Who are the Libyan Rebels?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by deessell
 


Wow, that's a pretty damning collection of information there if true.

Thanks so much for the link.

Edit-okay, after a few reads I'm left with the impression the globalresearch article is highly speculative and based on military information we are supposed to accept as fact (info on 'al queda in iraq' captured on the battlefield??).

I'd like to read the actual West Point report, but I dont trust the download link. Can you provide a better link?
edit on 16-4-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)


You don't trust globalresearch as a source and are scared to download from this site?


Global Research articles are used as source material by college and university students. Moreover, numerous universities, libraries and research institutions have established a link to Global Research on their respective web sites. Global Research has also become a source of specialized information and analysis for journalists, senior government officials, financial analysts and non-governmental organizations. Since 2001, Global Research has established an international network of authors, scholars and investigative journalists. Global Research counts among its regular contributors a number of prominent writers, researchers and academics as well as several promising young authors.


The article was well-referenced and contained citations.




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by deessell


You don't trust globalresearch as a source and are scared to download from this site?


I didn't say I dont trust globalresearch. I said the article, upon several readings, appears highly speculative and is based upon military 'evidence' that we are just expected to believe is true. Do Al Queda fighters really walk around the Iraq battlefield with dossiers? I am, for some reason, a bit skeptical of the claim the military just stubled into accurate dossiers for some 700 al queda fighters.

In addition, the download is not from globalresearch, but from tarpley.net, a site I know nothing about and am therefore hesitant to download from. I would love to read it, though, to see the source the article is basing its interpretation on.

I'm not saying I think the article is bunk. I'm saying it smells a bit fishy, and would like to read the report its based on, minus the speculation.
edit on 16-4-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


xD hahahaha



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
that was great haha



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
One of the best reads I have had concerning Libya and it's people is dicussed here:

AboveTopSecret

But the original source article is here:

Libya: All about oil, or all about Banking ?

I'm not necessarily endorsing the content and I have been looking for my own source material regards cost of living but it covers a such a lot of ground I really did find it an excellent read.

My own thoughts are that the rebels are opposition clan(s) / tribe(s) to Gadaffi, and that they are being emboldened by the lure of Iraq and Afganistan style democracy and of course the power and riches they believe will be afforded them, the said leaders of clan(s) / tribe(s). The whole process being encouraged / bankrolled and assisted by, as a collective you might call the NWO.

Please read the source article above, the author of which has spoken extensively on public banking and abandoning the US Fed, aswell as much more.

Ellen Brown - Web of Debt



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Who cares? Everything that has happened in the Middle East for the past 30 years has been nothing but old wine in new bottles. Who are they? Just another group of jokers who will use extremism and play every side against the other to extort cash and diplomatic concessions out of the western world. Just another group of misguided thugs who will be propped up by the US government to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Just another group of folks who the Neocons will call stooges who will be smart enough to work the military industrial complex, make those folks rich and themselves rich in the process.

Pete Townsend had it right. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

If you are treating this business in the Middle East as anything more than a spectator sport, you are wasting your time





Soooo, you are saying that the NEOCONS are controlling Obama's actions in Libya? Interesting concept. I thought he was his own Man.


Still, he was obviously not to be outdone by France, and did wait for a go ahead from the UN.
edit on 23-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Still, he was obviously not to be outdone by France, and did wait for a go ahead from the UN.
edit on 23-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Not to mention a unanimous vote from the US Senate urging action:



On March 1, 2011 the US Senate passed S. Res 85 with "Unanimous Consent"

"S. Res 85 - (Again, 3/1/11 passed with unanimous consent) The US Senate ... (7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;"


www.dailykos.com...:-Call-RAND-PAULTELL-HIM-TO-STOP-LYING-ABOUT-
edit on 23-4-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Such massive displays of ignorance here. Who are the rebels?

Guess what? The rebels aren't a cohesive block of one identity and ideology as many here would like to believe. They aren't all CIA "stooges," Al Qaeda militants, or middle class Libyans fighting for freedom.

They are a mix of disparate people from disparate tribes fighting for a variety of reasons. Contrary to Western biases, every time you see a rebel fighter shout "Allahu akbar!" doesn't make them an Islamic militant. In fact, that's quite a widely used expression for a variety of reasons in Arabic and amongst Muslims, extremely few of them related to blowing up infidels.

I am sure there are some Islamic militants there, but a lot seem to be middle-class Libyans who are fed up with Gaddafi or who saw the chaos sparked and took advantage of the situation to take up arms against the oppressive Gaddafi. You see a surprising amount of professional in the ranks of the rebels, people like accountants, doctors, engineers, lawyers, and even students/professors from Libyan universities in the ranks.

It's an incredibly dynamic and complicated situation and the rebels of various backgrounds are united in common hatred against Gaddafi.

Yet nonetheless if you go to Youtube or a lot of Internet sites, you'll find people complaining about Western intervention for oil or for Zionist plots, indirectly supporting Islamic terrorists, and trying to establish an American presence in Libya.

And to be honest, you have to be very naive to think that. It makes no sense at all for anyone who has actually followed this from the beginning. The West only participated at the request of the Arab League and United Nations and we arrived far too late to justify calls that the West wanted to be there to take control. If that were the case, it would have happened far earlier and there would have been ground troops and a lot less caution. The U.S. also has played a minimal role recently which has exacerbated calls for increased NATO presence by the rebels, given Gaddafi gains. To seriously think we are there for oil is extremely misguided. I mean we had a very cozy deal with Gaddafi before this conflict that gave the West access to unfathomable amounts of Libyan business and oil, it makes no sense to destroy the country for some more, especially considering the fallout internationally from a sustained Western presence in Libya.

Now for the complicated truth, we are seemingly stretching the definition of the Libyan no-fly zone. That is true. We do seem to be extending our authority to remove Gaddafi from power by supporting the rebels. Now is that a bad thing? Maybe. Gaddafi created stability despite the fact that he is a brutal dictator who enriched himself immensely at the cost of thousands of lives. A Libya without him could see sectarian and intertribal conflict in addition to pro-Gaddafi insurgencies by tribes loyal to him like the Gaddafa. However a Libya with Gaddafi in control also risks much damage to the West with Gaddafi supporting weapons programs like Iran, terrorism against the West like with Lockerbie, and many other bad things. So leaving him in power is a very bad situation for a lot of people, in addition to his own countrymen who could find themselves massacred en masse even more so than now where at least they stand a chance.

And honestly, it's right to support the underdogs who protest against a dictator, who massacres them, in the name of freedom and improved conditions (not necessarily democracy, but the tune of the Libyan uprising mirrored grievances in several other Middle Eastern nations like Egypt, Syria, and Yemen).

But half-assed support of them is problematic given it intensifies a stalemate and humanitarian crisis. But then again interfering too much creates jingoist accusations and other issues, like commitment to another foreign war.

It's complicated, but the vast simplifications some of you engage in here is insulting not only to the Libyan people, but also to the complexity of the human condition.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Evanescence
 


"I mean we had a very cozy deal with Gaddafi before this conflict that gave the West access to unfathomable amounts of Libyan business and oil"

Do you have any sources on this, I would like to read more.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ukWolf
reply to post by Evanescence
 


"I mean we had a very cozy deal with Gaddafi before this conflict that gave the West access to unfathomable amounts of Libyan business and oil"

Do you have any sources on this, I would like to read more.


Yeah, that would be under "Libyan history from 2003-2010" when international relations were normalized, European nations gave Libya weapons, the Lockerbie bomber was released, Western companies gained extensive rights to Libyan oil/resources/banks/deals/etc., Gaddafi's sons (who control most government enterprises in Libya, including oil) met with Western leaders and attended posh Western schools, and when Gaddafi became an ally of the West in the War on Terrorism.

Now why throw all that away for a rebel and inter-factional hodgepodge and destabilization?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanescence


I am sure there are some Islamic militants there, but a lot seem to be middle-class Libyans who are fed up with Gaddafi or who saw the chaos sparked and took advantage of the situation to take up arms against the oppressive Gaddafi. You see a surprising amount of professional in the ranks of the rebels, people like accountants, doctors, engineers, lawyers, and even students/professors from Libyan universities in the ranks.

It's an incredibly dynamic and complicated situation and the rebels of various backgrounds are united in common hatred against Gaddafi.


While I more or less tend towards agreeing with your overall supposition, i still have to ask on what do you base these claims? Where is the evidence of these 'middle class' fighters? I honestly haven't seen a lot of real evidence of who these guys are either way; stooges or real-deal 'rebels'.

Can you provide some data that you base your opinion on?

Excellent post, though. Thanks for being a part of the conversation.
edit on 23-4-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Evanescence
 


Ok sticking to banking - can you provide any sources that show how the western banking system accessed the Libyan banking system, maybe you can tell us the difference between the 2 please ?

Failing that, any sources at all for what you wrote so far ?

Edit to add: "Libyan history from 2003-2010" but written by who ? please recommend a "good" source
edit on 24-4-2011 by ukWolf because: as stated above



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I came across this today, it provides more good information that can be verified.

The Lies Behind the West's War on Libya


The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.



No surprise then that on 16-17 December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ukWolf
 


Hmmmm. Perhaps I am missing a connection. How does that relate to the thread?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The rebels are a mixture of angry libyans, Al Qaida and mercenaries (oil is the game)
This strange mix cannot win the war.
Perhabs khadafi is not bad after all.
Al Qaida on the edge of europe is far more dangerous

you can read the comments on the potential outbreak and escalation of this conflct on
www.martinrai.com



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by martinrai
The rebels are a mixture of angry libyans, Al Qaida and mercenaries (oil is the game)
This strange mix cannot win the war.


I agree with that . I think this is the main problem with the rebels. They cannot fight united so they cannot easily win this war.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Is this the origin of the rebels ?

Who are Libya's Rebels ?


The facts are well documented, and at odds with wishful thinking. This is no Solidarnosc movement. The revolt was started in Benghazi on February 15-17th by the group called the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition. The protests had a clear fundamentalist religious motivation, and were convened to commemorate the 2006 Danish cartoons protests, which had been particularly violent in Benghazi.

The NCLO web site (Arabic) carries a document (Arabic; Google Cache; legible in automatic translation) dated February 15th (the day the protests began), which clearly spells out NCLO's objections to Qaddafi's rule. The main points of "Qaddafi: Islam's no. 1 enemy" are as follows:
* Qaddafi has closed an Islamic university and a seminary, has forbidden some Islamist publications, and has thrown thousands of Islamist activists into jail.
* Qaddafi has urged to put the Qur'an on the shelf, as no longer appropriate for this age.
* Qaddafi has made fun of the Islamic veil, calling it a "rag" and a "tent".
* Qaddafi has dared to say that Christians and Jews should be allowed to visit Mecca.
* Qaddafi has rejected the Hadith and Sunnah, and said he follows the Qur'an alone.


Is it a case of the "West" just not caring who they align themselves with again, so long as they derail Libya / Africa's plans to free themselves from the banksters and the globalists.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldecoin

Originally posted by martinrai
The rebels are a mixture of angry libyans, Al Qaida and mercenaries (oil is the game)
This strange mix cannot win the war.


I agree with that . I think this is the main problem with the rebels. They cannot fight united so they cannot easily win this war.


I suspect 'winning' is not what the West needs from the 'rebels', as much as destabilizing Gadaffi. In fact, if both sides dont win, the West likely wins.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ukWolf


Is it a case of the "West" just not caring who they align themselves with again, so long as they derail Libya / Africa's plans to free themselves from the banksters and the globalists.


What evidence is there that Gadaffi was trying to free himself from the bankers of the West? You post only contained anti-muslim connections to gadaffi. Where's the 'bankster' connection?



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by martinrai

Perhabs khadafi is not bad after all.
Al Qaida on the edge of europe is far more dangerous



That's an awfully bold claim. Gadaffi 'not that bad'??

'Al Queda' is maybe a small fraction of the fighters there now. No evidence to the contrary has emerged yet. To say they would be left in charge if Gadaffi is deposed is not a necessary outcome, especially considering the diverse array of fighters as your own post claims. And that the only two options would be brutal dictatorship from Gadaffi or from Al Queda is a false dichotomy.

Is it REALLY that difficult to believe that a large portion of those fighting are average citizens?

Why is the anti-muslim drum being beaten so loudly by some in this forum who never take time to substantiate their bold claims?





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join