Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect

[rug]

Today, there is little doubt that eastern Libya, like other parts of the Arab world, is experiencing a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor, expressed in demands for political freedom and economic reforms. But there also is a dark history to eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

The group was founded by Libyan mujahideen returning in the mid-1990s from Afghanistan, where they had gone to fight the Soviets’ Red Army. Building on a radical Islamist credo, they organized to fight the secular corruption of the Gaddafi regime. In 1996 they nearly succeeded in assassinating Gaddafi by attacking his motorcade with either a bomb or a rocket-propelled grenade which missed its target. The attack led to a severe crackdown by the regime. Many were imprisoned or disappeared, but the CIA still regards the group as one of the many franchises of al Qaeda, including al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates in Yemen, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which is active in Algeria and elsewhere in North Africa.

Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist extremism. In diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, the region’s young men were said to have “nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local mosques are “laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support jihad," one diplomat reported.

U.S. officials declined to discuss the make-up of the anti-Gaddafi forces in eastern Libya, and U.S. intelligence agencies declined to comment publicly. To be sure, extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the Iranian revolution to the Egyptian people’s overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. But others caution that in the chaotic jockeying for power that will ensue, whether or not Gaddafi is forced from power, eastern Libya’s extremist groups will emerge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

[Wilms]

1. Perhaps, then, Libya could fall into the chaos that engulfs Iraq. Mission Accomplished 2.0

Oil stays in the ground elevating the price.

[joshcryer]

18. You and others only wish.

I mean, who wants to be wrong about something like this? You only take this information and post it as a true representation because you want it to be right.

[Wilms]

24. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

Meanwhile, feel free to comment on the story rather than insulting me for a point of view.

Thanks

[Teaser]

27. Can't we do both?

.

[Wilms]

38. LOL! n/t

:rofl:

[Teaser]

40. points for being a good sport

.

[Wilms]

51. I couldn't help it. Your reply was too witty for me to keep a straight face.

And I enjoyed it!

:)

[Teaser]

62. It's a riff off the best line in _A League of their Own_

14 year old boy drives Geena Davis to a bar.


Kid: What's your rush, dollbody? What do you say we slip in the back seat, and make a man out of me?
Dottie Hinson: What do you say I smack you around for a while?
Kid: Can't we do both?

[meow mix]

31. DU only wants to see us fail, and have the people be massacred

at least 55 percent of them from the polls

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. U.S. officials declined to discuss the make-up of the anti-Gaddafi forces in eastern Libya

Except to lay down weeks of propaganda about them being our new best friends

[joshcryer]

13. Bullshit, there were concerns about the anti-American sentiment.

One reason the United States is taking a back seat.

[leftstreet]

3. Oh man

Here we go

Thanks for posting that

[Poll_Blind]

4. Noooooooo! It's all going wrong again! This was supposed to be THE GOOD ONE!

FUCK IT, 5,000 MORE LIVES ON BLACK 24 AND SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN, CROUPIER!



PB

[sabrina 1]

5. So, was Qadaffi telling the truth when he said

it was 'Al Queda, Al Queda are causing the trouble. My people LOVE me'??

And if he was, and the U.S. knows that, why would they ignore it?

Never mind, I think I know the answer ...

[hardcover]

8. It looks like he was telling the truth.

I was fooled by plight of the "freedom fighters". I wanted to believe, but if wishes were fishes....

[joshcryer]

11. It was a scapegoat, I assure you the revolutionaries are not composed of terrorists.

[Hugabear]

39. So you've personally met with the rebels, and can personally vouch for them?

You're absolutely sure that the people we're trying to protect aren't just as bad or possibly even worse than the government they're trying to overthrow?

Wouldn't be the first time that we've back someone, only to have them turn around and bite us in the ass

[joshcryer]

48. Yes, quote me on it.

[MikeW]

42. you know that exactly how, your there?

[joshcryer]

49. I've actually been FOLLOWING Libya.

I can't say the same for so many of the uninformed posters here.

[joshcryer]

10. No.

[sabrina 1]

14. Acutally he was telling the truth. I've done a little research

and it appears that Eastern Libya has always been a hotbed of fundamentalists. Might explain some of the big difference in this revolutiona and the Egyptian revolution. One reason why the West embraced Qadaffi was because he was helping fight Al Queda, or at least that's what they said.

The more I am learning, the more questions I have and when I get answers, and I will, I will post them.

[joshcryer]

17. Nah, LIFG has always been a niche group. Gaddafi's story doesn't mesh with the stories...

...of dozens of eyewitnesses plus video evidence.

Of course, I remember when any time Bush tooted "Al Queda!" there used to be a time when DU would laugh at such nonsense, but of course, whenever it's convenient "Al Queda" is easily referenced to debase good people who had good intentions and who fought against a massacre.

[sabrina 1]

41. No one doubts the good people there and their intentions.

And personally I don't care about Al Queda believing always that it was a creation of the U.S. anyhow and nowhere near the threat it was hyped up to be.

I remember the fairy tales about Al Queda in Iraq, the fabricated characters like Al Zarqawi who turned out, to be nothing more than a petty thief raised to the level of 'Al Queda Leader' when he was nothing of the sort.

My point isn't 'OMG Al Queda'. My question is about the fact that from what I've read so far, the eastern part of Libya has been known to be an Al Queda if you want to use that term, stronghold, with Qadaffi keeping the situation under control. Al Queda, or more correctly, fundamentalists do not like secular leaders like Saddam Hussein and Qadaffi. They have tried in the past to assassinate Qadaffi.

So, my question is since we now know the U.S. was happy with Qadaffi's role in the 'WOT' by keeping that area under control, why would they now be willing to 'save' those people. We kill whole villages in Afghanistan and Iraq just to get ONE Al Queda member, or so we are told. Or is the whole Al Queda scare just a myth, an excuse for forever war, and used in Libya to justify bringing Qadaffi back into the fold? I don't know, but I would like to.

I am not questioning the revolutionaries in this instance, I am questioning, as I always have, the conflicting claims of the West in the Great War On Terror, a 'war' I have never subscribed to. Terror requires police action, not war imho.

This is a far more complex situation than we first thought. Looking at the fire power Qadaffi has, with analysts now saying he could drag this 'war' out for a long time, against the International forces, was it realistic to think that a rag-tag army of revolutionaries, basically un, or under-armed had any chance of defeating him?

I admit to maybe being wrong about this in the beginning. Those British special forces who were caught may not have been the only ones there, as is now being claimed.

Iow, there is far too much we do not know to make any true judgements of how things really are.

[joshcryer]

45. Oh give me a break, it's not "complex." All of these "complexities" are to induce doubt.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The whole conversation has been that.

First they're terrorists, then we don't know who they are, and now it's all about doubting the USs motivations.

Fact is the United States likely would've preferred Gaddafi stay in his hole and the protesters not be affected. The US's motivation for acting is likely because EU wanted them to act. The EU's motivation for acting is what you should be questioning. Germany abstained, so it's France and the UK. There's probably a bit of guilt for selling the weapons with the UK, but France may be looking at "renegotiating" the oil deals. But that is not relevant, is it? The question is if the revolutionaries were suffering under a tyrant. If that is the case, and if someone wants to help them, should that person help them?

It's disgusting to say the least.

[sabrina 1]

52. What's disgusting is your willful blindness and your style of posting

If someone doesn't share your opinion, you resort to these childish temper tantrums so familiar on lower level discussion boards mostly on the right, for a long time.

So, you know way, way more than every expert on the Arab world from all over the globe, now? Okay! :eyes:

The problem with your responses as always, is you have not answered a single question raised by people who are far more experienced in these matters than YOU are. Your willingness to remain ignorant is your problem, but it does explain why you knew so little about U.S. imperialism from Latin America to every corner of the world, and why you were so uninformed about the relationships between Arab and Muslim countries and Latin America which led the way to the current uprisings in the Arab world.

Continue to throw tempter tantrums, I remember Iraq War supporters doing exactly that when some of us raised similar questions to them back then. They covered their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and wailed and stomped their feet and of course, were eventually proven to have been so completely and tragically wrong.

As for me, much I'd like to continue believing the fairy tale that these unfortunate people had any chance of defeating Qadaffi alone, I like many others now realize it was never really possible. The situation is far, far more complex than you want to believe. Which makes you an uncredible source of information on this issue.

[joshcryer]

53. I'm not blind to anything that I research as heavily as I have Libya.

I actually sought out the very wikileaks reports you were saying proved the oil conspiracy that was being spouted. In fact the paragraph after the cited paragraph disproved it. I sought out the slide that was posted, and the original context that it was created and it clearly separated NOC from multinational companies. Again, more misleading information to try to defame the revolutionaries.

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, even when they have shown to lack any and all credibility, I am constantly doubting myself, to make sure that whatever opinion I hold I hold it true. The situation is not as complex as it's being made out to be. And it will come to a head soon.

Meanwhile you can continue debasing the revolutionaries in the best way you know how, by insuations, by FUD.

[sabrina 1]

61. The revolutionaries are not the problem try as you will to

pretend they are to those now gathering information on how their revolution has been hi-jacked.

The problem is the Neocons, Elliot Abrams, Elizabeth Cheney and the rest of the PNAC crowd, who we now know were involved in this decision. Special forces on the ground in Benghazi for weeks now. Even as you type, the information continues to come out.

Anyone who cares about the revolutionaries at all, has to be outraged at what was really going on in order to take advantage of their revolution.

[joshcryer]

67. Their revolution has not been hijacked.

[Catherina]

6. Rec'd. Oh what a tangled web we're weaving

Another confidential cable to Washington from the US embassy in Tripoli in June 2008 described Derna as a "wellspring" of insurgent fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8365432/Libya-WikiLeaks-cables-warn-of-extremist-beliefs.html

DIE HARD IN DERNA
http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=08TRIPOLI430&hl=libya+derna

EXTREMISM IN EASTERN LIBYA, DATE 2008-02-15
http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&hl=libya+benghazi

[chill_wind]

9. Clapper-

not down with the cake-walk happy talk when he briefed Senate Armed Service Committee.

Clapper: Libyan Air Defenses Substantial

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2011/March%202011/March%2011%202011/ClapperLibyanAirDefensesSubstantial.aspx

Said also, one possible outcome could be the splitting of Libya into three autonomous states.

They were trying to shut him up like a crazy uncle in the attic (Tom Donilin and others)when word got out to some press.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12707276

Lindsey Graham screaming for his head! The public should not be privy to questions or doubts!

The comment prompted criticism of Clapper. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said that the statement was “devastating” and called for Clapper to resign. “Three strikes and you’re out,” Graham said.

Graham said that Clapper’s public analysis harmed American foreign policy interests. “Some of his analysis could prove to be accurate, but it should not have been made in such a public forum,” Graham said. “If he felt the need to say what he did, then they should have moved into closed session.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/lindsey-graham-clapper-has-had-three-strikes-must-resign/#ixzz1H7kLDXqp

The problem is who knows when Clapper is in his right, attentive mind and when he isn't.
And what is really known by his intel and what isn't.

Obama appointed him in June.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/05/nation/la-na-intelligence-chief-2010060

Deciphering our schizophrenic Libya policy
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/150209-deciphering-our-schizophrenic-libya-policy

[Catherina]

15. Schizophrenic & appalling. US neo-cons demanded "immediate" military action in Libya

US neo-cons urge Libya intervention
Signatories to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) demand "immediate" military action.
Jim Lobe Last Modified: 27 Feb 2011 16:00 GMT

In a distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage US intervention in the Balkans and Iraq, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to "immediately" prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence that is believed to have killed well over a thousand people in the past week.

The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organised and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Warning that Libya stood "on the threshold of a moral and humanitarian catastrophe", the letter, which was addressed to President Barack Obama, called for specific immediate steps involving military action, in addition to the imposition of a number of diplomatic and economic sanctions to bring "an end to the murderous Libyan regime".

...

The usual suspects
Among the letter's signers were former Bush deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Bush's top global democracy and Middle East adviser; Elliott Abrams; former Bush speechwriters Marc Thiessen and Peter Wehner; Vice President Dick Cheney's former deputy national security adviser, John Hannah, as well as FPI's four directors: Weekly Standard editor William Kristol; Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan; former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor; and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman.

...

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/02/2011227153626965756.html

Thanks for the links

[sabrina 1]

16. Omg, the neocons again. I just had bad feelings

and now I have really, really bad feelings.

[Catherina]

20. More from the Neocons. Open letters. Signatories. I have even worse feelings now

I didn't know about this last week when I sent you those long PMs. I just read that about 30 minutes ago and it sure put those niggling questions we discussed into perspective quickly. That just took care of remaining doubts I had. I can't believe we didn't look for this when Lieberman and McCain took to the airwaves and the same democratic hawks who went after Iraq were supporting intervention in Libya. We're being played.

Massacre in Yemen: and the deal on Libya
Yemen is a different story, I guess. I don't see the Western crocodile tears being shed. I don't see sudden indignation and the sudden discovery--was in Libya--that the leader there is a dictator. US/Saudi Arabia want Salih in power no matter what. Notice that the story is being played down in US media. Notice that it was US that requested that Arab countries (Qatar, UAE and Jordan) play a role in Libya. I mean, what do you think of a resolution that requires the intervention of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Jordan to secure "democracy" for Libya? This is a sham. Don't buy that Saudi Arabia is acting without US support in Bahrain. Who are they fooling. Saudi Arabia is not Israel: it does not act without prior knowledge, nay request from, of the US. This is all coordinated. I wish to revise something I said about the shameful coverage of Aljazeera (or lack there of) in the case of Bahrain. I don't believe that the decision on Bahrain was purely a deal between Saudi Arabia and Qatar: i strongly believe that it was a US-Qatar deal as well. Yesterday, the narrator reported a story on Bahrain on Aljazeera: it concluded bizarrely by calling for "dialogue" between government and opposition. That makes one wonders: why does not Aljazeera hold the same stance on Libya? The plot thickens. Saudi Arabia and US and Israel are trying to abort the Arab uprisings one by one: the charade in Libya is not to enhance the Arab change movement: it is aimed at undermining it everywhere.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 7:16 AM

It's all out there too. How did we miss this? Max Boot, one of the signatories of both FPI memos, was calling for direct support to the rebels in the form of special operations troops on the ground in Libya, "the same combination that proved so effective in toppling the Taliban in 2001 and ousting the Serbs from Kosovo in 1999."

Qaddafi Can Still Be Ousted, but Only if We Act Now
Max Boot 03.16.2011 - 10:44 AM

...

Yet even now we can still keep the rebellion alive. We should pursue a no-fly zone combined with an enclave strategy centered on Benghazi.

The key military fact about Libya is that it is composed mostly of flat desert; this is where some of the most notable tank battles of World War II were fought pitting Rommel against Montgomery. There is nowhere for conventional forces to hide outside an urban area. To take Benghazi, Qaddafi’s forces would have to expose themselves. They would, in other words, become easy targets for air strikes by American, British, and French aircraft operating from a combination of aircraft carriers (the USS Enterprise is in the Red Sea, a day’s steam away from Libya) and from bases in southern Europe; we could even establish a forward operating base at a major Libyan airbase south of Tobruk that is currently in rebel hands.

Thus we could proclaim that we will recognize the National Transition Council ensconced in Benghazi and use our airpower to prevent Qaddafi’s forces from entering the capital of Free Libya. This would buy a precious commodity — time. We could use that time to train and arm the anti-Qaddafi forces. With the rebels secure behind a curtain of NATO airpower, they could organize a proper army and eventually mount a major offensive to finish off Qaddafi once and for all.

This would require a fairly limited commitment on our part that involved primarily airpower and some Special Forces working in cooperation with local rebels: the same combination that proved so effective in toppling the Taliban in 2001 and ousting the Serbs from Kosovo in 1999. Such a strategy is eminently feasible, but it has to be implemented right now. The time for dithering is past if there is to be any chance of saving the Libyan revolution — and incidentally, rescuing Obama’s plummeting reputation.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/16/qaddafi-can-still-be-ousted-but-only-if-we-act-now/#more-750173

See how many names you recognize here. Again, from the FPI:

Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya
PrintShareThis
March 15, 2011 | Open Letter

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

March 15, 2011

Dear President Obama:

Regrettably, the international community has yet to take serious action to prevent a moral and humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and the Libyan opposition is now on the defensive. As forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi push eastward, we are concerned that the brutal and indiscriminate tactics of government forces could lead to additional civilian casualties.

On Saturday, the Arab League endorsed Libyan opposition calls for a no fly zone. We call on you to urgently institute a no fly zone over key Libyan cities and towns in conjunction with U.S. allies. We also call on you to explore the option of targeted strikes against regime assets in an effort to prevent further bloodshed. The United States should also immediately recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council and take all necessary actions to support their efforts to unseat the Qaddafi regime.

In your inaugural address two years ago, you said this: "And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."

Today the United States and its allies should stand with the men, women and children of Libya who seek a future of peace and dignity. The situation in Libya in the coming days will not just impact the Libyan people. As protests continue against repressive regimes around the world, the message currently being conveyed by our inaction is that killing and repression will go unpunished and are the best option for despots seeking to postpone reform.

For the sake of our security as well as America’s credibility with people who seek freedom everywhere, we ask you to act as quickly as possible to ensure that the people of Libya – and the world – know that we are willing to back up our principles with action.

Sincerely,


Fouad Ajami
Ash Jain
Randy Scheunemann

Stephen E. Biegun
Ken Jensen
Gary J. Schmitt

Max Boot
Robert Kagan
Dan Senor

Ellen Bork
Lawrence Kaplan
Henry Sokolski

Paul Bremer
David Kramer
Whit Stillman

Scott Carpenter
Irina Krasovskaya
William Taft

Elizabeth Cheney
William Kristol
Marc Thiessen

Eliot Cohen
Tod Lindberg
Daniel Twining

Seth Cropsey
Michael Makovsky
Kurt Volker

Thomas Donnelly
Ann Marlowe
Peter Wehner

Michele Dunne
Cliff May
Ken Weinstein

Eric Edelman
Joshua Muravchik
Leon Wieseltier

Jamie Fly
Michael O'Hanlon
Rich Williamson

Reuel Marc Gerecht
Martin Peretz
Damon Wilson

William Inboden
Danielle Pletka

Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
John Podhoretz

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/foreign-policy-experts-again-urge-president-take-action-halt-violence-libya

[sabrina 1]

56. Elizabeth Cheney! Paul Bremer! Max Boot!

He laid it all out. Even admitting that they would send in special forces, which we only suspected.

You really need to do an OP with all of this information. I mean, if you have time :-)

Before America gets behind this farce as they did Iraq, I hope people having access to more media now, will prevent that.

I have been watching RT this morning and the world is definitely questioning this whole mess now.

Looks like Libyans did start protesting, and the revolution has been hi-jacked, by the usual suspects.

On RT today there was serious objection to the bombing as it was 'way outside what was outlined in the Resolution'. Libyans 'do not want their infra-structure destroyed'.

Americans may be buying these excuses, humanitarian etc. etc. but the world is not.

[Catherina]

57. Thanks Sabrina, I already did, right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x696362

[chill_wind]

19. Those are quite some reading material.

Tangled webs indeed. Thank you for posting them.

[Catherina]

22. There are so many more to read. And the PNAC papers merit a revisit

http://cablesearch.org/

I haven't read them all, there are so many. There are so many mentioning just Benghazi alone.

And now to find out the neocons have been playing us the whole time, I'm feeling very sick.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" called for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the internet, the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and other countries.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

No. The unavoidable reality is that the exercise of American power is key to maintaining what peace and order there is in the world today. Imagine a world in which the U.S. didn’t exercise this power. Who would handle a nuclear-armed North Korea? Who would prevent the one-party state of China from acting on its pledge to gather democratic Taiwan into its fold? Who would be left to hunt down Islamic terrorists increasingly interested in getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction? Who could have contained, let alone defeated, a tyrant like Hussein, preventing him from becoming the dominant power in the Middle East? Who can prevent the Balkans from slipping back into chaos? Who is going to confront regimes like those of Iran, Syria and Libya as they rush to get their own weapons of mass destruction? Given how little most of our allies and critics spend on defense, certainly not them.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/global-032303.htm

[chill_wind]

66. I hope there are plenty of mirror sites for the cables.

A lot of stuff- A LOT got flushed down the memory hole after March 19 2003.

[upi402]

7. Anti-American Extremists Among Teabaggers

's alls I'm sayin'

[joshcryer]

12. This is a baseless smear.

...and overall this is a smear against good people who are fighting against a tyrant.

18% of the Iraq fighters came from Libya.

42% came from Saudi Arabia.

[malaise]

21. Gaddafi himself warned them

Read the letters he sent to Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron.

[14thColony]

23. I guess I had it all wrong!

Gee, Gadhaffi's really a swell guy. He was just massacring people in the streets with mercenaries, artillery and tanks because some of them MIGHT be anti-American, and he wanted to be our first line of defense!

And I'm sure his threat last week to throw Libya open to Al-Qaeda for them to use as a base of operations was just hyperbole meant to illustrate what a great guy he really is.

This "the Devil we know is better than the Devil we don't" Kissinger-esque Realpolitik BULLSHIT is what allowed us to support Pinochet, Somoza, Batista, Shah Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, King Fahd, and a host of other despots around the world who make a sport out of abusing their own people. Because, well "they're holding back the communists/Islamists/nationalists/anarchists (insert name of current bogyman here) so we just GOTTA support them, AND turn a blind eye to all their abuses."

What a bunch of hypocritical, two-faced, self-serving bullshit. So if there're a few dozen LIFG guys (and that's about all that's left of the LIFG) running around in amongst the rebels, then fuck it, they ALL deserve to die because there's the CHANCE things won't work out well for US?! Wow.

For all the people here who are buying into this line: the next time some despot is massacring his own people and you want to lament how the world won't do anything about it -- don't bother.

[joshcryer]

26. Yep! He was right about the druged nescaf and terrorists!

Who would've thought that all along we were making fun of something that was true!

[xchrom]

25. the whole thread makes for very interesting reading. nt

[somone]

28. Recommended

There's more than meets the eye

[Upton]

29. Hey but haven't you heard?

These so called Libyan rebels they are pure of mind and body..they would never have their own self interests at heart. I read it right here at DU from some folks who've been reading their tweets. So of course it must be true. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

30. The OP is perpetuating Gaddafi's rhetoric.

In case you weren't aware.

[Upton]

32. Yeah sure..

anything that puts your precious "rebels" in a bad light must be the fault of Gaddafi...:eyes:

[joshcryer]

33. Not at all, it's well known that Libya hosted terrorists. Gaddafi scapegoated them.

There's no way in fucking hell hundreds of thousands of Libyans are terrorists nor can their revolution be coopted by terrorists.

[Upton]

34. I see..

so, if and when Gaddafi is removed from power, everything in Libya is just going to be peachy keen. There are absolutely no forces hostile to America among the rebels at all. Big time western type democracy is on the way...it must be so. I mean, one thing we've learned is that intervening in another country's affairs always brings the desired results. I've got it straight now..

Btw, the justifications for this action coming from the Administration, whether it be claims of Libya hosting terrorism or Gaddafi killing his own people, sounds so much like the Bush regime in the lead up to Iraq it makes me want to puke..

What I want to to know, particularly from the war proponents...is why don't the needs of the American people come first?

[14thColony]

36. And what I want to know is

Why is the Fallacy of False Equivalency your preferred tool? Most people go for the Deductive Fallacy or the Ad Hominem first. Good to see someone using one of the old classics though.

[joshcryer]

43. No, it could take time for things to normalize because there will still be a pro-Gaddafi...

...presence. There may be recriminations.

[14thColony]

35. I will be the first to admit I don't know much about THESE rebels

But I do have experience with "rebels" in other conflicts -- or whatever you want to call the other side opposite The Powers That Be.

One thing I can say with a reasonable level of confidence is - there is no such thing as "The Rebels."

There are almost certainly a whole lot of people who are united in their opposition to Gadhaffi, but the paths they took to get to that point will be somewhat, or even wildly different. I'd be willing to bet I could find among the various groups of pissed of people:

- People who have a personal grudge against Gadhaffi and want some payback for past wrongs
- People who want Libya to be a secular democracy
- People who want Libya to be a religious democracy
- People who want a dictator, just as long is it's THEIR dictator
- People who want Libya to be an "Islamic state" (and THAT is a whole range of things from Turkey to the Taliban)
- People who want the return of the monarchy (Benghazi was the seat of power of King Idris, who Gadhaffi overthrew)
- People who are really pro-Gadhaffi but have to play along out of fear that that's not going to a popular point of view deep in rebel territory
- People who just want to be on the winning side, and if the wind changes they'll change with it
- People who hate the US
- People who love the US
- People who don't really give a shit about the US right now because they're just trying to survive this
- People who want to establish an al-Qaida-esque caliphate (surprisingly this probably does NOT include the LIFG guys)
- People who are trying to protect their families and they know if Benghazi falls at this point they're screwed no matter which side they were on
- People who are trying to take advantage of the situation for their own gain
- People who are politically liberal
- People who are politically conservative
- People who are thanking God right now that someone's coming to help them any maybe they won't die
- People who appreciate the gesture, but wish foreigners had stayed out of it whatever the outcome
- People who think it's really cool to be able to fire automatic weapons in the streets and not get arrested for it

So to lump all these factions (some of which may not exist, but most of which probably do) together as "The Rebels" is intellectual laziness and flies in the face of a whole lot of world history. Likewise to condemn them all to death because you don't like items c. and k. on the list seems...I dunno, arrogant? Cruel? Not sure the right word.

[TheKentuckian]

44. Very sane post.

[joshcryer]

46. +1, it's slander to distract from the bigger picture.

Gaddafi is a tyrant and the people of Libya want him gone.

[Aerows]

37. Why do these "protesters" have planes?

They shot down one of their own planes yesterday, therefore they also have anti-aircraft guns.

These are NOT the same as protesters in Egypt if they have that kind of artillery. That is also a fact worth noting, and it's worth wondering who is equipping them with this artillery.

I am concerned that this has a high chance of escalating to a full out ground war, and with 3 wars already going on, the US really can't afford a 4th.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Defections, capture of equipment. Possibly outside support. Old equipment put into service.

Modified civilian equipment.

I would tend to say access to some heavy equipment is to be expected rather than an indication of anything complex or particularly nefarious going on.

Shadiness can't be ruled out but artillery and planes are not even a real indicator.

[Aerows]

59. They don't sound defenseless to me

and I think shadiness has turned out to be the rule, rather than the exception in Arab tribal wars. I'm skeptical.

[14thColony]

50. For those of you just joining our programming tonight:

- In the earliest days of this revolt several of the less reliable (to the regime) army units rebelled when they saw foreign mercenaries being used against their own people -- needless to say THEY BROUGHT THEIR EQUIPMENT WITH THEM
- At least one mercenary camp in Benghazi was overrun by rebels - and MANY WEAPONS WERE CAPTURED
- Two weeks ago two Mirage F-1s defected to Malta rather than fire on the protesters, and in similar vein at least one fighter pilot DEFECTED TO THE REBEL SIDE WITH HIS MiG-23FN, which was the one shot down Saturday
- In the earlier fighting many of the poorer pro-government units cut and ran in combat against the rebel forces, abandoning a few tanks and some artillery/AA guns in the process AND THE REBELS KEPT THEIR STUFF
- We can presume when the rebels win a battle, THEY USE ANY EQUIPMENT THEY CAPTURE IN THE NEXT BATTLE
- Gadhaffi began arming "loyal Libyans" over a week ago, handing out weapons to anyone; not a stretch to assume that a few of those weapons made it into rebel hands
- There were reports a couple of Libyan patrol boats had defected as well and were trying to protect the rebel coastline

This is a civil war -- one side is going to arm itself at the cost of the other side. That's the way it works. Unless you think we happened to have a large stock of MiG-23FNs and Mirage F-1s and obscure Czech self-propelled anti-aircraft guns sitting around painted up in Libyan markings just in case they were ever needed?

Sure, long-term somebody might start sending material aid to the rebels, but I've yet to see one single piece of equipment in rebel hands that Gadhaffi hasn't owned for years and years. And some of it is by no means commonplace stuff.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. May I ask you how you know so much about this, and if you're quoting from a written source/s,

can you please provide a link/s? Thanks in advance.

[14thColony]

63. Well...

I've merely been following the news on this from the beginning, although it's not like I'm spending hours per day on it. But I'm pretty well-versed in military equipment and weapons due to my background, so anything weapons-related I tend to notice and remember more so than other things.

But unfortunately I can't give you any specific references as it's just the accumulation of what I've read or seen over the past month, which by now is scores of articles and news broadcasts. I use a variety of sources, mostly written, some TV. Since I'm in a French-speaking country this tends to be France24, TV5, Euronews FR, Agence France Presse, but also Al Jazeera and BBC.

I have noticed though that someone is updating the Wikipedia.org entries for the Libyan Armed Forces, the Libyan Army, Libyan Air Force etc., attempting to keep up with current losses of equipment, and I believe someone has started a Free Libyan Forces page as well reflecting what the rebels have gained/lost. I would presume, based on Wikipedia rules, there would have to be at least a few references footnoted to support those updated entries, so that would probably be a good place to start. Plus they'd all be in English, unlike a lot of my references.

[BOG PERSON]

55. nowadays, in certain parts of the world

anti-americanism isn't such an extremist position to take. rather, it's the sign of a sound mind and uncorrupt politics.

[Aerows]

58. This is going to turn into a deep pile

And that is exactly what is intended, because securing Libya's oil supply would be a very nice achievement for all involved.

[GSLevel9]

60. is it an inappropriate time to ROFLMFAO?

sorry but all this "Rebel Freedom Fighter" stuff smelled like bullshit from day one.

Bottom line, truth of the matter is teh EU was nervous about their OIL supply and were NERVOUS because Gadafi was in talks with China and India regarding OIL contracts. EU leaders felt their supply of OIL might be threatened so they pull the "madman dictator card"

BULLSHIT.

[14thColony]

65. Yes, it is. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. In other words...democracy is a bad thing if it means that they vote for a government we don't like

that's the essence of the argument here, no?