Tag Archives: Libya
US says it is still considering arming Gaddafi opposition (rebels)
March 29, 2011
A top ranking NATO Commander has admitted that intelligence has uncovered elements of “al qaeda” amongst Libyan rebel fighters currently receiving tactical military support from US and European led operations inside the country.
The admission serves as yet more confirmation that radical Islamic fundamentalists are part of the opposition groups attempting to oust the nationalist dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi, with the help of the US and its NATO allies.
“We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces,” Admiral James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and also the commander of U.S. European Command, said during testimony at the U.S. Senate.
“…we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah, we’ve seen different things.” Stavridis said, while adding that the rebels leadership appeared to be comprised also of “responsible men and women”.
Below the speaker it reads: “Al Qaeda in Libyan opposition”
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
By Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – Having chosen neither to endorse nor block the Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya, Russia and China are continuing to snipe from the sidelines, voicing growing frustration over a mission they say has overstepped its mandate.
With NATO having assumed command of both enforcing the no-fly zone and the additional “civilian protection mission” – attacking Muammar Gaddafi’s forces on the ground – the operation is threatening a new rift between NATO and Moscow, which has long viewed the transatlantic alliance with suspicion.
Russia and NATO members were to meet in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss Libya and, according to Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, “to confirm the limits that the U.N. Security Council placed on the participants of the conflict.”
Security Council resolution 1973 authorized a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” short of foreign occupation to protect civilians under threat of attack by the Libyan regime. Russia and China did not veto the measure when it came to a vote on March 17, but joined non-permanent members India, Germany and Brazil in abstaining.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared Monday that the operation has gone beyond the mandate of the resolution whose sole purpose, he said, was “to ensure the protection of the civilian population.”
“We believe that the coalition’s intervention in the civil war has not, essentially, been sanctioned by the UN Security Council resolution,” the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Lavrov as saying during a press conference with his Kyrgyz counterpart.
He pointed to reports that coalition planes were attacking Gaddafi’s forces on the ground, in support of the rebels.
Lavrov also called for an immediate ceasefire, echoing calls made in Beijing over the past week.
Criticism from the Chinese government and state-run media outlets have cited – without questioning – reports on civilian fatalities released by the Gaddafi regime.
March 28, 2011
It’s perplexing to see a high level of support for the unprovoked bombing of Libya on so-called “progressive” websites.
There has been an endless stream of humanitarian propaganda flowing from these sites trying to convince average liberals that the “human thing to do” is to rain down tomahawk missiles with depleted uranium to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people.
Huffington Post ran a piece by Ed Schultz titled Why I Support President Obama’s Decision to Invade Libya where he described his reasoning as follows:
…President Obama explained this won’t be a long-term operation.
Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months.
…He’s (Obama) trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi — this is the human thing to do — from slaughtering his own people.
By the very use of the word “invade” in the title, Schultz would seem to understand that the continued military support is likely to last for quite some time. Indeed, this was confirmed on Sunday morning when Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted that the operation could indeed last for months, which seems to debunk Schultz’s main argument that it’s only a days-long conflict. This justification is reminiscent of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld falsely stating that the Iraq war would be quick and easy — only cost a couple of a billion dollars that would be paid for by Iraqi oil.
Additionally, Schultz and others making the “humanitarian” argument that we needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people is convoluted at best, if not a blatant hypocritical contradiction. It has become clear that the United States and their imperial partners, Britain and France, are picking and choosing which civil uprisings and which dictators to support with no genuine concern for democracy or civil rights.
Everyone with an objective view knows by now that this intervention is about protecting oil resources and making sure Israel survives these revolutionary times in the Arab world. Whether it’s control over Egypt’s Suez Canal, Libya’s sweet crude, or propping up the tyrannical Saudi regime in the face of protesters there, this selective military action in Libya seems to be exactly what liberals screamed about during Bush’s preemptive oil wars.
Press TV interviewed political commentator, James Morris, regarding NATO and the United States’ involvement in Libya.
Press TV: We are hearing of disagreements between NATO members about who is taking over the command of military operations. It started with France getting involved and then the US and Britain. Turkey has been one of the main countries that have disagreed while Italy is saying that it wants NATO to take over. Tell us what you think are the sources of the disagreements. Why is there resistance for NATO to take over?
Morris: It was sold as a no-fly zone with no casualties, or very few casualties as if it would be a very quick in and out. What we are seeing now, which was actually pushed for by the French and the British. Surprisingly Obama bought it but he even had to be pressured. You had Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and also Susan Rice push him to do it. I can understand why he wanted to do it because he was worried about Benghazi and the political ramifications of let’s say 100,000 people being slaughtered there by Gaddafi.
I’m no fan of Gaddafi and I think he should go too, but I don’t think America should get involved with an Arab tribal civil war as Congressman Ron Paul has said about the no-fly zone. I think the countries that are resisting are seeing the effects of what’s been happening for the past several days. People are being killed. A no-fly zone is an attack on Libya, which is an act of war, as Robert Gates said, the Secretary of Defense, and the neo-conservatives were going after him for that because they never see a war that they don’t like.
They want to set up intervention in Iran by having us not only have a no-fly zone over Libya but they are now calling for ground troops as well. I saw neo-con Kristol on Fox news, which is a neo-con propaganda channel in America that airs in England and around the world on satellite. He is actually calling for ground troops now. I think that is where we are leading. I heard something on the news earlier tonight (I think CNN) and they were saying outside Misratah you’ve got pro-Gaddafi regime tanks that are firing on the city and they are dug in.
(Selection from Patrick Buchanan’s article below)
Until the modern era, the idea of sending armed forces across oceans to kill and die for moral or humanitarian causes would have been seen as an insult to the Founding Fathers, an abandonment of a vital American tradition and ruinous to the national interest.
Why are we in Libya? Why are U.S. pilotsbombingand killing Libyan soldiers who have done nothing to us?
These soldiers are simply doing their sworn duty to protect their country from attack and defend the only government they have known from what they are told is an insurgency backed by al-Qaida and supported by Western powers after their country’s oil.
Why did Obama launch this unconstitutional war?
Moral, humanitarian and ideological reasons. ThoughRobert Gatesand the Pentagon had thrown ice water on the idea of intervening in a third war in the Islamic world – in asandboxon the northern coast of Africa – Obama somersaulted and ordered the attack, for three reasons