Thursday, March 31, 2011

Are we arming Al Qaeda?









Isn't it said today that we don't know quite who the rebels in Libya are?  Now we're finding out that 2-3 weeks ago, Obama signed an order to help arm them, according to THIS article.  There is quite a bit of thought that Al Qaeda's among those rebels........are we arming AL QAEDA?

Oh, GEEEEEEEZ...then, there's THIS, confirming that 'questions loom about the possibility of arming rebels'?  NOW WHAT? 

The first linked article says: "Interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out."   But..... what's Obama mean when he says he wants Gaddafi OUT but doesn't want regime change?  Does that make sense??

Are there any adults running this situation?    Couldn't he have waited to see who the rebels were before arming them?  Do you think we can get out of Libya before it escalates on US?$$$$$   And, shouldn't we be spending that money on OUR BORDERS?

UPDATE:  According to THIS, we've sent teams of CIA into Libya....I'm wondering if anybody but the CIA should have known that?  Sometimes, I wonder at the intelligence of a group who's covert and announces they're there......or coming.  geeeeeeeeeeeZ
z

66 comments:

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Are there any adults running this situation?

Of course not. One of the left's longstanding goals is to vehemently annihilate any reason to believe leftists are actually capable of rational thought. They work hard at this above all other priorities.

It's not enough for them to merely be stupid, as comes naturally to all leftists without even a single exception.

Still, plans to arm Libyan al-Qaeda jihadis that made it back from their insurgency tour in Iraq, while yet another example on the mountain of reasons why Democrats should never be placed in charge of foreign policy, is still not quite as bad as Hillary Clinton's State Department forking over millions of dollars to imposters in Pakistan because they "thought they were Taliban representatives."

[Wrap your head around that one...]

Hillary WANTED to fund the Taliban, but funded con men instead?

Maybe this is her shot at "redemption." Make sure they're al-Qaeda first, then fund and arm them....

beamish said...

pretend to be Taliban for fun and profit.

Always On Watch said...

Here's something to think about:

Has Obama decided to knowingly help Al Qaeda?

Ask yourself why he might do such a thing.

soapster said...

Of course we're arming Al Qaeda. Did you not get the memo? Al Qaeda is an extension of the Pentagon/CIA.

"Today, ‘freelancers‘ in Libya; yesterday, terrorists in the ‘War on Terror.’ Before that, allies against Serbia; in the 80s, Freedom Fighters. The shadowy enemy supposedly run by Osama bin Laden and top jihadists like Anwar al-Awlaki (Al Qaeda's #3 who dined at the Pentagon with top brass just 2 months after 9/11 [FOX News report]) is really an extension of U.S. foreign policy and the Pentagon. Al Qaeda shifts across the geopolitical chessboard at the will of its masters in the allied-international intelligence ring. It is perhaps government’s greatest hoax… but the tactic is one of the oldest tricks in the book for any power-seeking State."

Of course the pundits, bloggers, etc. engaged in the left/right paradigm will finger point it to Obama.

beamish said...

Of course we're arming Al Qaeda. Did you not get the memo? Al Qaeda is an extension of the Pentagon/CIA.

What 9/11 Troofer Holocaust deniers website did you pull that quote from? Alex Jones' or Kurt Nimmo's?

beamish said...

Googled it.

Alex Jones. Figures.

Chuck said...

I've been worrying about this all along.

We have been helping rebels in several countries without knowing who they are. I still wonder if we are better with the devil we know?

You realize the Duck will be along anytime now with some obscure article that Bush sent arms over to Saudi Arabia and the next door neighbor of the King's cousin's nephew's brother in law sold a gun to an Al Qaeda operative. He digs up some pretty damning stuff sometimes.

Chuck said...

Oops, didn't read the comments. Soapster beat him to it.

soapster said...

What's a matter beam argument from intimidation all you got?

It's a difficult thing to refute facts and evidence isn't it?

The article is well documented (including hyperlinks to mainstream reports) and well researched.

But I digress...you mustn't let facts and evidence get in the way of a good motivational cheer for your "team".

Carry on.

beamish said...

My favorite Alex Jones story is the case where he dedicated an entire weeks worth of shows to a anonymous source's story of Marines geting RFID mind control chips implanted in them against their will - and then that anonymous source called into his show and revealed that it was a hoax and that Alex Jones was being punked by him.

You can't fix stupid, but sometimes you can have fun with it.

beamish said...

What's a matter beam argument from intimidation all you got?

As you are self-identified as a Ron Paul supporter and a Alex Jones follower, I'm going to have to ask for intellectual honesty.

You're going to have to give me a sign that you wish to have an honest discussion. Admitting that you're an imbecile will suffice.

It's a difficult thing to refute facts and evidence isn't it?

You copied and pasted a blurb from the 9/11 troofer / Holocaust denier Alex Jones.

If you've got "facts and evidence" for your absurd assertion that al-Qaeda is run by the Pentagon and CIA, you're simply going to have to cite from a more credible source than someone who believes the Apollo moon landings were faked with secret technology exploited from a UFO crash.

soapster said...

http://www.infowars.com/al-qaeda-100-pentagon-run/

Refute at will ya fucking cheerleader.

beamish said...

Refute it?

It's a furtive fallacy prone collection of links peppered out of context on a 9/11 troofer's Holocaust denial website, complete with a picture of Ronald Reagan meeting with Afghan mujihadeen fighters from Massoud's Northern Alliance - disingenuously labeled as "Reagan meeting with the Taliban" - presumably because they're wearing turbans.

It is not "facts and evidence" supporting that al-Qaeda is run by the Pentagon and CIA, but rather an example of what sort of crap you could give your time and energy to in an effort to prove positively that you're an imbecile.

Which, as I mentioned before, you could have mentioned before if you were actually interested in an honest discussion.

Alex Jones is self-refuting. Try again.

Z said...

CHUCK! I am actually laughing aloud!! Great comments, both!
And yes, by now, who can't think we're better off dealing with the devils we know? Once all the Middle East/Arabia dictators are out, let's see what happens....."be careful what you wish for".
Rumsfeld was on CNN last night saying he thought the rebels are just youngsters who can't find jobs because of the dictators and they see that democracy is in the baby stages in Iraq and all will be well for them if they can follow suit. It's the first time I've found him totally WRONG (in my humble opinion)

Beamish and Soapster: Jones is not uncompelling, I have to admit, though I tend to think this is bunk...I have to admit he's been painted as a nut rather like FOX was by the left even just before they went on the air....killing the messenger.

I don't have time to watch the videos because I've got to very soon, but WHAT REASON DOES HE GIVE FOR TOTAL CHAOS IN THE MIDDLE EAST??

Z said...

I mean what reason does he give for OUR supposedly 'creating' the unrest/chaos?
How're millions of angry islamists going to be controlled by ONE WORLD ORDER? Why's he think that could work, or why's he think Obama/Soros/One WOrld Order JERKS think it will?

Z said...

before I get off this computer for the morning, let me ask again:

IS IT WISE TO ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD OUR CIA TEAMS ARE THERE? DOES THAT HELP OUR CIA? WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?

Scotty said...

UPDATE: According to THIS, we've sent teams of CIA into Libya

We had people there before the first bomb was dropped and before the first missile was launched.

They've been there directing air strikes and have been putting the red dots on the targets. That's the way it has always been done. That's what the special ops folks do for a living.

Z said...

Scotty, you're a good reporter! I caught that, too, and added it to the bottom of my post a few minutes ago...
But..is that good for us to be telling that we're there? I thought special ops are SECRET?
They sure didn't help with intel before Iraq, did they :-(

Ducky's here said...

You are wondering if anyone but the CIA should have known that?

You're probably one of the very few that didn't. Of course we have intelligence on the ground. At times you are incredibly naive, z.

Of course there are extreme elements in the resistance. If the goal is to back a movement in the M.E. that is clean of any extreme presence then it would never happen.

Will the cost be anything like what we've paid in Afghanistan after getting in The Great Game there? Doubtful, but the fact is that the genie is out of the bottle. We had no idea (that includes every right winger here) that people in he M.E. were going to say they had had enough. Now we try to make the best of it.

beamish said...

Beamish and Soapster: Jones is not uncompelling, I have to admit, though I tend to think this is bunk...I have to admit he's been painted as a nut rather like FOX was by the left even just before they went on the air....killing the messenger.

It IS bunk, and Alex Jones IS a nut. If the mainstream media were interested in intelligent commentary ratheri than circus entertainment, they would not have that 9/11 troofer Holocaust denial conspiracy theorist nutlog on at all, so he can bleat to trailer park UFO chasers that the gubmint is "censoring" him.

beamish said...

Scotty:

Exactly. I could have sworn I saw Ospreys on a destroyer's helo deck on the news.

If you were going to insert SEAL teams into Libya to laze targets for precision guided missiles, that's the aircraft to do it.

I have a buddy who was setting up such things in Iraq... in late 2002 long before the war started. It's how we hacked the IRG's email and internet communications so fast ;)

Z said...

Ducky you said "You're probably one of the very few that didn't. Of course we have intelligence on the ground. At times you are incredibly naive, z."

There's a huge difference between people thinking/knowing they're there and announcing it. I happen to know someone who was covert during the Egypt fiasco, too.
Naive? surely you jest.

beamish said...

We had no idea (that includes every right winger here) that people in he M.E. were going to say they had had enough.

Really? Did you think Obama's slam dunking the dollar's value into the toilet to the point the G20 seriously discussed dropping it as a reserve currency would have no effect on food prices in 3rd world countries, and that nobody would get upset that they couldn't afford to feed their families even if there was food on the shelves to buy?

I think you need to back up there, sunshine. Maybe the left had no idea (y'all never do) but what's happening is pretty much common sense. Which is why it's so shocking to you feebs on the left.

Scotty said...

Z: But..is that good for us to be telling that we're there?

That depends. Sometimes things are said only to distract an enemy. Sometimes comments are strategically tossed out to throw an enemy off. The question really is, is that why we’re hearing the things we’re hearing?

Remember back to the first Gulf War. General Schwarzkopf even had our press convinced that the initial attacks into Kuwait were going to be amphibious. Saddam was convinced too…..

General Schwarzkopf played them ALL like a fine violin! There was a reason for all those briefings; he was often using it to put out disinformation also.

I thought special ops are SECRET?

We’re talking about two different critters here. CIA and special ops are not the same entity. Special ops are Seals or Green Beret.

Generally the ops and the CIA carry out different missions. They may or may not always work together. And, special ops are not necessarily about being secret, they are more about stealth.

They sure didn't help with intel before Iraq, did they :-(

Intel isn’t always the exacting science we’d like it to be. A lot of it is and can be speculation.

It’s kinda tough for a blonde blue eyed CIA guy to blend in with nations of swarthy skinned folks.
There needs to be insiders to have really good intel and I don’t think at that time in Iraq that Iraqi higher ups were beating down the doors of the CIA to give out information.

We as Americans tend to want to see things as black and white. In war, so many times, the line can be a bit blurry. Despite what many will say, war is NOT some computer game type thing, in spite of the technologies out there. And, it certainly isn't what we see in the movies.

Brooke said...

Z, I agree with your post. Of course, our very sympathetic to Islamists president suppling al Qaeda shouldn't be a surprise.

Enquiring minds want to know said...

The answer to you question is yes, we are infact arming the very same people who wish to kill us, and they very well may do so.
Libya is not a threat to us. We intervened for 'humanitarian reasons" .....

Anonymous said...

Of course we'll be arming Al Q., just as we unknowingly did when we supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. who knew anything about Al Q. or UBL then. we just wanted to help the Afghans get the Russkies out. Hopefully, we have our eyes open this time, but don't bet on it if we give them arms. If we do I'm afraid we will rue the day. Let the filthy rich Saudis do this job, if it's so worth while. If it's not, then we should stay the hell out.

The West would do better to check out some of the Suras in the Quran, just to see the writings re the 'non-believers',i.e. GIAOUR. Save that word for Scrabble, it's a good one.

Silvrlady

Dave Miller said...

Silvrlady makes a good point. This is not the first time our government has armed people who were, or soon would be our enemies.

Perhaps a better question might be why people who are so upset by this practice when President Obama does it, did not, and still refuse to have the same level of anger, when other Presidents used the same tactic.

Let us not forget that one of the reason we were sure Iraq had WMD is because we supplied them.

AOW, your insinuation is a lame as someone asking this question...

Did President Reagan knowingly decide to do business with Iranian terrorists?

Ask yourself why he might have done such a thing...

WomanHonorThyself said...

in a word Z..YES we are -exactly what the Muzzlim pres wanted all along.................

Z said...

Why, Dave Miller..? Because Reagan's a muslim, right?
And HOLD THE PRESSES...if WE supplied them, then why did we tell Bush he was wrong, they don't have them?
confused here :-)

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Of course we'll be arming Al Q., just as we unknowingly did when we supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. who knew anything about Al Q. or UBL then. we just wanted to help the Afghans get the Russkies out.

Wrong Silverlady. Dead wrong.

We know exactly who we armed in Afghanistan against the Soviets - Ahmad Shah Massoud and the Mujihadeen of the Northern Alliance.

When Massoud and his men were kicking Soviet ass, Osama Bin Laden and his Arab mercenaries were busy terrorizing Afghans and spreading their sick vision of Wahabbist fundamentalism.

Osama Bin Laden's mercenaries refused to coordinate with American assistance, and actually killed Afghans that did.

Ahmad Shah Massoud hated communists AND Islamic fundamentalists. THAT's who we backed.

It's doubtful Osama Bin Laden's Arab mercenaries ever saw a Russian soldier, much less shot at one, as they were too busy in southern Afghanistan getting whacked out on heroin and cowing poppy farmers for Pakistan's ISI thugs while the Northern Alliance did the heavy lifting against the Soviets.

I don't mean to come down on you like a ton of bricks, but Ahmad Shah Massoud is a personal HERO of mine. I'm sick to death of the historically ignorant "America backed al-Qaeda" slanderous bullshit.

Osama Bin Laden and his Arab fighters were nobodies. Parasites in the grand scheme of things. Mercenaries for Pakistan up until Bin Laden merged al-Qaeda with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad at a conference hosted by Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 1996 and became Iraq's mercenaries.

No, America didn't back al-Qaeda, and they didn't want help from "infidels" anyway.

We backed Ahmad Shah Massoud. We backed AFGHAN resistance fighters.

Al Qaeda KILLED him on September 9th, 2001.

Z said...

Beamish, thanks for that...as you know, MASSOUD is a hero of mine, too...I so well remember hearing he was killed and how and I almost wept...I was living in Paris, stuck having to listen to CNN Int'l, (even more lib than ours) and was almost frozen with sadness when I heard the news.

beamish said...

I was editting typos to repost it :P

Too many people confuse the American-backed Ahmad Shah Massoud with the Pakistan-backed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [if they can even name either one of them] and assume they were on the same side, ever, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan or after. The Soviets would have been kicked out of Afghanistan sooner and faster if
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his terror squads weren't too busy killing more of his fellow Afghans than the Soviets themselves did.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was a f'ckin monster who earned his place in the Taliban controlled government in post-communist Afghanistan because of his brutality.

Z said...

Ya, I liked him so much I wrote MAHMOUD the first time, just changed it. :-)

Beamish, what was very weird was I wasn't that political then and not at ALL up on events happening in that area.......and I've written this to you before, I think...when I saw his picture on TV that day and heard what he'd done and then about how he'd been killed, I was very scared AND sad; I sensed it was something much bigger than a guy I didn't know dying. I sensed it was important that he'd have lived for his cause.
I was right. We could use him now.

beamish said...

A Message to the People of the United States of America

I send this message to you today on behalf of the freedom and peace-loving people of Afghanistan, the Mujahedeen freedom fighters who resisted and defeated Soviet communism, the men and women who are still resisting oppression and foreign hegemony and, in the name of more than one and a half million Afghan martyrs who sacrificed their lives to uphold some of the same values and ideals shared by most Americans and Afghans alike. This is a crucial and unique moment in the history of Afghanistan and the world, a time when Afghanistan has crossed yet another threshold and is entering a new stage of struggle and resistance for its survival as a free nation and independent state.

I have spent the past 20 years, most of my youth and adult life, alongside my compatriots, at the service of the Afghan nation, fighting an uphill battle to preserve our freedom, independence, right to self-determination and dignity. Afghans fought for God and country, sometime alone, at other times with the support of the international community. Against all odds, we, meaning the free world and Afghans, halted and checkmated Soviet expansionism a decade ago. But the embattled people of my country did not savor the fruits of victory. Instead they were thrust in a whirlwind of foreign intrigue, deception, great-gamesmanship and internal strife. Our country and our noble people were brutalized, the victims of misplaced greed, hegemonic designs and ignorance. We Afghans erred too. Our shortcomings were as a result of political innocence, inexperience, vulnerability, victimization, bickering and inflated egos. But by no means does this justify what some of our so-called Cold War allies did to undermine this just victory and unleash their diabolical plans to destroy and subjugate Afghanistan.

Today, the world clearly sees and feels the results of such misguided and evil deeds. South-Central Asia is in turmoil, some countries on the brink of war. Illegal drug production, terrorist activities and planning are on the rise. Ethnic and religiously-motivated mass murders and forced displacements are taking place, and the most basic human and women’s rights are shamelessly violated. The country has gradually been occupied by fanatics, extremists, terrorists, mercenaries, drug Mafias and professional murderers. One faction, the Taliban, which by no means rightly represents Islam, Afghanistan or our centuries-old cultural heritage, has with direct foreign assistance exacerbated this explosive situation. They are unyielding and unwilling to talk or reach a compromise with any other Afghan side.

beamish said...

[continued]

Unfortunately, this dark accomplishment could not have materialized without the direct support and involvement of influential governmental and non-governmental circles in Pakistan. Aside from receiving military logistics, fuel and arms from Pakistan, our intelligence reports indicate that more than 28,000 Pakistani citizens, including paramilitary personnel and military advisers are part of the Taliban occupation forces in various parts of Afghanistan. We currently hold more than 500 Pakistani citizens including military personnel in our POW camps. Three major concerns - namely terrorism, drugs and human rights - originate from Taliban-held areas but areinstigated from Pakistan, thus forming the inter-connecting angles of an evil triangle. For many Afghans, regardless of ethnicity or religion, Afghanistan, for the second time in one decade, is once again an occupied country.

Let me correct a few fallacies that are propagated by Taliban backers and their lobbies around the world. This situation over the short and long-run, even in case of total control by the Taliban, will not be to anyone’s interest. It will not result in stability, peace and prosperity in the region. The people of Afghanistan will not accept such a repressive regime. Regional countries will never feel secure and safe. Resistance will not end in Afghanistan, but will take on a new national dimension, encompassing all Afghan ethnic and social strata.

The goal is clear. Afghans want to regain their right to self-determination through a democratic or traditional mechanism acceptable to our people. No one group, faction or individual has the right to dictate or impose its will by force or proxy on others. But first, the obstacles have to be overcome, the war has to end, just peace established and a transitional administration set up to move us toward a representative government.

We are willing to move toward this noble goal. We consider this as part of our duty to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence and fanaticism. But the international community and the democracies of the world should not waste any valuable time, and instead play their critical role to assist in any way possible the valiant people of Afghanistan overcome the obstacles that exist on the path to freedom, peace, stability and prosperity.

Effective pressure should be exerted on those countries who stand against the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan. I urge you to engage in constructive and substantive discussions with our representatives and all Afghans who can and want to be part of a broad consensus for peace and freedom for Afghanistan.

With all due respect and my best wishes for the government and people of the United States,

Ahmad Shah Massoud - 1998


Why did 9/11 happen?

Because Bill Clinton refused to listen to this man.

Z said...

"Our shortcomings were as a result of political innocence, inexperience, vulnerability, victimization, bickering and inflated egos."

No wonder he couldn't stay alive...no politician can admit that and live in our world today!

Thanks SO much, Beamish, this is fabulous thinking/wishing on Massoud's part and I'll just say again how much we could use him now. Makes me even sadder after reading that.

beamish said...

I can't read it without tearing up either.

beamish said...

F'ckin Clinton and Gore, damn cornpone hillbilly imbeciles.

"Duh the Taliban sent us pictures of bags of something on fire and said they're destroying poppies. Let's back 'em for their war on drugs hyuk hyuk."

Never mind that poppy farming is something done in just about every damned country in central and southeast Asia.

The Taliban didn't eradicate poppy farming in Afghanistan. They took it over.

Elmers Brother said...

Let us not forget that one of the reason we were sure Iraq had WMD is because we supplied them.

Actuallly our allies did. While I was in Iraq I heard from my fellow platoon mates about caches they had found that were made by some of our Allies. And the reason these things were not reported? Cuz they're the same allies helping us in Afghanistan.

beamish said...

Let us not forget that one of the reason we were sure Iraq had WMD is because we supplied them.

Lie.

All of Iraq's chemical WMDs [the only kind they had and had ever used] were produced in Iraq by Iraqi pesticide factories.

Combine some pesticide concentrate mix A with some pesticide concentrate mix B in a binary chemical artillery shell in flight, and voila, you have sarin gas when it explodes on target.

Elmers Brother said...

The manta mines that we found and destroyed were made in Italy.

Z said...

Beamish, I think of him as a kind of Robin Hood...not the motivation or the actions but the nobility of it all.

Elbro and Beamish...who the HECK ever even suggested WE gave Iraq WMDs..anyway, it's the left who'd say that but it's the left who said they HAD NONE...

it's like Obama saying he wants Gaddafi out but he doesn't support regime change? WHAT??? You can't have it both ways, right??

beamish said...

Beamish, I think of him as a kind of Robin Hood...not the motivation or the actions but the nobility of it all.

Definitely something a cut beyond about him.

Maybe not Robin Hood, as Massoud hated communism ;)

But definitely noble. The Afghan George Washington.

Elmers Brother said...

Absolutely z. My resident alex jones sycophant used to say the same thing, somewhere between 9/11 and operation norwood...you can't make that kind of paranoia up.

Z said...

Beamish, I SAID 'Not the motivation!"

anyway, I STILL love Errol Flynn's Robin Hood even as I try to block out the 'rob from the rich to give to the poor' aspect.
Anyway, don't forget those he tried to help had paid taxes but were poor... Wait, that IS COMMUNISM! :-) He was FIGHTING Communism! HAA!!

Dave Miller said...

Elmers, are you saying the US never supplied any WMD to Iraq?

Z, no, but if who you deal with defines you, as AOW is insinuating, then President Reagan, who directly dealt with Iranian terrorists, as he himself said, was a terrorist.

Isn't that how the connection game works, or am I missing something?

This is nothing more than the long time US policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

To claim because of this that President Obama is a member of Al Qaida, and as such a terrorist, is ludicrous...

Z said...

Dave, I never said Obama's an Al Qaeda terrorist...!
I will say I think he was sloppy with promising arms 2-3 wks ago and then possibly finding he could be arming them, however! To say the least.

Why do you think leftists attack Bush for having believed Iraq had WMD when they say now that the US supplied Iraq with WMD??

Elmers Brother said...

I know if Alex Jones said it springs from a paranoid conspiracy monger bent on spreading that same cognitive dissonance for a quick buck.
I know second hand, based on my military service in Iraq that our allies had provided Hussein weapons, at some time probably in the distant past. More than likely during the time that Hussein was seen as a hedge against Communism.

Pris said...

Beamish, Z, I too regard Mahmoud as a hero and a leader. He loved his country, and his people loved him. His death was a huge loss for Afghanistan.

Bin laden could not allow Mahmoud to live, because of his great influence in the name of freedom, and his people.

His death was a game changing event.

Scotty said...

it's like Obama saying he wants Gaddafi out but he doesn't support regime change? WHAT??? You can't have it both ways, right??


If I can speculate a bit here and I’ll be the first to admit I can’t read our president’s mind.

He wants Gaddafi out BUT, he wants things (the flow of oil) to stay the same, hence the reason he doesn’t want a regime change. That would be just the wild guess on my part, if one were to attempt to find any logic in the Gaddafi out, not a regime change statements.

And/or he's telegraphing to the Libyans that might be listening that he's backing their desire to get rid of him.

I agree with you Z, you may not have both ways. I have to believe that Gaddafi’s underlings have enjoyed the fruits of Gaddafi’s labors so; I don’t see where things would necessarily change by just removing Gaddafi. Are far as human rights are concerned I think things would remain the same.

Jus’ thinkin’ out loud again……

Z said...

Hey, Scotty (I am so glad you've been able to comment today!)...
Gaddafi IS the regime...isn't the leader the regime, basically?
If he's gone, there's a new regime, especially since at least two of his bigwigs have departed!

I think NO REGIME CHANGE is to his lib backers who are so sensitive to anything like our changing anything...remember they called our Iraq work OCCUPATION!? :-)

Did you hear Trump tonight say that we should give Iraq what oil they need and take much of it for ourselves in payment for all we did there!? YAHOOOOO!!!

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Pris, it's "Massoud" not "Mahmoud."

Massoud was killed on 9/9/2001 by al-Qaeda because he was the only US ally on the ground in Afghanistan when 9/11 occured.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Elmers, are you saying the US never supplied any WMD to Iraq?

I can answer this.

The answer is NO. The US never supplied weapons of mass destruction to Iraq.

We did sell Iraq some unarmed Bell observation helicopters, and provided them realtime satellite imagery and reconnaissance of Iranian troop and artillery positions during the Iraq-Iran war, but unarmed helicopters and photographs don't in and of themselves kill people.

In 1981, the Israelis cripped Iraq's nuclear weapons program by striking the French-built nuclear facility at Osirak.

In 1987, the USS Stark was attacked by Iraq with a French Exocet missile.

Iraqi troops were armed with AK-47 rifles, a Warsaw Pact / Chinese manufactured weapon.

During Op: Iraqi Freedom in 2003, during the "shock and awe" bombing phase, we took out Chinese-made GPS targeting scramblers (with GPS guided bombs, 'cause we're bad ass like that)

After we had troops on the ground inside Iraq, we uncovered French Roland missiles manufactured in 2002 (a clear violation of arms embargoes)

The list goes on and on, but nothing in Iraq's arsenal, conventional or WMD, was American made.

If you want to know what Iraq had and who gave it to them, you can always look at the comprehensive databases maintained by the Stockholm Interenational Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) thinktank. They've got the dirt on EVERYBODY.

Iraq's arms suppliers reads like a who's who of countries that opposed the Iraq War.

Pris said...

"Pris, it's "Massoud" not "Mahmoud.""

Beamish, of course you're right, thanks. I watched a documentary years ago about he and the Northern Alliance, how he was killed and the void in leadership which was left.

I remember how he was raising his son to follow in his footsteps, and to love their country.

beamish said...

I'll probably have a big post on Massoud up on my blog later this year on the 10th anniversary of his assassination.

This is a scene from ABC's TV movie "Path to 9/11" featuring a portrayal of Massoud, that was cut from network broadcast because "it makes Clinton look bad."

beamish said...

The 2001 movie (and pre-9/11) "The Beast" starring Stephen Baldwin features a Massoud-esque figure and his mujihadeen squad in pursuit of a Russian tank crew, which is also very compelling.

beamish said...

Oops, it's called the "Beast of War" released 1988... I saw it in 2001 before 9/11.

beamish said...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094716/synopsis

Scotty said...

If he's gone, there's a new regime, especially since at least two of his bigwigs have departed!

I think now that some of the other rats seem to be jumping ship, yeah, I agree.

My points were just wild speculation on my part.

Watched the video of Trump a few minutes ago! I wonder what Donald Trump is REALLY up to...

Elmers Brother said...

The French and the Russians were two of the three my platoon mates mentioned. Then as I said the Italians made the shallow underwater mines tjat we located. If anyone is interested I can provide a link with photos of our unit and the mines we found.