LIBYA, North Africa and the Middle East

[Rastus]

Libya’s Col. Gadhafi is a dictator and tyrant who should have been held accountable some years ago for the Pan Am bombing and terrorist supported acts in Germany; but he was not held accountable in the decade(s) when he actively supported terrorism.  Now, as some years have past, many are on board with the overthrow of Gadhafi for just that.  In the late 90’s Gadhafi was educated in radical islam at the point in time when the imans began to tell everyone that they, the imans, should be running things.  That is when the imans disappeared without deportation.  Since the imans disappeared Gadhafi, reprehensible as he may be, opened up Libya to the west and apparently abandoned mass weapons of destruction development.

Recently, “mass democracy” riots have started across the Middle East and North Africa.  We are told the riots were sparked by the love for democracy among an enslaved people and social media on the internet.  In their wake, the riots have left Tunisia open to previously outlawed islamic political parties and Egypt has been pushed further towards islam (remember Anwar Sadat’s murder by fundamental islam soldiers).  Jordan is having issues, Bahrain has fighting in the streets, Qutar has it’s own uprisings and even Saudi is paying greenmail by the 10’s of billions with each uprising moving towards islamic governments.  Though we hear democracy echoed by newscasters and that may be a desire of the mass of people you can observe a move to replace “westernized” or non-islamic (non-islamic in the vein of not being like Iran) leaders across North Africa and the Middle East. 

In contrast, in Iran there are demonstrations to the contrary who’s leaning is to overthrowing an islamic government.  There is on the surface no outcry for those demonstrators and it is reported that demonstrators are being attacked by child soldiers supported by the Iranian government.

High food prices may have been the thing that started the unrest across the Middle East and North Africa, but it can be discerned and is suspicious that the move for islamic states is also a common thread to all uprisings; except for the movement occurring in Iran.  North African countries (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia) have been resistant to fundamentalist islam for some time now and every indication is that has changed (or is changing in the case for Libya). 

[crusader rabbit]

Not only did Qaddafi personally authorize the Lockerby bombing, shortly thereafter he authorized the bombing of a French plane killing all aboard.  We heard little about it in this country because there were no Americans on the flight.

The man was never our friend.  He stopped his attempt at a nuke and bio-weapons military build-up when we threatened to turn his country to smoldering glass.  You may recall the bombing of his personal compound that reinforced our statements in this regard.

Still, he has managed to maintain a fairly secular dictatorship and he has kept the islamists at a hefty arms length.  And we have no idea what the rebels will do once they seize power.  It is my personal feeling that we will soon see a much stronger moooslum influence in Libya.

But, what troubles me more is something Putin said last night.  He called the French/US led  coalition a Crusader-like attack.

Why would that frighten this Rabbit?  Well, if Russia joins with the Arabs to expel the Crusaders, Israel will be in immediate great danger.  The Russians have no love for the Jewish State and would likely join their Arab friends in attempting to wipe it off the map.  We would most likely come to the defense of our ally (though, with Bozo running the show, that's not a given).  That sets the stage for what the Bible calls Armageddon.

Now, I lay no claim to great Biblical scholarship, but there seem to be an awful lot of little pieces falling into place:  wars and rumors of war; earthquakes in diverse places; plagues visited upon the people (maybe radiation sickness?); etc.

The whole thing has me more than a little concerned.

FWIW,
Crusader Rabbit

[tombogan03884]

Not only did Qaddafi personally authorize the Lockerby bombing, shortly thereafter he authorized the bombing of a French plane killing all aboard.  We heard little about it in this country because there were no Americans on the flight.

The man was never our friend.   He stopped his attempt at a nuke and bio-weapons military build-up when we threatened to turn his country to smoldering glass.  You may recall the bombing of his personal compound that reinforced our statements in this regard.

Still, he has managed to maintain a fairly secular dictatorship and he has kept the islamists at a hefty arms length.  And we have no idea what the rebels will do once they seize power.  It is my personal feeling that we will soon see a much stronger moooslum influence in Libya.

But, what troubles me more is something Putin said last night.  He called the French/US led  coalition a Crusader-like attack.

Why would that frighten this Rabbit?  Well, if Russia joins with the Arabs to expel the Crusaders, Israel will be in immediate great danger.  The Russians have no love for the Jewish State and would likely join their Arab friends in attempting to wipe it off the map.  We would most likely come to the defense of our ally (though, with Bozo running the show, that's not a given).  That sets the stage for what the Bible calls Armageddon.

Now, I lay no claim to great Biblical scholarship, but there seem to be an awful lot of little pieces falling into place:  wars and rumors of war; earthquakes in diverse places; plagues visited upon the people (maybe radiation sickness?); etc.

The whole thing has me more than a little concerned.

FWIW,
Crusader Rabbit

Those 2 incidents were separated by more than 15 years,  Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya around '85ish, Qaddafi volutarily ditched his WMD programs around 2000 - 2001. Every one remembers that he OKed the bombings of the "La Belle" disco, and PA103, no one seems to remember that the way the convicted bomber wound up in jail was because Q gave him up.
You all had a shit hemorrhage when  our Govt. court martialed SEALs for smacking around a terror suspect.
Another thing, It was not Q dancing in the street treating the returned bomber as a hero.
It was these same civilian f*cks that Obummer is now protecting.
Another thing to note, when we had a legitimate reason to go after him the French refused to let us overfly their territory, this has been cited by several sources as being responsible for the loss of an F/B111 and the death of the Crew.
There is no reason to be attacking Libya, and not any of the other countries with civil unrest, (like , say, IRAN )
The Administration has no clear objective beyond PR.
Putin is correct , the Crusades were launched in large part as an effort by the Pope to find work for the disbanded Armies who were destroying the French economy, in other words they were as much about European internal affairs as about anything the Muslims were up to.
This whole thing is BS and the fact that Obummer is doing it should make it obvious that it is not in America's best interest.

[Teresa Heilevang]

There is no reason to be attacking Libya, and not any of the other countries with civil unrest, (like , say, IRAN )
The Administration has no clear objective beyond PR.

This whole thing is BS and the fact that Obummer is doing it should make it obvious that it is not in America's best interest.

Yep...I agree.
I say... Either its for the win or it’s a waste of time, money and lives. Hiding behind the UN and France is like hiding behind your mother’s skirts. Wishy-washy is not the “right way” to do anything. We should have just stayed the hell out and let France handle it. They seem to be in charge anyway.. Thanks to this administration.. America is soon ..if not already.. being labeled and pegged as a weak country...   Lets bring our boys back home and put them on the border and let them do what they need to do without all the political interference..

[Pathfinder]

I missed this one - I am stunned at this revelation:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/20/28658/

   U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), “a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

    “Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government,” he said.

    Inside the NSC, Power, Smith, and McFaul have been trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward. Donilon and McDonough are charged with keeping America’s core national interests more in mind. Obama ultimately sided with Clinton and those pushing R2P — over the objections of Donilon and Gates.

"Remember that until Tuesday, the consensus around Washington DC was the US would not intervene in Libya.  Obviously UN SecGen Moon’s communication of this new “principle”  (R2P) isn’t something that he thought up that morning.  Apparently it was communicated (and one assumes, agreed upon) well before then and, it would seem, may have played an important part in the decision to participate in a place in which which we have no real national interest at stake."

Highlights are from Path. I checked on R2P, it's been a UN thing for 4 years at least.

Imagine R2P during the US Revolution - foreign nationals attacking the Founding Father Patriots terrorists as a "responsibility to protect". In no way shape or form do I think this is a "natural" internal revolution against Kha...Qa...Gaddafy, any more than the ones in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, et al. are. This is all engineered.

Question - But why is the US embarking on another war, as the writer above noted, when essentially Libya has been behaving of late? And what do we know of the other side in the civil war that we back them instead of watching from the sidelines?
Answer - This is about European blood for oil for a change, since most of Libya's oil production goes - or went before the current "unrest" - ta-dah - to Europe. With the rebels in control of Benghazi, one of 2 key shipping points for the oil, the Europeans want to "free" Libya, and at the very least, keep the oil flowing. Maybe even get a better price from the rebels, ya know, for that "getting rid of Moammar" thing Europe is doing.

And - please understand - I am writing this part with clenched fists (tough typing at best), I may have to get behind that wanker Kucinich's "Impeachment of bho" movement (yuck, ptooey - had to spit that out, getting behind anything Kucinich wants is distasteful at the very least). Must be time for the broken clock Kucinich to be right again. <shiver> Sheesh.   

[Sponsor]

[crusader rabbit]

Just a follow-up to my earlier comment...

Putin has now demanded an immediate cease-fire in Libya. 

As Alice said, "Curiouser and curiouser."

[kmitch200]

Qadaffyduck is a devil we know, like Castro.

Who will take his place is unknown and could be much, much worse. 

[tombogan03884]

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/03/21/libya-is-not-our-fight/


The absolute dyslexia of liberals and their choices for military intervention.

Posted by dhorowitz3 (Profile)

Monday, March 21st at 4:31PM EDT
16 Comments

Liberals have a penchant for engaging in the wrong wars and fighting them the wrong way.  They are always meek and submissive towards those who represent an existential threat to America, such as Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and Venezuela.  When they finally choose to engage in military intervention, it is usually for a dubious cause or for the purpose of some humanitarian aid that lacks a clearly defined mission or end result for our troops.  Unfortunately, many Bush Republicans have a predilection to automatically support any military intervention, even if it lacks a clear mission or its original purpose does not represent a substantial threat to our national security.

Somalia was a classic example of a leftist foreign policy folly.  There was no reason to involve our military in a humanitarian operation in that part of the world.  However, once Somalia became a magnet for terrorists, these hypocritical interventionists refused to deal with the new reality and treat the mission as a military operation.  Consequently, our soldiers were unprepared for the ensuing ambush in which over a dozen American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.  Instead of bringing the terrorists to justice and turning the place into a waste zone, we summarily retreated.  Thus, the very interventionists who were all too eager to engage in an imprudent use of our military were suddenly lacking the temerity to engage the enemy when it really mattered.

MORE AT LINK

[tt11758]

Kill 'em all...let God sort 'em out.

Turn the sand into glass.

[TAB]

I say F them, let them do what they are going to do.