on the basis of liberal interventionism had been transformed into one determined to achieve regime change.
And it is to this end that Nato has undertaken a sophisticated bombing campaign designed as much to intensify the pressure on Gaddafi's regime to give up its vice-like grip on power as to protect Libya's civilian population. Apart from taking out Gaddafi's air defences and launching thousands of raids against pro-Gaddafi forces, the campaign has increasingly targeted the regime itself, bombing the Libyan dictator's Bab al-Azizia barracks and vital fuel supply lines.
Yet, more than three months into the Nato offensive, Gaddafi remains as resolutely in power in Tripoli today as he was when the first bombs were dropped in March. In recent days, we have seen the extent of the support he continues to enjoy when thousands of his own supporters turned out in Tripoli to hear an address by the Libyan leader.
Related Articles
Listen to the top brass - 21 Jun 2011
In Libya and London, we’re getting into a frightful mess - 20 Apr 2011
Libya denies using cluster bombs - 17 Apr 2011 -
Libya: We must resist the temptation to send in troops - 17 Apr 2011
Nations must act on Libya - 14 Apr 2011
Blasts leave smoke plumes over Tripoli skyline - 14 Apr 2011
Meanwhile, Saif al-Islam, his son and heir apparent, appeared on French television to taunt those responsible for prosecuting the Nato offensive. "We will never surrender," he said in an interview. "We will fight. It's our country. To tell my father to leave the country, it's a joke."
While the Gaddafi clan appears to have lost none of its resolve, the same cannot be said for the Nato member states and Arab nations that originally backed the intervention, but are now desperately seeking an exit route. From the start of the military offensive, Nato's operations have been severely hampered by the fact that only half a dozen countries have been prepared to conduct combat operations.
This has meant that the lion's share of the more than 9,000 sorties have been flown by British and French warplanes, with Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Jordan and Qatar also making valuable contributions to the war effort.
But many other Nato nations, particularly Germany, have been unhappy from the outset at the demands made by the likes of Mr Cameron that Gaddafi's removal, rather than the protection of Libyan civilians, is the ultimate goal. They have done their best to frustrate the military operation by refusing to contribute vital equipment, such as tankers used for mid-air refuelling, and regularly objecting to attacks on targets that are not deemed to pose a direct threat to Libya's civilian population.
Now the simmering tensions that have severely hampered the effectiveness of the Nato mission have broken into the open with Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, claiming he was against the operation from the start. "I am against this intervention, which will end in a way that no one knows," he said.
Mr Berlusconi's comments are highly significant, as Nato is relying heavily on Italy's cooperation to maintain its air operations against Libya. Nato's operational headquarters is in Naples, while most of the combat missions are flown from air bases in southern Italy. Italian officials have already indicated that they do not want a further 90-day extension of Nato's deadline for military operations, which is due to expire in late September.
But by far the greatest threat to Nato's hopes of achieving a decisive breakthrough in the Libyan campaign is the onset of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins in three weeks' time. During Ramadan, Muslims are obliged to observe a rigorous fast during the hours of daylight and to spend much of their spare time in prayer. When the feast falls at the height of an Arabian summer, it not uncommon for most countries to come to a complete standstill.
Political concerns over repeating the mistakes of the Iraq war have meant that none of the politicians leading the Libyan campaign is prepared to commit ground troops. As a result, this has meant Nato relying increasingly on Libya's anti-Gaddafi rebels to complete the task of removing the dictator from power. But Nato officials are now concerned that the rebel offensive will effectively grind to a halt at the end of the month as fasting rebel fighters will be in no position to launch a major offensive.
Senior Nato officers are also concerned about the negative impact that continued military action by non-Muslim countries against a Muslim nation will have on Arab support. Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League who was an enthusiastic supporter of military intervention, has since voiced his objections to attempts to remove Gaddafi. The continuation of hostilities during Ramadan will only serve to harden Arab opposition to the war.
The approach of Ramadan has certainly brought an unwelcome dose of reality to many in the British Government who, so far as I can tell, have assumed that so long as Nato maintains the pressure on Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator will simply lose heart and renounce power. In the past few weeks,
I have asked several senior Cabinet ministers how, precisely, they intend to achieve their objective of overthrowing Gaddafi's regime. And on each occasion I have been blithely assured that the pressure on him will become so intense that he will have no alternative other than to stand down.
But, with time now of the essence, there is suddenly a realisation that, unless there is a dramatic breakthrough in the coming weeks, it is a distinct possibility that the conflict will end with the country divided and Gaddafi still clinging to power, albeit to a fraction of the vast country he governed at the start of the year.
To prevent such a disastrous outcome, an air of desperation is entering the contribution made by those countries, such as Britain and France, that have committed themselves to regime change in Tripoli.
Last week, the French government confirmed that it had started dropping arms supplies to Libyan rebel groups. Assault rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers were dropped earlier this month, and the French newspaper Le Figaro has suggested that Milan anti-tank missiles have also been supplied to the rebels. Britain, meanwhile, continues to send a steady stream of military "advisers" (many of them SAS veterans) to help the rebels become a more effective fighting outfit.
The only problem with this dramatic escalation in European support for the rebels is that it is contrary to UN resolutions on Libya, which include an arms embargo that is supposed to apply to all sides. If Europe is prepared to arm the anti-Gaddafi rebels, then what is to stop Gaddafi's regime receiving arms from its allies in Africa and elsewhere?
Nor is it by any means certain that the rebels have the same objectives as their Western backers. Recent Western intelligence assessments of the rebels have concluded that groups operating in Misurata have a very different agenda from factions operating in Benghazi.
Local tribes are also more concerned with defending their own territory than occupying the territory of other tribes. Thus there is no shortage of rebel fighters willing to defend Benghazi, but they become more reluctant to fight when asked to move out of their own territory and advance on Tripoli.
These tensions broke to the surface when the National Transitional Council suggested it was prepared to open negotiations with Gaddafi to end the fighting. Their comments were quickly rejected by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, who insisted there could be no settlement that allows Gaddafi to remain in power.
But, with the clock ticking, and with no prospect of a decisive breakthrough in sight, Gaddafi's survival remains a distinct possibility, which was not the outcome Mr Cameron hoped for when he first embarked on his risky gamble in the Libyan desert.
***
Showing 25 of 152 comments
JJSALMO
5 minutes ago
Good old Germany leading from behind as always.
But then again, such is her insistence that the EU must strangle it's peripheral states with a debt that can never be repaid; maybe we should be thankful their contribution to the Libyan exercise is somewhat circumscribed.
tonyrowe
52 minutes ago Recommended by 2 people
On 6th May detailed three major errors in the UK’s recent policy towards Libya: flawed intelligence; lack of a strategic communication policy; and lack of forward planning and vision.
Further detail on each of these areas is provided below.
1) Flawed intelligence
Poor diplomatic Intelligence: At the onset of the Libyan Civil War, it is clear that the government were led to believe that the Libyan regime was vulnerable and lacked Libyan national support. This even led to an announcement that Col Gadaffi had already relinquished power and was on his way to South America. It has been shown that the regime remains strong in the west of the country which has remained broadly in favour of the status quo whilst the east has rebelled.
Poor military intelligence: Precipitous action to invoke a no-fly zone was triggered by a statement by Col Gadaffi that he would put down the insurrection in Benghazi by slaughtering the population of the city ‘street by street and house by house’; military wisdom would have shown this to be impossible. All the eastern army had sided with their eastern counterparts and then destroyed their weapon dumps so that they could not take any further part in the insurrection (indeed the eastern army has not been seen to take any lead over the ‘rebels’). Col Gadaffi was faced with a task similar to taking the elite elements of his army which remained loyal from Brussels to a city the size of Plymouth, along a single road across the desert and then slaughtering the inhabitants without them putting up any resistance. Only two days before the UN resolution, BBC reporters were saying that his lines of communication were very stretched and he had no support in the east.
Poor historical perspective: Libya has only been a single nation for the last one hundred years, having been split for the previous two thousand years between Greek and Roman influence. During the 20th century it was first held together by a firm Italian regime and latterly by a firm dictatorship. It is quite logical that in a sparsely populated tribal country, the eastern predominant tribe should see the unrest in the other countries of the Maghreb as an opportunity to reassert their individuality. The Arab League have long found Gadaffi to be an embarrassment and were, no doubt, pleased that the west was willing to oust him; they were clearly shocked, however, by the scale of the intervention.
Poor understanding of the structure of the Libyan regime: Col Gadaffi has, over the last forty years, hollowed out all the instruments of state and constructed a regime where he and his family and tribe are the keepers of the instruments of government. The army has been kept weak and his strength has been through a largely non-Libyan elite force, who are dependant on the Colonel himself for their continued employment and livelihood. There is no legitimate, capable, credible opposition who are standing in the wings waiting to take power; the idea that an election would lead to a stable democratic country without massive aid from someone – and this would logically be an Arab Muslim support – seems less than credible.
Ever since Libya was forced to give up their nuclear programme by the interception of nuclear parts destined for the country, in 2003, Col Gadaffi’s regime has increasingly been brought into the community of nations. As a country adjacent to the EU, this has been important. Col Gadaffi’s son has been educated in UK and was being mooted as a moderate who would gradually move his nation towards further cooperation with Europe.
2) Lack of Strategic communications policy
The strategic significance of the intervention in Libya has not been explained domestically:
There has been no strategic communication aimed at the UK public as to why the diplomatic stance of the last decade has been overturned and the regime be cast as the worst pariah state in the world – the only one where the great nations have specified that regime change is the only solution. The only provocation has been a single typically hotheaded speech promising vengeance on the eastern population.
It would appear that the civil war in Libya has no strategic implications for the UK and as a Christian country, which is trying to regain international approval after our ill-judged regime change in Iraq, we should have been more cautious to be involved in another country's civil war. If one turns the situation on its head - were the UK to be having a civil war, would we invite Libya to intervene on one side or the other? Only a couple of days before the no-fly zone started, the rebels in the east were saying strongly that it was their war and certainly did not want to be 'tainted' by support from the west.
Senior media figures and diplomats are finding it difficult to articulate the UK stance and differentiate the Libya civil war from the other civil wars in the Arab world.
A former ambassador to the Arab area summed up the situation recently when he said that Libya was an insignificant piece of desert, ruled by a madman with no world significance, whereas Syria and Saudi Arabia are real world players with whom we have not worked out a future strategy but need to soon.
Poor calling of ‘war crimes’ provocation to enact regime change: Pro-Government forces have been accused of war crimes by using ‘cluster bombs’. This statement has been constantly repeated when it cannot be true as they are not allowed to fly and therefore have no means of delivery of bombs. The accusation then changed to ‘munitions’ and it was stated that the cluster munitions were manufactured in Spain in 2007. If they were allowed to be made in the EU only 4 years ago, and the USA has not signed the Treaty banning cluster munitions, this hardly warrants a ‘war crime’ of any great scale and it appears to the public that the propaganda machine is clutching at straws.
Poor communication of the effect of the UN Resolution on the UK finances: A Treasury Minister on Question Time said that he had been assured that the intervention would cost ‘tens of millions, not hundreds of millions’ and the rest of the Arab League expressed shock that several hundred stand-off munitions had been slammed into the country in the first couple of days of the no-fly zone. It would appear to the public that the military response was totally at odds with that which had been briefed to the political hierarchy. It is now clear that the intervention will cost the UK taxpayer closer to half a billion pounds.
This is a media war: This is very much a media-led war with a plethora of western journalists 'popping over' to Libya where the regime is happy to see them and discuss matters and it provides an endless selection of 'juicy stories’. We have never seen this in similar conflicts in sub Sahara Africa where the journalists would have to live in uncomfortable conditions. Cheap and easy TV should not be the criteria for political action.
3) Lack of forward planning and vision
Western encouragement is increasing the death toll in Libya on both sides: The West is encouraging the rebels, who are leaderless and hopeless fighters, to continue the struggle by implying that we will assist them. Assisting the rebels and giving them higher expectations of our escalating involvement is increasing the deaths on both sides; this has echoes of southern Iraq after the first Gulf War where we implied to the Shia population that we would support an uprising against Saddam and then backed away, allowing some 20,000 to be slaughtered. Our posture is causing many more deaths than would otherwise occur.
Western involvement is prolonging the civil unrest: The concept of reducing the fighting ability of the Government forces is philosophically flawed. What could have been a short uprising, (as we are seeing crushed in many countries in the Arab world at the moment), is likely to turn into a major bloodbath. Recently a vague hope expressed on the Today programme that 'the NATO bombing effort was making some difference' caused the rebels to reject another cease fire proposal from Tripoli, which was supported by the African nations. Following that African proposal, the great nations were inexplicably stated that a solution was not possible with Gadaffi still in power, a position hugely beyond the UN Resolution.
On the other hand, when the rebels took over some tanks from pro-Government forces and were all killed by NATO bombs, this was within the rules of the UN Resolution as the rebels were now taking on the mantle of combatants and threatening pro-Gadaffi civilians, thus logically were legitimate targets. This is the ultimate logic of a poorly thought through strategy.
The insurrection is not spreading despite intense western propaganda: No further centres of population have thrown their lot in with the rebels since the east of the country ceded from the west. The population of Libya is about 6 million, with 4 million living in Tripoli which remains firmly behind Gaddafi, allowing him to drive confidently through the streets in an open top car.
Killing ordinary Libyan citizens on both side of the conflict is morally unacceptable: We are imposing a no-fly zone to protect the 'civilian population'. It is morally unacceptable to fly around, randomly killing citizens of another country with no threat to our forces. NATO has killed many civilians on both sides of the conflict by accident and doubtless many simple foot soldiers who were simply obeying the lawful order of the government in power. The recent murder of the young Gadaffi and his children is a heinous crime against a young man who has done no harm to any nation in NATO and was slaughtered at a whim to spite his father; whoever ordered this should be brought to trial.
Although I wrote this two months ago, it remains true today
Geoffrey Woollard 52 minutes ago Recommended by 3 people
Some of us have been saying from the beginning that it was a mistake getting involved in Libya, particularly as there are considerable doubts about the worthiness of those opposed to Gaddafi. Who are these Libyan 'rebels'? Do we know anything of the people on whose side we are at war? And what if what Gaddafi says is true, namely, that al-Qaeda is waiting in the wings? We may rue the day we became involved in what is, essentially, the business of the Libyans.
skep41
52 minutes ago Recommended by 2 people
Obama had a few days when this revolt first started to back up his pronouncement that Gaddafi 'has to go'. Hitting Mo-Marr hard and fast when his regime was unraveling would have worked. But no, we had to involve NATO, the UN, the Arab League, the OAU, and every other useless international organization for a month or so of yakking and shuffling. Then we unleashed the Italian and Danish airforces (both planes at once) and used just enough force to keep the rebels alive. This bureaucratic assault has shown NATO to be a completely empty shell, Obama to be completely ignorant of any scrap of history or military sense and the entire ruling class of the West to be a spineless, gutless, short-sight pack of ignorant, in cowards unable to think of anything but their own reelection and completely unable to determine their nations' real strategic interests. Mo-Marr has snookered them at every turn as they waste billions not defeating him. What an object lesson to every dictatorship on the planet. What a great message to send to Bashar Assad as he slaughters his own people while retaining his seat on the UN Human Rights Council.
Mark DoweToday 07:00 PM..."If Europe is prepared to arm the anti-Gaddafi rebels, ..."
But not directly. Air drops - including those body armour sets provided by Britain, as well as the assistance given by the French - has been an attempt to circumvent UN Resolution 1973 in being seen not to be taking sides. I suppose a similar type of situation arose during the Falkland's War in the 1980s when America supplied the British with in-flight refuelling and other provisions, although the US didn't become directly involved in the liberation of the islands.
AntonyUK
Today 06:10 PMRecommended by
2 peopleThe Sand Colonel seems still to be running rings around the likes of Cameron and Hague who only blustered their way into this conflict on some devious agenda about which we know little or nothing.
I would hate to see us up against a real, aggressive enemy. Blair had his war(s) so I suppose his "heir" had to make a show...........well, its a pretty bloody poor one. But then again, if you do things out of expediency they usually do go tits up..........Cameron is a three time loser
Andy Patton
Today 05:40 PM Recommended by 3 people
Cameron is just as big a stooge for the Dual-passport Neocons, and warmonger, than Blair, Duncan-Smith and Brown.
Please vomit him out before he does even more damage!
I'm actually warming to Gaddafi!!! --despite narrowly avoiding being blown up by some of his Semtex exports.
Derek Nalecki
Today 04:55 PM Recommended by 5 people
I know this is a british newspaper and so the lion's share of responsibility seems assigned to the hapless Prime Minister of UK; but let's not forget that the primary driving force behind this fiasco has been the sophomoric dolt, pretend "president" of United States and his team of kiddie secretaries, "experts" and advisers; from Hillary Clinton who really should be only be a secretary in charge of making coffee to Susan Rice who's catapulted from an angry "black power" book peddler to a major diplomatic post at the UN; but most of all of course, Sputnik Obama himself, who lives in the haze of memories of his college sophomore year, conducting foreign policy based on a posters hanging on the wall of a sophomore dorm room.
_____AntonyUK
Today 06:11 PMRecommended by 2 people
Brilliant!
lostdemocracy
Today 04:38 PM Recommended by 1 person
Why not draw a line in the sand, literally and have Libya anf Libya part 2. Then they can each defend their borders againast each other and have done with it.
_______ skep41
46 minutes ago
Because Gaddafi, left in power and unafraid of retaliation, will be blowing aircraft out of the sky all over Europe. He already has suffered the worst the spineless Eurotrash politicians and the clueless Worst President In American History have to throw at him so why not?
meincaff
Today 04:17 PM Recommended by 5 people
Get away!
In the Arab world almost everything is settled bu negotiation.
The pointless ICC warrants and thivko Hague-neatly dumped in the s**t by cameron's idiot comment that Gadaffi cannot beincluded in speaks when the opposition have already sid he could just makes things worse.
As fore him going into exile. he;s a bedou for Christs sake who has barely left Libya in his life!
Brian Souter
Today 04:15 PM Recommended by 2 people.
Yesterday NATO dropped leaflets on the rebels hiding in the mountains of western Nafusa saying that if they can not be in Tripoli in 72 hours, NATO is withdrawing.The armed rebels are furious and say they are still in Al Assabha, however yesterday the Libyan TV was in this city, talked to people and there are armed rebels under control there.2. The BBC Arabic has said that France withdrew from Libya3. "France 24 Arabic" said France has withdrawn its military forces from Libya.4. Libyan TV said that the forces are removed
ameliemaryann
Today 04:05 PM Recommended by 8 people
So all that Comoron has achieved is making sure Gadaffi withdrew the block he had on economic migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa coming through to the EU countries - and mainly ours. But the "war" as the ostensible reason for the illegals flooding in is actually a cover for the EU-Med Project set up last year which is providing for 50 million North Africans to be brought into the 27 EU countries. Why?? What do we want with even more aliens in our countries? We're staggering under the weight of them and their breeding and benefits programmes now. We are run by stark, staring raving mad nutters, of whom Comoron is one. I often think I'm having a nightmare and will wake up. That's how bad it is in our capital city now. God knows what it will be like at the end of this maniac's reign of terror.
manacaster
Today 04:04 PM Recommended by 1 person
France and Britain urged their NATO allies to do more to pressure Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi, with Paris chiding Germany for a lacklustre effort and lamenting the limited U.S. military role. WE were dragged in. WE are in a support role.France and Britain urged their NATO allies to do more to pressure Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi, with Paris chiding Germany for a lacklustre effort and lamenting the limited U.S. military role. WE were dragged in. WE are in a support role.
stilt
Today 03:57 PM Recommended by 3 people
After Iraq (unnecessary UK intervention) & Afghanistan (justified but mission creep leading to unrealistic 'democracy' objective there) Britain should have stopped its (liberal?) military interventionism. We have rightly not intervened in another Mediterranean Arab state Syria, have sent out mixed messages re Bahrain & as for the most repressive Arab & Muslim state of all Saudi Arabia its king incongrously was invited to the Royal wedding. There is the suspicion that this is because they are monarchies but absolute ones, not a constitutional one as ours is.
We cannot afford to military intervene in our parlous economic situation in which all of the three main parties are now culpable after the bankers; limited humanitarian aid is another matter for the 'Arab Spring'. We also lose the moral high ground in dealing with Muslim terrorism at home by our almost obsessional miltary interventionism in Islamic states, particulary when Britain has a sizable number of citizens of that faith.
If we are to be allies with France then why has not Liam Fox had talks with them over reducing the financial burden of our nuclear deterrents by alternative submarine patrols - or is this being done secretly? Anyway, neither state can have a credible deterrent without American weaponry(UK) and/or computer support (France) but that does not justify these European neighbours being 'Top Gun' for the US in Libya.
Brian Souter
Today 03:31 PM Recommended by 1 person
from mahdi darius nazemroaya in Libya
http://www.corbettreport.com/i...
128517
Today 03:25 PM Recommended by 13 people
Don't you just love our international government that tells us what is right and who has the right to run countries. As they use their big loan, big debt plans to bankrupt the world so they can pick up the pieces. Don't you feel safe that we have such a good international government that will bring goodness to the world thru the UN... ha
manacaster
Today 03:12 PM Recommended by 5 people
Excuse me? Lamenting U.S. role? How about France and the Europeans pull their weight around they're the ones who went to North Africa took the land from the natives and used it for economic gains for CENTURIES and there whining about the lack of U.S. help, they're the ones who begged us to get involved when we wanted to stay away.Then we're trashed by self-righteous European elites and Anti-U.S. Canadians with some strange fixation in everything with the words 'Americans' "U.S." with some sense of "moral superiority" when in history the Europeans have done things that make us Americans look moderate.
marxbrother
Today 03:00 PM Recommended by 20 people
Can anyone advise who should go to the international criminal court over this debacle, and what should we do to send them there?
Cameron, Billy the kid Hague, Obarmy, Sarky, that italian mobster, their chief henchmen at NATO. Who else?
Only once we start prosecuting these clowns will we get better judgement from politicians. They will of course be under armed protection the rest of their lives whilst we will not.
_______ marxman
Today 03:25 PM Recommended by 12 people
Well said. It is about time that NATO abandoned this illegal and cruel war. They were wrong to ever start it. There was never a UN mandate for regime change, and the Libyan people know they are facing a neo-colonial occupation if they don't resist.
_______ Brian Souter
Today 03:10 PM Recommended by 11 people
the international criminal court is well named: a court run by criminals...who choose to ignore massive well documented NATO/US war crimes and focus on ....africa!
whod a thunk it!
Brian Souter
Today 02:51 PM Recommended by 12 people
millions march in Sabha for Gadaffi and the Jamahirya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
not bad for a man the western dictators insist on labeling a 'brutal tyrant'
Brian Souter
Today 02:46 PM Recommended by 13 people
and to think ,..,,it all began when jewish French standup philosopher Bernard Henri Levy whisper into Sarcozys ear, how invading Libya would be a cake walk!
Brian Souter
Today 02:44 PM Recommended by 15 people
NATO may think it has a God(or banki moon) given right to bomb african countries, and that africans arent paying attention...europeans may have forgotten about colonialism,..the africans havent
______________
Các anh chị có ý kiến, phê bình, nhận định gì về bài viết "Libya: A campaign built on sand" của Con Coughlin và 25 trong số "152 Comments" ? của độc giả ?
Cả thế giới đã và đang thấy rất rõ Gadhafi là một cầm quyền ĐỘC TÀI, đã ngồi trên "ngai vàng" ròng rã 42 năm và quyền lực đó có lẽ đã không được củng cố, đâm chồi bén rễ nếu không có sự "dung dưỡng" và "tiếp sức" của các cường quốc trên thế giới !
Và bây giờ cũng chính họ đã và đang ra sức "tiêu diệt" ???
Những người VN BỊ MẤT NƯỚC vào tay bè lũ phản quốc CƯỚP NƯỚC diệt chủng BÁN NƯỚC Việt gian ĐỘC tài ĐỘC đảng thổ phỉ csVN học thêm bài học gì qua cuộc chiến Libya đã và đang diễn ra .. "chưa thấy kết cuộc" ???
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
12072011
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment