Welcome to AlGaddafi.org - القذافي يتحدث - Muammar Al Gaddafi`s official website.

Un site personnel..Un sitio web personal..Eine persoenliche Webseite .. Il sito personale..Site Pessoal, Ghadaffi official website, Kadhafi site officiel...

Other BOOK`s by Al Gaddafi:

In addition to the Green Book, Muammar Al Gaddafi is the author of a 1996 collection of short stories; "Escape to Hell"  (English).


If you would like to support AlGaddafi.org stay online, Please donate via PayPal.


Image description


(1st published in 2004 by World Islamic Peoples Leadership)


War against Libya - 3


CAMPAIGN AGAINST LIBYA: Concept of International Terrorism

Terrorism was considered an issue separate from political violence only in the early 60s. The distinction has to be made not only between crime and violence and between violence and terrorism, but also between terrorism and armed struggle and revolution. The nature of the relationship between the victim and the third party determines the nature of the action: terrorism, violence, or crime.


Violence is the deliberate direct harming of the victim. In other words, when the victim is first and foremost the objective. The perpetrator of a crime, on the other hand, deliberately seeks to harm his victim as a means of revenge or for any other selfish purpose. Terrorism is the use of violence to harm the victim in order to bring moral pressure to bear on another party. It is usually a tactic used by a weak group against a stronger hostile group to attain a political objective that has been perceived to be impossible to achieve through other means. Hence a terrorist is not usually qualified as a criminal. The terrorist usually believes in the personal innocence of his victim, and his only justification for harming him is his wish to communicate a message to a third party.

Finally, a distinction is made between terrorism and armed struggle. The United Nations has, in its instruments, declarations and resolutions, emphasized this distinction, legitimating the right to armed struggle in favor of self-determination, the liberation of an occupied territory, or the recovery of a usurped independence. However, the U.N. Charter forbids the use of force in international relations, doing so in various Articles of the Charter, in particular Article 1, paragraph 1. The Charter authorizes the use or threat of force only in two specific cases:

  • International security and the need for military measures (Articles: 41 and 42) particularly if the Security Council fails to counter the jeopardy posed to international security.
  • The right of self-defence (Article 51). The right of individual or collective self-defence under the aegis of the Security Council.

The U.N. Charter did not define the acts that could jeopardise international peace. However, GA resolution 375 of 1949 comprised a Declaration of the Rights and Duties of States. Article 9 of this Declaration stipulates that every State should refrain from the threat or use of force in its regional policy, that every State should also respect the territorial integrity, the security and independence of any other State, and refrain from any act incompatible with international law and the international order. Article 10 forbids assistance to any State that contravenes the provisions of Article 9.

Regrettably, none of these international instruments have been heeded. The United States provided Britain with assistance in its war against Argentina in 1982 and Britain assisted the United States in its bombing of Libya in 1986. Despite the Israeli violations of International Law, aggression against Lebanon, occupation of Palestine, parts of South Lebanon and the Syrian Golan Heights, the flow of military and economic assistance to "Israel" forthcoming from several States, particularly America, shows a sharp increase.


Furthermore, the United States has always countered the efforts and attempts made by the U.N. General Assembly to define the concept of "International Terrorism" and its context, to differentiate between State terrorism and that of individuals or groups of individuals, and to differentiate between international terrorism, and the right of peoples and liberation movements to self-determination. At the Special Committee on Terrorism, the United States insisted on removing the issue of State terrorism and the definition of the concept of terrorism from the scope of the committee. It did so because it had often resorted to State terrorism. A good example was the highjacking of the Egyptian civilian plane in international air space in l985 in which the plane was compel to land in one of the NATO bases in Sicily, Italy.

The concept of "State Terrorism" implies a state or a group acting on its behalf or employed by it to terrorize other parties outside its national boundaries. The other parties could be a State, a group, or individuals. The State embarking on such action makes use of either economic, political, media, or military means, or a combination of these.

There are various forms of State terrorism:

  1. To provide assistance to colonial expansionist racism of fascist regimes;
  2. To provide assistance to armed groups rebelling against national governments;
  3. To counter national liberation movements struggling to secure the right of self-determination for their peoples;
  4. To impose a given policy on a national government against the will of its people;

The U.N. General Assembly resolutions express a manifest condemnation of the forms listed above and others like it, yet the above four points clearly indicate that in its conflict with the Jamahiriya, the United States has practised all forms of "State terrorism." America is still training a group of CIA agents to carry out acts of aggression against Libya.

The collapse of the balanced world order could be achieved today by terrorist means, thus posing a greater danger than ever before. The facility with which bacteriological and chemical arms can be produced, is a further encouragement to the hopeless and the downtrodden to make use of them to terrorize. Terrorism can be deterred only through justice and fairness The obstinacy manifested by American and British circles in their dealings with Libya, and their refusal to be just and fair, could provoke any nation and goad it into taking irresponsible and frenzied actions.


Libya, on the other hand, has always acted in a diplomatic manner, with great maturity, calm and self-confidence. It moved at Arab and international levels stressing its readiness to seek arbitration from any neutral international organization and to co-operate to achieve justice. Libya has at every occasion proclaimed its innocence in these two terrorist acts. The Libyan judiciary officially investigated the two international cases involving Libyan nationals. The Leader of the Libyan Revolution proposed several times to submit the two cases to the United Nations or to the International Court of Justice or to any other joint organ. The Libyan judiciary announced its readiness to cooperate directly with the British and American as well as French judiciary. The leader of the Revolution Colonel Moammar Qaddafi called for the convening of a session of the U.N. General Assembly to consider the issues of terrorism and compensations to the victims of international terrorism - past and current - calling those responsible to account for such acts, whether individuals, states or organizations, and calling for the enactment of international legislation to determine the definition of terrorism, and to forbid and penalize it.

Despite the manifest flexibility of Libya in endeavoring to avert this imperialist aggressive scheme against it, it never disregarded its sovereignty or political principles. It categorically refused to surrender its accused nationals for trial in Britain, the United States, or France because such an act was incompatible with its laws as well as with the norms of international law. It upheld its revolutionary and freedom-loving message, and stressed that Western nations had long been guilty of terrorism, including old and neo-colonialism, such as hijacking planes and killing innocent civilians in Libya and Palestine. All Arab and non-Arab countries, which had been exposed to Western colonialism and plots, called on Western and international justice to apply the principle of justice and retribution to each and every one.


Such stands of Libya and the way it handled this new campaign had positive and important results. All Arab countries condemned the Western threatening approach and stood against any military aggression against Libya whatever its justification. The Council of the league of Arab States adopted resolutions which angered and disturbed the Western nations because they did not expect such a strong collective stand, believing that the Gulf crisis they had planned had severed forever the unity of Arab peoples and countries. A number of Arab governments including those which had excellent relations with Western nations expressed their solidarity with Libya and their opposition to any political, economic, or military sanctions, before and unless Libya was indicted by a neutral international legal authority. Other Arab countries announced their firm determination to side with Libya in case of a military confrontation. This strong and unanimous support for Libya was reiterated at the Islamic Summit held in Dakar (December, 1991), and all Muslim Leaders condemned this threatening and aggressive approach.

This open and diplomatic handling by Libya of the Western slander campaign disclosed the blatant aggressive nature of the American-British-French scheme. Their refusal, in particular, to consider the acceptance by Libya of abiding by a neutral legal ruling, and persisting in their arrogance to stand by the alleged results of their investigations shows exactly who is the aggressor.


Image description


Above: Advertisement

Muammar Al Gaddafi - 

Other Books "Escape to Hell"