Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have AQ links
Opens with, citing an Italian newspaper story;
Quote:
Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".....Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.....Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG..
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html
Note this man is not the current rebel commander, rather a small group of fighters were recruited by him.
Jihadis who fought U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan now enjoy American support in Libya
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...erican-support
Quote:
Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
KaDaffy is a Bad Guy, but the people fighting against him are not necessarily Good Guys.
Standing broad jumps to conclusions rarely do well...
Not that it stops many from trying. I think the shrinks sometimes call that projection... :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Libya was then #2 in total numbers and the #1 in per capita in terms of providing foreign fighters to AQ in Iraq.
They also trained or hosted the training of a lot of other folks, including a slew of Somalis... :D
Quote:
Kind of like the American Colonies taking help from France didn't make us French.
Hmm. Basically correct but given the attitude of many Americans, perhaps not totally so.:wry:
Quote:
The intel guys and ideologues (most who truly know very little about insurgency or UW) will attempt to twist this into us supporting terrorists. Those with an anti-President Obama agenda will lead this assault.
Oh? What about those who voted for and totally support the President but who are concerned the issue is not supporting terrorists but aiding a group (not further defined) who will be as oppressive or more so than Gadaffi? What about those who are absolutely neutral on the President but are convinced that more secular governments in the region are needed and that any leaning toward religious fundamentalism should be deterred? Or those, either anti or pro the President who wish to support a faction that is in opposition those seeking or accepting AQ support?
There are many valid reasons for many things that do not entail a domestic political agenda and it is entirely possible to take a position out of true belief in the rightness of that stance without necessarily allowing ones attitude toward one or more people to affect decisions. That BTW is not nearly as rare as many seem to believe...
Quote:
If we do this right we will go a long ways toward disempowering AQ in this region and rendering them largely moot.
Please explain what doing it right entails, what should be done.According to my texting kids, DOL is the brevity code for 'Dying of Laughter.' That's okay, I guess... :confused:
What is it your are attempting to accuse me of, Bob?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Probably not the first time someone from Georgia observerd that "those people don't know what liberty is....
Rather than bolster my confidence and that of any lurkers that the anti-KaDaffy forces really are Good Guys, you attempt to kill my message because I am presently living in Georgia?
Lame, especially from a Floridian. You get a No Go at this station.
Post above delayed by 3rd world internet syndrome...
So I'll add...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
1. Remain as neutral as possible. We are here to referee the fight, not help one fighter beat up the other..
2. Stay focused on the big picture, and that is the Arabian Peninsula. All operations in Libya must set a precedent for how we will act elsewhere, and must be designed to send messages to governmental leaders, resistance leaders, and the general populace.
3. Shape a new message for Western audiences as well. GWOT is far more about people seeking liberty and governance of their own design than about Caliphates and radical concepts on Islam. Helping facilitate evolutions of governance across the Middle East is far more conducive to making Americans save than going about changing regimes we dislike and propping up those we do.
I realize that the intentions here are all good, but I suspect that the outcomes will not be. Appointing ourselves to referee other people's fights and appointing ourselves to facilitate changes in other people's governments is not going to win us friends and admirers, anywhere. It is not going to be perceived as support for a populace, no matter what our intentions are. It's going to be perceived as gratuitous self-interested meddling. That doesn't disempower our enemies, it empowers them. Any time we meddle in the Middle East it gets spun as self interested pursuit of oil. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it is believed.
Unless we are specifically asked to referee or facilitate by people with a credible claim to represent a populace, we need to stay out. The solution to problems created by bad meddling is not good meddling, it's less meddling. I'm not sure there is such a thing as good meddling: meddling may on very rare occasions be necessary, but it's never good or desirable.
Jihadists will hate us no matter what we do. Give them a distraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
So I'll add...
I realize that the intentions here are all good, but I suspect that the outcomes will not be.
But at least one outcome will be virtually no Libyan aircraft or air defenses and far fewer armored vehicles for WHOEVER takes over to use elsewhere or on their own people.
Quote:
Appointing ourselves to referee other people's fights and appointing ourselves to facilitate changes in other people's governments is not going to win us friends and admirers, anywhere. It is not going to be perceived as support for a populace, no matter what our intentions are. It's going to be perceived as gratuitous self-interested meddling. That doesn't disempower our enemies, it empowers them. Any time we meddle in the Middle East it gets spun as self interested pursuit of oil. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, it is believed.
If they are going to believe that anyway...in addition to their belief that we support Israel and therefore we are bad...we are screwed anyway you look at it. After all, we helped Islamic people in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. What did it get us a few years later?
So even if some Libyan rebels are jihadists, doesn't this give them a different pursuit outside Iraq and Afghanistan? Methinks it is better to have insurgents fighting their own government than fighting the U.S. and Afghani/Iraqi Soldiers.
Quote:
Unless we are specifically asked to referee or facilitate by people with a credible claim to represent a populace, we need to stay out. The solution to problems created by bad meddling is not good meddling, it's less meddling. I'm not sure there is such a thing as good meddling: meddling may on very rare occasions be necessary, but it's never good or desirable.
Seem to recall the Arab League and UN did ask us? I'm staying out of this second-guessing because it is a tricky situation and anyone claiming to know the answer is probably deluding themselves.
But you gotta admit it makes a great argument for serial rather than parallel destruction of our adversary. Things change, and new things come to light as conflicts evolve.