► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Col. Mumar Qaddafi’

Muslim Brotherhood sees opportunity in Libya

by Phantom Ace ( 22 Comments › )
Filed under Special Report at March 27th, 2011 - 5:03 pm

This comes to no shock to anyone observing the situation in Libya. For all his faults, Col. Mumar Qaddafi was an enemy of Islamists. He allied with the US against AL-Qaeda until our recent betrayal. Thanks to the US/NATO, they smell blood in Libya and are preparing to take advantage of the situation.

Largely drawn from the devout educated middle classes and university campuses in Tripoli and Benghazi, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the mid-1950s.

Islamist opposition to the Libyan regime gathered force in the late 1980s, as part of a wider Islamic awakening or “Sahwa” in the region and in reaction to what many saw as an attempt by Gadhafi to hijack and interpret Islam for his own purposes.

While jihadists launched a brief but unsuccessful campaign to overthrow Gadhafi in the 1990s, the Brotherhood focused much of its efforts on clandestine preaching and social welfare efforts in Libya

Read it all: Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize

Why many prominent Republicans are supporting this action is a mystery to me. Clearly Barack Hussein Obama is assisting the Islamic Imperialist agenda. Our side should be hammering him on this, not enabling it. Obama’s Presidency could be destroyed by revelations that Libyan rebels bare affiliated with AL-Qaeda. This is treason since many of these rebels killed Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Qaddafi falls, the Muslim Brotherhood could come to power as it appears they are in Libya. Clearly a North African Caliphate is in the making, thanks to Obama/Clinton’s insane foreign policy.

Assad different than Qaddafi Hillary Says

by Phantom Ace ( 22 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines at March 27th, 2011 - 2:21 pm

Bashar Assad has been cracking down on anti-regime protests in Syria. So far no condemnation from the “International Community”. Although the protesters are Muslim Brotherhood led, should not the same standard that applies to Libya apply to Syria? Not according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won’t enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya.

“No,” Clinton said, when asked on the CBS “Face the Nation” program if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities yesterday after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country.

[…]

“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” Clinton said, referring to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s attacks on the Libyan people, “than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”

Read the rest: U.S. Won’t Intervene in Syria as Assad Differs From Qaddafi, Clinton Says

The real difference between Assad and Qaddafi is obvious. Col. Mumar Qaddafi gave up his WMD’s, paid money to the Lockerbie bombing victims and was assisting the US against AL-Qaeda. Bashar Assad is allied with Iran, enabled AL-Qaeda to kill Americans in Syria, is assisting the oppression of Maronite Christians in Lebanon, is friends with John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and is admired by the 3rd World Liberation Movement. In short, Syria has the right friends, Qaddafi didn’t. That’s the difference between the 2 situations.

Update: Another reason Syria is different is because it’s an enemy of Israel.

Obama’s dithering on Libya was a break for Khadafy

by Mojambo ( 140 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cold War, Libya, United Nations at March 23rd, 2011 - 11:31 am

I think we are seeing the predictable results of a man who despite his public inordinate self confidence, really in his heart of hearts knows that he is not fit to be leader of the free world. Can you imagine if Obama were president during the Brezhnev years on the Cold War? Soviet tanks would have poured through the Fulda Gap in Germany.  Obama is so afraid to come across as a George W. Bush that he loses sight of the fact that a president needs to make decisions and quickly in the national interest. Instead, he obsesses over multilateralism – the God of all liberals.

by Jonah Goldberg

As someone who supported a Libyan no-fly zone from the earliest days of what once seemed like a revolution but now looks like a civil war, I have to admit that Operation Odyssey Dawn may be a perfect example of being careful about what you wish for.

To use a metaphor suitable for March Madness, Obama blew the fast break. The president, an avid hoopster, should understand the reference.

In basketball, a fast break is when the offense brings the ball down the court as quickly as possible so the defense doesn’t have time to set up. It’s all about the fluidity of the moment, pressing your advantages and keeping the opponent off-balance.

Obama went a different way. Back in February when the Libyan revolution was fresh and had momentum on its side, even a small intervention by the U.S. — say, blowing up the runways at Moammar Kadafi‘s military airbases or quietly bribing senior military officers — might have toppled Kadafi. Members of his government were resigning en masse. Pilots were refusing orders to kill fellow Libyans. Soldiers were defecting to the rebels. Libyan citizens openly defied the regime in Tripoli. Nearly everyone thought the madman’s time was up.

That was the time to seize the moment, to give Kadafi a shove when he was already off-balance. If the dictator had been toppled when the rebels were gaining strength, America’s support would have been written off as incidental, with the Libyans taking credit for their own revolution.

But such an approach would have required America to run down the court alone, out ahead of its allies and the international community. For Obama the multilateralist, that would have been too much unilateral hot-dogging.

So Obama slowed things down to set up the play he wanted rather than the play the moment demanded. As a result, Kadafi regained his balance.

Obama wanted a United Nations resolution, a coalition, the support of the international community, even the Arab League. It was as if his top priority was to launch a new war in the Middle East in a way that was exactly opposite from what George W. Bush did. And if that was the goal, he can hang his “Mission Accomplished” banner now; the French shot first.

[…..]

But there are real problems with Obama going to the corners, to use another basketball expression. In the heat of the moment, Obama could have taken out Kadafi without much of an explanation. But now he must offer a rationale that’s very hard to square with what’s going on in the rest of the Middle East. Obama says Libyan rebels must be protected from a leader who would kill them “without mercy.” OK, does that apply as well to Saudi, Yemeni, Bahraini and Iranian rebels? No? Why not?

And now that America is rescuing losing rebels rather than lending support to winning ones, we will “own” the next Libyan regime. Let’s cross our fingers on that score.

[….]

Read the rest – Obama’s missed break in Libya

Turkish Deputy PM calls for UN action agaisnt Israel

by Phantom Ace ( 132 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Fascism, Islamic Supremacism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Progressives, Tranzis at March 22nd, 2011 - 8:30 am

The Libyan intervention will have unintended consequence. The low bar that is now set for UN intervention could possible lead to international coalitions attacking nations they don’t like. Turkish Deputy PM Bülent Arınç recently commented that the UN should enforce resolutions against Israel. He is all but calling for a UN lead attack on Israel.

After assuring both Libyans and Turks that Turkey was not involved in airstrikes on Libya, Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç, of Turkey, said, “We wish that the United Nations had made such resolutions and countries had taken action in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and the other regions.

This is exactly the problem I thought might arise from President Obama’s endorsement of the trendy principle of “Responsibility to Protect”. In yesterday’s blog, “The Rise of Samantha Power and the risks for the American-Israel relationship,” I speculated that the rationale Obama adopted to bomb Libya bore the risks of others adopting the same “principle” to justify punishing, if not bombing, Israel.

Read the rest: Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister calls for bombing of Israel

This speaks volumes to how this UN action against Libya will be used. It’s possible in the next Israel-Islamist war that a no fly zone will be ordered, thus attempting to prevent Israeli air supremacy over the battlefield. Clearly this is the Turkish Deputy PM’s wishes.

(Hat Tip: Da_Beerfreak)

Rodan Commentary:

This action against Libya will have other unintended consequences. Libya was the model of a rogue state that gave up it’s WMD program. It was rewarded by integration into the global economic system. Libya’s intelligence assisted the CIA against Al-Qaeda. Qaddafi paid money in restitution for the Lockerbie bombing. He was living up to his part of the agreement. By attacking Libya other rogue states will not give up their weapons. No one will trust us and an agreement signed with the US will be viewed as only good one Presidential term. The repercussions will be unforeseen.