Skip to comments.Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion
Posted on 06/23/2011 10:34:00 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that true democrats represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and outright disinformation.
The sponsors of the report are the Paris-based International Center for Research and Study on Terrorism and Aide to Victims of Terrorism (CIRET-AVT) and the French Center for Research on Intelligence (CF2R). The organizations sent a six-member expert mission to Libya to evaluate the situation and consult with representatives on both sides of the conflict. From March 31 to April 6, the mission visited the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the region of Tripolitania; from April 19 to April 25, it visited the rebel capital of Benghazi and the surrounding Cyrenaica region in eastern Libya.
The report identifies four factions among the members of the eastern Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC). Apart from a minority of true democrats, the other three factions comprise partisans of a restoration of the monarchy that was overthrown by Qaddafi in 1969, Islamic extremists seeking the establishment of an Islamic state, and former fixtures of the Qaddafi regime who defected to the rebels for opportunistic or other reasons.
There is a clear overlap between the Islamists and the monarchists, inasmuch as the deposed King Idris I was himself the head of the Senussi brotherhood, which the authors describe as an anti-Western Muslim sect that practices an austere and conservative form of Islam. The monarchists are thus, more precisely, monarchists-fundamentalists.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Another possible case where no matter who the winner is, the west “does not have a dog in that race”.
This is all about consolidating the caliphate community organizers recent gains in Egypt and giving capital assets and cash flow to the upcoming MB next door in Egypt. I believe this is phase one on their march against democracy. Obama has placed the whole mid east on a new war trajectory guaranteeing a assault on Israel and then the west, probably within his term for a purpose.
This crap is all orchestrated by the caliphate community organizer, to America’s detriment.
On the other hand, given the nation in which the investigating outfits are domiciled, France, and given the political mindset of the majority people there, particularly in the political class (Marxist/Socialist), it may be a case of them simply not finding many “fellow travelers” among the Libyan rebels.
I don’t know that for sure. They could be totally right about the strength of fundamentalists among the rebels. I simply question the political independence of the “independent” outfits that did the investigation.
This is the most unjustified war I can remember in modern times. It is a rape.
A bunch of guys got together and said, “Hey, I've got an idea. Let's all go and take Libya's oil.” And they did.
“He's going to kill everybody! everybody!!” was the stupid ‘justification’. Instead, NATO has killed thousands, if not tens of thousands of civilians in order to ‘protect’ them.
Not a big Kadaffy fan by any means, but this is an international mugging, and Obama is such a dumbass, he got us involved in it to support his MB brothers.
I simply cannot believe that Obama has managed the impossible - he’s making me sympathize with Khadaffy.
absolutely agree with you.
in fact, since even Obama must see his chances of being reelected are disappearing, i expect the timeframe to accelerate...
hes making me sympathize with Khadaffy.
true, he’s a crazy dictator.
but our own government report, said he was giving us info about the Islamists in eastern Libya, which was one of the highest per capita recruiting spots in the world.
(it was here on FR several times)
can’t imagine why anyone would object to Obama removing the ONE dictator there, who was actually helping us against Al-Qaeda...
...and, he gave up his nuclear program. maybe out of fear,
but, he did. yet we attack him, instead of Iran, who may have their first bomb in less than 8 more weeks?
Duh, ya think? It took a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys to finally admit the truth about this?
Who couldn’t figure out that once Barry the Mooslim it be known that he wouldn’t resist a violent takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that the whole ME would blow up? Half the reason the price of oil is so high is because the Saudis are ticked off at Barry for not helping keep people they liked in power. Sure, the Saudis want Muslim states to replace secular ones, but no way they want Al Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood backed groups running other countries since both groups have sworn to topple the Saudi royals.
I understand your point of view, but it is backwards IMO. It is not a matter of sympathizing with Khadaffy, it is standing against a wholly illegal action which inevitably will be detrimental to the U.S. and our allies in the region.
If I stand for the ‘rights’ of a criminal in terms of due process, it does not mean that I stand for the criminal's actions or even the criminal himself.
Standing for the rights of a criminal, is standing for my own rights.
Judging from these posts and posts on other threads, we all know exactly what Obama is doing.
He must be stopped!
Al quida is our sworn enemy and has killed tens of thousands of our citizens. We therefore do have a "dog in that race". Unfortunately, Obama and the weak, effete, Republican elite have put us on the side of our enemy.
We can try, he needs to be stopped, however this has the making of a war of biblical proportions with everything in gear NOW. If we elect to do nothing , then there WILL be a war of biblical proportions. We were given a road map for a purpose. Ezekiel and all the other writers have given us tools to work with describing what will happen under one group of circumstances.
And so, what say you, John Effing McCain???
From the start of this illegal, murderous operation for which no implication to our national security exists, I’ve taken the side of Khaddafi. He’s a thug with a history of supporting terror, but he was long ago deemed to be no longer a threat, and had reached out to the West, especially in the form of giving up his WMD program on the heels of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He’d also given the U.S. a good deal of intel about al-Qaeda in Libya.
Plus... IT’S NOT OUR FIGHT!!!
Yet... here we are.. the dear reader seems to sense a political boost to assassinating Khaddafi him (and let’s not pretend that’s not the goal here).
Wasn’t all that “Bush Lied” crap about Iraq going to usher in a higher level of accountability as pertains to attacking a sovereign country? Even with our compliant and complicit press, Obama is getting quite a pass on this.
assassinating Khaddafi him = assassinating Khaddafi
“Al quida is our sworn enemy and has killed tens of thousandsof our citizens. We therefore do have a “dog in that race”.
I see: Al Queda blows up buildings, and does not “get away” with it. Ghaddafi sends his henchman to blow up an airliner, and gets away with it.
No sorry. We do not have a dog in “that” particular race. We could be destined to lose - something - either way.
If Al Queda gets a base of operation in Libya, which is largely what this "rebellion" is all about, we will rue the day we backed the rebels against Ghaddafi who assisted us in the war on terror and kept Al Queda out of the area. We will have "lost" a great deal.
“If Al Queda gets a base of operation in Libya, which is largely what this “rebellion” is all about, we will rue the day we backed the rebels against Ghaddafi who assisted us in the war on terror and kept Al Queda out of the area. We will have “lost” a great deal.”
If Ghadaffi succeeds in re-establishing power he will revert to his terrorist-funding ways from the 1970s & 1980s - secretly funding anyone willing to point guns and bombs at us - if only for retaliation for our support of the “rebels”.
Ghaddaffi or the rebels; neither party will rule Libya in a manner that will be in our favor.
This was a fight we were supposed to either stay completely out of, or take over in a manner as was done in Iraq.
We have done neither. We will not own the outcome no matter what, and neither victor is going to be our friend and ally.
Get over it. It’s lose lose.
We may have to try to “isolate” Libya no matter who the victors are.
-——Its lose lose.——
So far there has been no counter attack.
I expect a disastrous counter attack in Europe or Washington against leaders and families. That is Libyan Special Forces with RPG’s or perhaps mortars will raise hell and kill many.
The war will be among the leaders, not the people. The leaders have killed Qadaffi’s family and the counter attack will be tit for tat.
Obama is complacent. He doesn’t know what he has done. Ditto Big Brit, Big France, Big Italy
Sorry, my Country's engaged in an unconstitutional and statutorily illegal war. My Country is supporting my enemies who were responsible for 9/11. I can't, and won't, just "get over it". The weak, effete, Republican elite are pushing me closer each day to abandoning the corruption that has become the GOP.
Trying to lump the monarchists in with the islamists is wrong. Monarchy is a strong force against the Islamists and a restoration of a pro-American monarchy would be a great victory for the USA and for Israel.
Al-Qaeda is against NATO intervention because they know it will ensure that whatever government replaces Kadaffy will be controlled by NATO and the USA.
“Sorry, my Country’s engaged in an unconstitutional and statutorily illegal war. My Country is supporting my enemies who were responsible for 9/11. I can’t, and won’t, just “get over it”. The weak, effete, Republican elite are pushing me closer each day to abandoning the corruption that has become the GOP.”
Illegal as in “Unconstitutional”? Not so. Illegal as in “statutorily” as in the Constitutionally suspect “War Powers Act”? Again; not so.
I have said before that there are lots of reasons we Conservatives would like to rein in the arrogant Mr. Obama. Picking the item of raising the Constitutionally suspect “War Powers Act” as one means of doing so may be emotionally satisfying but (1) it has no chance of succeeding and therefor (2) can be nothing but emotionally satisfying as in: “Well we told him” but to no meaningful affect.
If the GOP thought it had a dozen or so Dem supporters in the Senate, it could try to simply cut off the money for any actions in Libya; but it would not hold against an Obama veto without fully 2/3 in both houses; again not likely. So why are you yelling “effete Republican elite” - they don’t have the votes. Just holding a vote will make you “feel” good, but it will not change the realities.
My point is not that I support the rebels and want them to succeed, and neither do I support Ghadaffi and want him to succeed. I would love it if both sides could fail. But, in the end, one will not fail. We will not “win” either way. We will be left with a Libya that is not “with us” either way.
That is not my wish. That’s just how it is.
You can wish that that was not the case, but wishing it to be so does not change it.
When I say “get over it” I am saying we will have to be prepared to deal with a Libya that will not be our friend and ally, no matter what happens between the rebels and Ghaddafi. That’s not a wish; that’s just the way it is.
Yelling “effete Republican elite” over a measure that the GOP would have zero legislative success with is just silly.
Show me someplace in the Constitution that gives the power to the President to attack another country without congressional approval.
Show me someplace in the War Powers Act that gives the power to the President to attack another country that has not attacked us.
Obama's actions are both unconstitutional and in violation of the War Powers Act. Your merely stating "not so" does not change reality.
The Republicans control the House and a simple majority can impeach the President. They do have the votes if they want to actually wield power instead of the continual caving by Crybaby Boehner and the weak, effete, Republican elite.
If they don't want to stand on principle because the Senate might not go along with them, they need to get out of the way and let someone with a little fortitude lead.