Response to Ben Galbone’s article: An indicator of denial or just hot air
The recent article by Sheik Mohammed Ben Galbone (1) added more disturbing facts to what we learnt from the previous articles of the series. In addition to the picture of the conspiracy that ended with our country where it is now, the article must be viewed as a test of our (Libyans) diligence to consider and free our thinking of the heavy load of prejudice and village mentality which muddy our ability to see beyond basic self interests. One aspect of the article is that the bottom line for us is: this is what happened and this is why we are where we are, and if we continue to choose to live in denial, it can only get much worse. The engineers of the plan relied on several factors for its success including our inability to see through it while it was happening. However, it is doubtful if they also banked on our inability to put two and two together after it was explained with plenty of supporting evidence. They most certainly did not bank on the possibility that anyone with even a modest share of brains would actually demand more “evidence” from Be Galbone to substantiate his theory. One can only assume that the writer of the recent letter (2) wanted to see copies of minutes of meetings held by a foreign secret service operatives detailing the Libyan plan and naming names! Nothing less appears to satisfy our deep thinking friend. Presumably this is purely for the sake of accuracy. Or perhaps in his view, the theory does not match the events on the ground? And therefore the writer is genuinely disturbed for the sake of justice or some equally honorable cause. Or perhaps he thinks the plan is too fantastic and impossible to engineer in advance? He would of course be partly right here. It was extraordinary. This was one of the main covers. The cover obviously works. In reality it is not for amateurs or emotionally charged individuals to comprehend it, let alone work it out. The article and writer’s attitude (2) confirm the engineers’ expectations perfectly. The writer could not find it in himself to think beyond his own prejudices and (pathetically) apparent dislike of Ben Galbone.
What this writer (2) and others (3) display in their responses is not what is described as cold, calculated consideration of facts in a complex world managed by extremely able institutions whose security is tied to their remaining invisible and untraceable. From what we learnt in the Ben Galbone’s series of articles, cold calculations was the very basis on which the American plan for Libya the country and its opposition energy was designed. If we cannot find it in ourselves accept this type of analysis because it is beyond our aptitude, we should at least have the decency to avoid slipping into use of inappropriate language in our correspondence. In any semi-civilized society, one would expect that such a critical issue articulated by one of their own would at least be given the benefit of the doubt and consider what he is saying: he could be right. Not in our society. Many seem to revel in use of abusive and silly language at the first opportunity. Why?
It is unbecoming and cowardly to insult a compatriot merely because he chose to describe unpalatable facts of history. The resort to unsuitable language to vent off misplaced anger when evidence and hard facts and consequences of years of utter wastage of opposition energy are explicitly described is indicative of inadequacy to handle such weighty issues.
In order to see through the foggy atmosphere with which the Libyan case is rapped, it seems that we have to free ourselves of far more than we seem to be able to afford. In order to properly acknowledge the strength of arguments and admit the weight of evidence expressed in the Ben Galbone’s article, many have to admit that they were either cheated, put self interest first, deliberately ignored warnings, or perhaps conspired with others to foil. The least required is to admit that one was misled.
What we now know about the American manipulation of the Libyan opposition energy, the openly known history and depressing end of the opposition groupings in particular the NFSL and the present state of Gaddafi’s regime and how it was gently and carefully guided from appearing a pariah to a respected state, should prompt both opposition leaders and observers to acknowledge that Ben Galbone has to be listened to. The alternative is to continue to live in denial and paint him as a fanciful writer. For the plan to become the faith of many future Libyan generations, this type of reaction is what the engineers are hoping for. For how much longer shall we give it to them and remain an assisting element of the plan is an uncomfortable question to which the answer will probably hurt even more.
Finally: what if Ben Galbone’s analysis turns out to be right? Well, for a start the Libyan writers who hurried to throw insults will look not very impressive, and they will have assisted the enemy (for free). That is not clever. In the meantime, the engineers celebrate (more) and the country slips further away into the abyss. It is not all bad though. The Writers become even gooder in the pointless use of abusive language and in diverting focus away from the real case (what case?).
Ahmed S. Mesbah
(Not a Libyan writer living in London)
2. Libyan Writer Adam al-Shabi: http://www.libya-watanona.com/adab/aalshabi/as03088a.htm
3. Libyan Writer Salim Nasr el-Ragi: http://www.libya-watanona.com/adab/elragi/sr04088a.htm