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.