Skip to comments.Past ties between Gadhafi, Farrakhan, Obama, U.S. Muslim groups raising questions
Posted on 03/29/2011 2:44:41 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON As President Barack Obama sought Monday to explain to the nation the U.S. military action in Libya which he authorized, past associations between Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and U.S. Muslim organizations, some of which have been linked to Obama, are attracting attention.
Thus far mainstream political and media figures are not making an issue of those associations, but longtime observers of the Washington political scene are taking note. In 2009, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) asked the Libyan ruler for what was estimated to be tens of millions of dollars to distribute one million copies of the Koran to Americans, particularly government officials.
"We hope for your noble generosity in taking this project under your wing, so you will be in the vanguard, as we have come to expect of you," CAIR executive director Nihad Awad told Gadhafi in a meeting in New York. "God willing, you will as you have promised us, be the first to take the lead in this project."
The meeting was said to have been one of several between leading American Muslims and Gadhafi. They included leaders of the Nation of Islam, with which Barack Obama was associated in the 1990s, specifically in assisting with the organization of the 1995 Million Man March.
The head of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, has attacked Obama for U.S. participation in the NATO assault on Libya.
On March 21, Awad acknowledged that CAIR solicited Gadhafi. But the American Muslim director said the Libyan ruler did not respond.
"We never received a penny from his group, from his government," Awad said.
Awad as well as two colleagues, CAIR chairman Larry Shaw and spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, met Gadhafi during his visit to the United Nations in September 2009. The three Americans called Gadhafi "the world Islamic popular leader" and then asked for Libyan funds to launch the Muslim Peace Foundation. One goal of the foundation was to distribute one million Korans throughout the United States in an effort to bolster the image of Islam.
Until 2007, Americans were prohibited from receiving money from Libya, which was on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors. CAIR also sent a delegation to Saudi Arabia to solicit $50 million for the group.
"We want to assure you that Muslims in America are your brothers and supporters," Shaw, a southern state representative, was quoted as telling Gadhafi. "They share with you your interests and aspirations."
A minister and attorney has asserted that Farrakhan was a major influence on both Obama and the black community. E. W. Jackson, bishop of the Exodus Faith Ministries, cited Obama's role as organizer and "enthusiastic supporter" of the Nation of Islam leader during the so-called "Million Man March" in Washington in 1995.
"Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities," Jackson, who does not claim a personal friendship with Obama, said. "He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of 'The Muslim World' is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world."
In 2004, Abdul Rahman Al Amoudi, founder of several American Muslim groups, was sentenced to 23 years for receiving money from Gadhafi as part of a plot to kill Saudi King Abdullah. During the 1990s, Al Amoudi served as an Islamic adviser to then-President Bill Clinton.
The Great Society and its results, combined with the “right to vote” has destroyed the USA. Any country that could elect this man is doomed.
Are you kidding me??? What’s the story, here??? Have you been asleep at the wheel like the majority of the American sheep have been and still are??? Fact: Obama is dirty from head to toe with his low life, Black racist, hate America ilk of would be America destroyers, Farrakhan, Wright, Allen, Powers, Clinton, Soros, Pelosi, Reid, Jarrett, etc., etc. Come on, hands off on Iran & Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan, but hands on Libya. Make it look like a wipeout of Qaddafi, but let Qaddafi survive and the others go untouched, leading to a massive Muslim, terrorist takeover, exactly what Muslim, non-American Obama lives for. Alas, the destruction of the USA is going according to plan and the American sheep, you Freepers included, continue to snooze at the steering wheel of the American ship of state. You should all be ashamed to call yourselves Americans. Shucks, a dummy like me had this wired ages ago. Obama is not for America, he never was, and never will be!!! End of Story!!! He needs to resign as POTUS or be impeached.
I want to live long enough to learn that NObama was born in Kenya and that he is in fact a Muslim.
I will then have been vindicated.
We were right then and it's right to help kill the communist muslim terrorist Kadhafi now.
Without our billions of dollars of military aid for the mujahideen, the Soviets would have crushed the Afghan rebels, meaning no mujahideen victory and no Taliban (whose luminaries, including Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, were drawn from various mujahideen factions). Would we be better off today if we had stood by and let the Soviets wipe out the Islamists in Afghanistan*, thereby turning Afghanistan into yet another Islam-suppressing Central Asian republic? I happen to think so. We might even be better off if we had let the Soviets overrun Pakistan jointly with India.
The Soviet Union collapsed because it spent between 15 to 17 per cent of national output on defense, not because the Soviets got tired of fighting in Afghanistan and left. Having them ensnared in a poor and populous country like Pakistan would have made their problems worse. It was bad enough having to subsidize Cuba's 10m people, but to subsidize 85m Pakistani religious nuts would have been catastrophic.
* Note that Afghanistan has been a wasteland since antiquity, which is why the Macedonians and Mongols wiped out the defenders who barred their route of march, but did not stick around, choosing to move on to the richer lands of Hindustan (now India and Pakistan). While it was satisfying to have a proxy army inflict tens of thousands of casualties on the Soviets - especially after they did the same to us in Korea and Vietnam - in retrospect, it was a mistake to invigorate Islamists worldwide with a Afghan victory that they then appropriated to claim that Muslims caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Hindsight is 20-20, and Reagan can't really be blamed for aiding devout Muslims he may have regarded (and are in fact) as cousins, given the fact that Islam is basically a Christian heresy.
However, a post-mortem does provide practical lessons for the future. Why aid Islamists who will soon be on the march, as their native lands and economic ideology (socialism) prove unequal to the challenge of feeding them? Why provide close air support to the kind of people who provided material support and manpower to al Qaeda and cheered when the World Trade Towers came down? Pakistan's population in 1980 was 85m. Today, it is 170m. Egypt's population was 16m in 1939. It is 80m today. Each of these societies is growing more Islamist every day, and we want to enable these populations by having them put Hamas clones in power? No, thanks.
The truth is that no one knows what would have happened if the USA had failed to confront Soviet expansionism in South Asia, just like nobody really knows what will happen if the Kadhafi regime falls. Most likely the conflict will only intensify along tribal lines.
The Soviet Union only went broke fighting the Cold War because the United States of America confronted it in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The USA lost over a hundred thousand men fighting proxy wars against the EVIL EMPIRE in the Twentieth Century. Ronald Reagan made Afghanistan into the Soviet Union's Viet Nam. Their failure did not just cost them billions, it also demoralized them. They lost the will to fight.
You suggest that a Soviet victory may have even hastened their collapse. If you are correct then you must also acknowledge that a Soviet victory would not necessarily have prevented the rise of the Taliban in the nineties. For all we know we could have ended up with an even bigger Taliban controlling not only Afghanistan but Pakistan's nukes as well.
US intervention against the Soviets in Afghanistan did NOT lead to the 9-11 attacks on the USA. Osama bin Laden attacked the USA because we sent troops to Arabia to attack Iraq in 1991, and instead of finishing off the enemy, we left him in power to plan and plot his revenge against us, and we left our troops in Arabia to be "the world's policeman."
Allowing Kadhafi to remain in power now would be just as big a mistake as letting Saddam Hussein stay in power after Desert Storm. It would just be plain stupid. We would just have to clean this mess up sooner or later like we had to in Iraq.
If the rebels hate us then we will just kill them too once they are no longer useful to us, just like we are killing them in Afghanistan and Pakistan today. We already have the CIA on the ground to make sure our own agents and assets will be the ones who take over Libya while determining which "rebels" need a bullet in the head. Our intelligence forces must be allowed to infiltrate and subvert such movements in order to make them serve our own purposes. We shall divide, conquer, and divide again.
Thanks to Ronald Reagan, and GOD, there is no longer any Soviet Union around to save Kadhafi from us. We are now knocking off the Kremlin's islamofascist proxies one by one as we take the initiative and advance into our enemy's former sphere of influence. Not even Obama can stop us. As any fool can plainly see, he is clearly not in charge here.
I totally agree with you.
And THAT is why they are so aggressively opposing us.
“In 2009, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) asked the Libyan ruler for what was estimated to be tens of millions of dollars to distribute one million copies of the Koran to Americans, particularly government officials. “
Just a SMALL sample of the way that these oilmonye rich filthy pigs use their wealth to buy and influence American politicians.
Given that the Taliban does not exist in any of the Muslim former Soviet Republics, it's clear that the Russians are very efficient and zealous at liquidating Islamists. If they had conquered Pakistan, I expect that they would have zeroed out the population of mullahs in traditional Soviet fashion. No mullahs, no Taliban. Besides, a Russian invasion of Pakistan would have involved bombing Pakistan to the stone age. Pakistan would have become what Afghanistan is today, but with tens of millions of dead Pakistanis, and a country pocked with millions of unmapped land mines and booby traps. How is that a bad thing?
The point I was making about a Soviet invasion turning Pakistan into an Afghan-like moonscape is that there would have been no Pakistani nuclear program, any more than Afghanistan was capable of ginning one up. Note that India would have ended occupying large chunks of Pakistan, with perhaps some Chinese movement into Pakistani territory claimed by China. Bottom line is that between large-scale suppressive measures from all three sides, Pakistan would have ceased to exist on the Islamist map of assets, to non-Muslim world’s long-term benefit. And none of this would have cost the US taxpayer one thin dime.
I'm a believer in the McDonald's / Golden Arches theory. There is a reason why Europe has enjoyed it's longest and greatest era of prosperity and peace. Some Muslim nations “have” proven that it is possible to have a more liberal Arab/Muslim (In the traditional sense of the word, not the American perverted meaning) society, i.e. Qatar.
There is no stuffing the genie back into the bottle. They are here, their population is growing, all these issues are intertwined and interconnected even though some try to compartmentalize these issues so they can pretend like as in the Cold War some did that Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, Central African Republic, Afghanistan, Cuba, Honduras, the Lit Path in Peru.... are all separate events in time and space. They weren't, obviously.
In a post Cold War era you have less physical restrictions to movement, we live in the day of the cell phone and Internet, global trade and economic dependencies like never before. Our societies are becoming more heterogeneous, technology is always getting cheaper and more available...... Capabilities only available to a hand full years ago today are being mastered by Iran, Pakistan, Libya was a while back making chem weapons and long range missiles........
What you talk about is disengagement, and that's not a feasible alternative. The moochers and side line bystanders who ride under our wings do that, but it's not really an option. It's only an option for them because someone else if forced to take action.
We failed to fight our communist enemy in China after World War II and the result was Korea and Viet Nam. Ronald Reagan didn't make the same mistake.
I wouldn't call standing aside and watching two adversaries* tear each other to pieces disengagement. I would call it entertainment. Having a 1% military budget and the smallest military among the great powers prior to WWII - that was disengagement. Spending more money on defense than all our allies and adversaries put together is the polar opposite of disengagement.
* It's one thing to aid the Islamists - as Reagan did - and say that we didn't know better. Two World Trade Center bombings later (the first in 1993), I don't see how any can deny that Islamists - and perhaps the Muslim masses who provide manpower and material aid to them - are our mortal enemy.
China is complicated. Much as I'd like to think a China under Chiang would have been a friend of these United States, the more I learn about China and the Chinese, the more skeptical I am. Perhaps it was to our (and Asia ex-China's) benefit that the Chinese imposed on themselves the modern religion of Marxism-Leninism and the mass famines of the 50's and 60's. Beyond the challenge of Islamism is the challenge of traditional cultures with traditional territorial ambitions.
China's have languished only because it has been relatively weak for 200 years. (Even then, it added almost half of China's current territory - Xinjiang and Tibet - right at the boundary of that 200-year point). During this period of weakness, China has lashed out - in border clashes killing thousands - over territorial claims against proudly socialist states like Vietnam, India and the Soviet Union, despite all the claims of international socialist solidarity. I think communist fellow travelers are starting to discover that international socialist solidarity was a nice slogan, but traditional ethnic and historical ambitions have always been the foundation stones of the foreign policies of ostensibly fraternal socialist states.
If Chiang had taken over post-war China, the Chinese would already have overtaken the American economy, severely complicating American security calculations in the Western Pacific, given the Chinese Nationalist (on Taiwan) claim to even bigger chunks of East Asia not currently under Chinese rule than the Chinese Communists. A key Roman strategic precept (mirrored in Sun Tzu's Art of War) was to attempt to set one barbarian against another. From an American perspective, it would be best if we could stand back and watch motley combinations of our adversaries slug it out.
To me entertainment is when America successfully pits two gangs of muslims against each other and then swoops in to scoop up the spoils.
Are there any communists who aren't our friends?
Actually, I would back al Qaeda against the Chinese, on the precept that it is generally better to back the weak against the strong.
The reason I back Gaddafi against al Qaeda should be obvious - Gaddafi has dismantled his nukes and made peace with us. Al Qaeda hasn't. The way Larry (Sarkozy), Moe (Cameron) and Curly (Obama) are playing the Libyan situation sends the following message (and I quote org.whodat): to all third world powers, you are only safe with your finger on a nuclear weapon and a dead man firing switch. It is a brave new world.
China, as a unitary state with a long history of territorial aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbors, not to mention atrocities that put Japan's WWII misbehavior in the shade, poses a much bigger threat than al Qaeda or the Muslim world will ever manage. Do not mistake China's relative quiescence for long-term acquiescence to the current distribution of territory. The following internet commentator summarizes my feelings vis-a-vis China to a T:
As one of my best Chinese friends put it: If any Chinese ever tells you we are a peace-loving nation, dont believe them. We have just had enough time to first eliminate and/or intimidate, then incorporate all our former enemies. There is nothing true than his words.
I think there's a need to distinguish between friends and allies. Friends would be countries with which we share either ethnic, religious or philosophical ties. Since WWI, France and Britain - with which we share all three ties - have always been friends, although not always allies (as in the Suez Incident in 1956). Allies are countries with which we cooperate on matters of common interest. Regimes like China's and Pakistan's can probably never be our friends, although they can - in select cases - be our allies.
I agree that we should back whomever is the weaker side. That's why we should back the rebels. I don't believe for a single second that Kadhafi really dismantled his WMD programs any more than North Korea abandoned their nuclear program in exchange for us supplying them nuclear fuel. Both policies were naive. I'm supposed to believe UN inspectors like Scott Ritter or Mohammed el-Baradei of the IAEA when they tell me Kadhafi is good? Appeasement does not work on islamofascists any more than it works on Stalinists.
Do you think they would keep being our friends if we did that?
Non-intervention and alliance are different things. I think we shouldn't get involved in Gaddafi's crushing of the rebels. Our friendship with Britain and France would survive our non-intervention. Eisenhower threatened* to destroy Britain's and France's economies if they did not withdraw from the Suez Canal in 1956, thereby forcing their withdrawal. We are still friends. Britain and France opposed our intervention in Vietnam. We are still friends. We'll get involved in slanging matches every so often, but the ties of ethnicity, religion and philosophy are simply too deep for any animosity to endure.
* That was probably one of Eisenhower's biggest policy mistakes.
Just because they love al-Qaeda so much?
I've not ever stated that al Qaeda was a greater threat than the Soviet Union. My contention was that al Qaeda's boast that the Soviet-Afghan War brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union is wrong. We did not need to be involved in that war for the Soviet Union to collapse. In fact, the Soviet Union would have collapsed faster if it had taken on more Stone Age client states.
Nope, it wasn’t al-Qaida who beat the Soviet Union. It was Ronald Reagan. If he didin’t, the Soviet Union might not only still exist but would have naval bases on the Indian Ocean and would control an energy corridor between the middle east and the far east. Instead, we control it and that’s the way I like it. We won’t let either Russia or China dominate Central Asia.
Never assume that just because a government does something, that they've taken into account all the available information and all the possible negative consequences. (Do you really think Obama has taken into account the potential for financial insolvency that could result from Obamacare)? I suspect that both Cameron and Sarkozy are hoping to accomplish some combination of the following: (1) appeal to the Muslim constituencies in their home countries (who despise the Communist Gaddafi), (2) ward off floods of Islamist refugees* if Gaddafi wins and (3) doing the fashionable thing by intervening in a conflict with no possible tangible benefit for either country (thereby following in Clinton's footsteps).
* I'd personally do the manly thing and send the refugees back instead of wasting fuel and ordnance.
Utter nonsense. Britain and France and protecting their own strategic interests and it is in the USA’s strategic interest to stand by our Allies and help them secure energy sources besides Neo-Soviet Russia’s state-run energy monopoly. Those countries which oppose intervention, such as Germany are the ones most beholden to Russia. Gerhard Schroder himself is working for the Russian state-run gas monopoly which is building a pipeline directly from Russia to Germany. In addition the islamist Turks oppose French leadership in the coalition because France is standing against Turkish EU membership.
Yup, that's how it's done when we have grownups in charge.
However, Obama is our CIC and I don't trust his CIA to sort out the bad rebels. Perhaps the Brits and Sarkozy will get it right.
I don't see what this has to do with their strategic interests. Oil is completely fungible. Producers sell to the highest bidder. Libya has no monopoly on oil. Besides, BP and Total are among the biggest players in Libya. Neither country had any reason to curry favor with the rebels to get a foot in the door. In fact, the tendency among victorious rebel movements is to renegotiate contracts in their own favor so as to make the sacrifices in blood necessary to win seem worthwhile. Even in Iraq, the terms of exploration agreements got so onerous - after we toppled Saddam - that some Chinese companies (traditional bottomfeeders) took a pass.
One addition I’d like to make to your excellent post is, the critical step in turning Afghanistan into the Soviet Vietnam was that they invaded it in the first place. The role the US played was (under Carter, and criticized in places like Harper’s at the time) was to sell them truck engine blocks which gave them the logistical capability; during the Prague Spring in ‘68, Breszhnev (sp?) had to commandeer city buses in Moscow to move the needed troops into Czechoslovakia in time.
The voters’ rejection of Carter didn’t hurt. But the USSR had to make its move into Afghanistan, and that was a gift to us.
Unfortunately, this is more a case of the blind leading the blind. Larry (Sarkozy), Moe (Cameron) and Curly (Obama) are telling the world's dictators that the best way to stay in power is to acquire nukes and oppose the West's interests at every turn.
Eni postpones Gazprom deal in Libya - April 6, 2011 - Some analysts have said opposition to air strikes to support Libyan rebels against strongman Muammar Gaddafi could put Russia in a weak bargaining position on energy contracts if the rebels win. ....Concern has been rising that state-controlled Eni's position in Libya could be undermined by Italy's hesitant backing for the rebel movement, paving the way for a greater say for French group Total.