Skip to comments.Reagan Saw This Coming
Posted on 10/22/2011 8:31:06 AM PDT by radioone
Ronald Reagan saw this coming, and Barack Obama is making his prediction come true.
Moammar Gaddafi got what was coming to him. Of course, the concern now is the jihadist and al-Qaeda elements that are positioned to replace him. Years ago, Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi the "mad dog of the Middle East" and said that his goal was a worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution."
Many others besides Gaddafi shared that goal, including those who opposed him, and with Gaddafi's death, that goal is closer than ever to being realized. Here we are, thirty years after Reagan made these remarks, in the throes of a worldwide Muslim fundamentalist revolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Add to that communists & other leftist radicals with gazillions of bucks.
We’re being squeezed in the pincers of evil.
“Add to that communists & other leftist radicals with gazillions of bucks.”
That’s absolutely correct. The alliance of Islam, and the Marxists has to become common knowledge, or we cannot expect to win. The war is us against an alliance, NOT just Islam, nor just Marxism.
“Add to that communists & other leftist radicals with gazillions of bucks.” (some of it tax dollars I suspect)
Add to that having a President who is agging on the leftists and communists and kissing up to Islam. - The leftists and communists apparently THINK they can use the radical Islamists as a means to their own ends, then control them. Self deceit.
Kinda reminds you of Iran dudden it?
Maybe those handshakes and BOWS were a signal for the next HIT. Obama setting himself up for world leader of all ISLAM, and has to take out his enemies first. He knows he is out of a job come 2012, job creation in the making?
just a silly theory, I know. BUT MAYBE and not so strange after all, hmmmmm.
Caution to ISLAMic demonic leaders, be very afraid.
I’m still wondering why it wasn’t OK to go after Hussein but OK to go after Gadaffi. When will the left be honest about the fact that their guy is the same as ours was?
Jihadists, who were prominent among the resistance to Gaddafi from the very beginning of attempts to overthrow his government, recently revealed their goal of taking power in a post-Gaddafi government and creating an Islamic state. U.S. intelligence agencies announced this early in September.
Kaddafi was a typical mad dictator, who longed for power and recognition.
Years ago, Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi the "mad dog of the Middle East" and said that his goal was a worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution."
Yes, that was true, BACK THEN. Kaddafi was not himself a Muslim fundamentalist, but he longed for power and glory, and at the time that seemed like the route to take.
Then Kaddafi was rejected at the Arab summit meeting in Saudi Arabia, because he turned up with all those uniformed girl guards. So he decided on a new plan for fame and glory: not Muslim fundamentalism, but union with black Africa. And also Bush leaned on him, and he agreed to give up his former terrorist proclivities.
So, yes, he was behind the Lockerbie bombing, but he changed his ways. He was never a terrorist, he was just a nutball who wanted power, honor, and glory.
What kind of Muslim fundamentalist would surround himself with pretty girls in uniforms, nurse's outfits, and modern western clothing, instead of burkhas?
The Arabs hated Kaddafi because he reached out to blacks and gave them help and jobs. Most Arabs think that blacks are only good as slaves. When the revolutionaries took over from Kaddafi the first thing they did was kill and imprison and torture all the blacks they found--something the press has mostly managed to cover up or underemphasize.
And notice that the first thing the new terrorist bosses did was to refuse to release the Lockerbie Bomber to NATO, even though NATO put them into power. Because they consider him to be a hero for killing all those infidels.
This war was fought on the wrong side. Yes Kaddafi was an insane nutball, but he was on our side at the time the French, British, and Obama decided to assassinate him and replace him with the Muslim Brotherhood.
0baMugabe I can understand but why did France and Britain want to empower the Muslim Brotherhood? Clearly they did but why?
Republicans Push for U.S. Role in Rebuilding Libya
Theyre willing to reimburse us. Its not a matter of money, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News, making a tough sales pitch in an era of high unemployment and increasing austerity.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted that the Libyans top request was for help in tending to the countrys wounded and that the French and Germans have reached agreements with the new government to treat them.
The chief motivating power was France. I think it had something to do with their neo-Colonial ambitions. Perhaps better control over Libyan oil, perhaps a desire to get rid of Kaddafi, who threatened to replace them in their neo-colonies to the South of Libya—where there are some key uranium mines, among other things.
I think England went along out of a desire to please France, please Obama (who had been constantly dissing them) and maybe also get some oil.
The rest of NATO was basically against this move, and only went along passively, to avoid putting more strain on the EU. Turkey and Germany were both strongly against in the early days.
The word Eurabia, which we think of mostly as the future Islamification of Europe, was originally a French invention. France has long supported the Muslims as a way to work their way back into the Arab world after the Brits mostly displaced them earlier. They see themselves as leaders of the Mediteranean world, and apparently don’t understand just how dangerous it is to cozy up to the Arabs.
In other words, I think their ambitions are delusional, and that they will suffer the most when they backfire.
Thank you for the explanation. It all makes sense except the oil. They all had contracts for oil that were not in dispute (that I know of).
Well, I mentioned the oil because I’ve seen it said by numerous people. I agree; it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, either. The UK traded the Lockerbie Bomber to get an oil deal, France already had an oil deal, and Kaddafi kept his word on deals better than a lot of other dictators. And he kept things in order.
Now, if the new temporary government breaks up into tribal warfare, they may get less oil from Libya than they did before. Or maybe none at all. Which, frankly, would serve them right.
Gaddafi had a limited shelf life and his sons were shaping up to be more westernized than he was. I guess working with them towards more reform was out of the question. Throwing Libya into chaos doesn’t seem like the best route into sub-Saharan Africa either. It will serve them right if northern Africa becomes a major headache but it won’t serve the world in general very well. It may be Europe’s Waterloo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.