Posted on 03/17/2011 7:36:29 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
Well known to the United States policymakers in Obama White House and Clinton State Department along with the National Security Council but not widely known to American mainstream media, the U.S. West Point Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center document reveals that Libya sent more fighters to Iraq’s Islamic militancy on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps more alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The analysis of the Combating Terrorism Center of West Point was based on the records captured by coalition forces in October 2007 in a raid near Sinjar, along Iraq’s Syrian border.
The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million).
Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.
If the 2007 captured records revealed the Eastern Libyan participation in the anti-coalition forces militancy in Iraq one could imagine the Banghazi-Darnah export of Islamists since then.
“Libyans were more fired up to travel to Iraq to kill Americans than anyone else in the Arabic-speaking world,” Andrew Exum, a counterinsurgency specialist and former Army Ranger noted in a blog posting recently. “This might explain why those rebels from Libya's eastern provinces are not too excited about U.S. military intervention. It might also give some pause to those in the United States so eager to arm Libya's rebels.”
(Excerpt) Read more at asiantribune.com ...
On January 24, 2010, Libya blocked access to YouTube after it featured videos of demonstrations in the Libyan city of Benghazi by families of detainees who were killed in Abu Salim prison in 1996
Whose were these detainees? They were members of Islamist groups who were arrested after an assassination attempt against Gaddafi in 1996. How were they killed? In the putting down of a prison revolt in which 200 prison guards were killed.
I say let Gaddafi wipe ‘em out. I prefer a A-hole like the Colonel to an al Quada backed regime.
Why would the Saudis want to keep the fires of rebellion burning? A sound thrashing of the revolutionaries in Libya would have a profound psychological effect on the revolutionaries in Bahrain and the would-be revolutionaries in The Kingdom.
The UN Resolution give the rebels new life. I don’t see how that benefits the House of Saud in the big picture, regardless of Abdullah’s personal score with Q’Daffy.
Without Arab League approval, there would have been no UN resolution. And without Saudi assent, there would have been no Arab League approval...
I’m aware of that. I just don’t understand the logic behind it. Why would the Saudis want to keep the rebellion going? Defeat for the rebels in Libya goes a long way toward putting out the fire that’s been keeping Abdullah up at night.
That's basically my position. If we could financially back a mass murderer like Stalin during WWII, we can stand aside as Gaddafi whacks these Islamists.
Yeah, Daffy has about 24 million to go before he catches up with Uncle Joe.
Like I said, I think King Abdullah is letting a personal vendetta get in the way of the Saudi Royal Family's long-term interests. Wouldn't be the first time this kind of thing has happened, of course. I think that as the family patriach, he'd be able to look beyond such petty things*. But then again, maybe not...
* Other people have put their positions in danger over much more trivial matters. Clinton put his presidency in danger because he couldn't keep it in his pants. Etc, etc...
Here’s my question, if the guy has been in power for over 40 years, why is he still only a Colonel? You’d think he would have gotten at least one promotion over all of these years.
Valid point. I have a pet theory of my own on this. I don’t think Al-Waleed is the loyal nephew he pretends to be in the media. I think he’s on the side of the islamists. The old man might be getting some very bad advice from the Prince.
He did it to set himself apart from all the other dictators out there. It seems to work to enhance his prestige in certain quarters, notably among the Tuareg in southern Libya and some of the neighboring sub-Saharan countries.
If so, he's playing a dangerous game. If I recall correctly, two prominent 30-something members of the al-Saud clan who were suspected to be al Qaeda sympathizers died under mysterious circumstances after 9/11. The speculation is that the Saudis had them killed for helping bin Laden.
Can you express, as a percentage of the population you're so willingly consigning to a future of murderous oppression and torture, the proportion of folks from Cyrenica who went and fought in Iraq?
Is it greater or less than the percentage of folks in the Sunni triangle, whom we eventually allied with to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq?
Let them kill each other!
This interview with the Prince also raised my suspicions.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201103111609dowjonesdjonline000593&title=saudi-prince-alwaleed-day-of-rage-was-tempest-in-a-teacup
Especially the "We love the king" part.
I agree, if true, he's playing a dangerous game. But he does have more cover than other prominent royals do. Twenty billion dollars worth.
It’s really quite easy to understand. By aiding the radical’s in their attempt to overthrow Q-daffy-duck more bad guys will die and the end result will be less for our troops to kill.
But daffy said they will be finished with them in the next day or two.
The problem is that - unlike in Iraq - we won't have troops on the ground to help defeat the Islamists in Libya. Because the American people are tired of fighting these little wars that evolve in $100b a year exercises in nation-building.
omg....that is nutty. Because there maybe some al queda in the rebels ranks does not make the whole movement thus. Qaddafi took power by force and has sustained terrorist. You are a bit mixed up here I think.
The other issue to consider is that most of the al Qaeda-ists in Iraq were foreigners. Libya's Islamists are home-grown. Iraq's women started wearing the part-burka after we took over. Most of Libya's women wear some form of the burka today in spite of Gaddafi's preference for modern clothing.
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.