Islamist militia 'shot Libya rebel Abdel Fattah Younes'

Islamist militia 'shot Libya rebel Abdel Fattah Younes'

www.bbc.co.uk

Libyan rebel commander Gen Abdel Fattah Younes was shot dead by a militia linked to his own side, a rebel minister has said. Ali Tarhouni said Gen Younes was killed by members of the Obaida Ibn Jarrah Brigade, which is an Islamist group.

Mr Tarhouni said Younes and two of his aides were killed after being recalled to the rebel stronghold for questioning. "His lieutenants did it," Mr Tarhouni said, adding that the killers were still at large, Reuters news agency reported.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well gee, what a surprise; a rebel faction murdered a National Transition Council commander (an ex-general under Ghaddafi at that).

Apparently the murderers were Islamic fighters too.

The interesting thing is that after this assassination, that rebel commander that spent the last 20 years or so under CIA exile in Langly, Virginia will now rise up the ranks of the NTC.

Also from the article:

Meanwhile Nato says it bombed Libyan state TV transmitters overnight.

The Libyan Broadcasting Authority said three of its technicians were killed and 15 other people injured in the attack in the capital, Tripoli.

The alliance said it had disabled three satellite transmission dishes through a "precision air strike".

It said the operation was intended to stop "inflammatory broadcasts" by Col Gaddafi's government.

Nato said the strike would "reduce the regime's ability to oppress civilians" but also "preserve television broadcast infrastructure that will be needed after the conflict".

Libyan state TV was still on air following the Nato statement.

I don't see how bombing Libyan state television stations and killing technicians can be sanctioned under a "humanitarian mission" nor enforcing a "no-fly zone". If somebody bombed Fox News or CNN, it would be terrorism, but if it's Libyan news then it's "stopping the oppressors". What a farce

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

i was wondering about this lybia thing.. we dont seem to be getting much news on it here in the uk. are they still actively bombing the country?

Originally posted by misscurious
i was wondering about this lybia thing.. we dont seem to be getting much news on it here in the uk. are they still actively bombing the country?

Read my post above yours where it states that NATO just bombed three Lybian television stations.

Your just a couple days late on this news unless it is a new guy who got killed.

Did you search before you posted?

reply to post by misscurious


And where have you been looking? There has been reports on the TV with regards to Libya every day.

Just shows, NATO is helping out an so called extremist group. Bet David Cameron feels silly now

Well, the reports that I have seen all say that Alqaeda killed him, but that they are looking for a gunman that did it and it absolutely makes no sense to me because it is all a lie.
Why can't they just come out and say it, he got killed by what we call Alqaeda, he was put in charge of "Alqaeda" and they killed him. We have been giving them weapons and all they need to defeat the armies and we are giving them an embassy in the U.S. They are cool with us now and once we need to start another war, we will blame them and they will have plenty of weapons so we can fight them for a while and have enough time to take what ever resources that country has!!!!!

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


All is not well among the Rebels.......now why am I not surprised?

reply to post by kro32


The point is Kro, that we didn't know who killed him, other rebels or Gaddaffi forces. now we know it was the rebels.

Im not sure how this will play out, but with one of the CIA's top guys down now, we very well may see boots on the ground in a few weeks

Originally posted by kro32
Your just a couple days late on this news unless it is a new guy who got killed.

Did you search before you posted?

For one, very few people keep threads about the details of the Libyan conflict alive so it's important to update with new threads.

Secondly, my opening post is all about new relevations in this incident. My opening post also contained information about NATO bombing civilian targets which happened like two days ago.

Information like this is extremely important. In terms of the overall strategic picture, Libya is not going to just collapse into some Western proxy dictatorship like it was planned. I think that the opportunity to do this has long since passed, and now the rebels are known to anyone with half a brain as terrorists attacking Libya, who NATO supplies and supports without quarrel. Apparently the US government is even considering opening up an NTC embassy in Washington. Hypocrocy intensified.

And the usual suspects immediately link the killings to the US and not who all the available evidence suggests was responsible, extremist Muslims.

The report clearly states that an 'Al-Qaeda' like group Obaida Ibn Jarrah Brigade were responsible and that despite being allied to 'The Rebels' they were intent on letting people know that they were in control of the area and not the rebel National Transition council.

The simple fact is that 'the rebels' are a very loose coalition of Gadaffi's opponents who have many differences and some bitter grudges with each other.
These grudges have their roots in political, religious and tribal differences and some are deep rooted indeed.

Events in Libya are not helped by 'The West's' unco-ordinated and half-hearted approach and policies.

The whole Libya situation is going to be an absolute nightmare for 'The West' and they should never have allowed themselves to get dragged into the unsavoury situation.

More dissension amongst the rebels;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One has to question William Hague's timing and judgement.
Should we be supporting such a fickle and splintered alliance?

reply to post by Freeborn


Yes, you are quite right in describing the rebels as nothing more than a loose organization of anti-Ghadaffi factions.

In fact, I believe this is the key point in the whole affair. If they were an organized force that followed the same goals and ideology, then they might stand a chance. But they aren't, and the only reason why they are even still fighting is because of NATO levelling Ghaddafi's forces from the air.

That begs the question: just what is NATO's endgame here if Ghaddafi somehow looses power? It is clear to me that if Ghaddafi looses control (especially if he dies), then Libya will turn into another Iraq with a full-blown civil war between varying factions. This is the type of situation that Western imperialism thrives on, for they can just step over the infighting and take over key economic assets and protect them with private merc forces.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I think 'The West's' hands were forced here and they are very much in a no win situation; they were damned if they got involved and damned if they didn't.

Gadaffi had become a relatively liberal leader and Libyan's enjoyed a relatively high standard of living.
He had long ceased being the funder of international terrorism and had relatively good relations with 'The West' who had starting investing heavily in the internal infrastructure of the country and obviously have major interests in it's oil industry.
A lot of Europeans and Americans etc worked in Libya.

Groups within Libya got carried along with the 'Arab Spring' thus spurring other anti-Gadaffi elements into action and so the rebel alliance was formed.

'The West' had previously given assurances that it would support pro-democracy movements and could not be seen to be turning it's back on the anti-Gadaffi alliance.
However, they also had no desire to see the mutually beneficial relationship with Gadaffi damaged.
And probably most importantly for them they had to protect their oil interests.

Quite a difficult scenario with no easy solution.

This has led to a nothing policy which publicly supports The Rebels with half-arsed supportive air strikes which do relatively little real damaging effect on Gadaffi.

They know that if or when Gadaffi falls there is going to be a power vacuum and there are numerous groups who will make a bid for control thus possibly sparking another bloody civil war.
This would be in no-one's interests.

And I really think that 'The West' doesn't know what the best course of action is and as a result we have the current policy of fence sitting, indecision and non-committal contradictions.

Iraq has been a particularly hard lesson for all concerned which no-one wants to see a repeat of....I really don't envy the policy makers on this occassion as there are certainly no easy answers.

never mind.

Originally posted by Freeborn
And the usual suspects immediately link the killings to the US and not who all the available evidence suggests was responsible, extremist Muslims.

The report clearly states that an 'Al-Qaeda' like group Obaida Ibn Jarrah Brigade were responsible and that despite being allied to 'The Rebels' they were intent on letting people know that they were in control of the area and not the rebel National Transition council.

The simple fact is that 'the rebels' are a very loose coalition of Gadaffi's opponents who have many differences and some bitter grudges with each other.
These grudges have their roots in political, religious and tribal differences and some are deep rooted indeed.

Events in Libya are not helped by 'The West's' unco-ordinated and half-hearted approach and policies.

The whole Libya situation is going to be an absolute nightmare for 'The West' and they should never have allowed themselves to get dragged into the unsavoury situation.

This is all planned by design by Zionists. Don't forget that this is how all revolutions they do end up like, like the supposed "The Glorious Revolution," "French Revolution," "American Civil War," "Russian Revolution," etc. they all end in terror and with Jews gaining more ground. Why should we expect these supposed "Revolutions," which are just ways to destroy Middle Eastern monarchies like they did in Europe.

reply to post by rdavis


So it's all The Jews fault?

Bollocks!

I don't deny the Rothschilds and other Ashkenazi Jews have an influence and control that outstrips their numbers and they may even attempt to manipulate world events on occassion but to suggest there is a Zionist conspiracy which is behind every single revolutionary movement since way back when is, in my opinion for what little it's worth, nothing more than bigotted nonsense.

Please try to prove otherwise with facts, supportive evidence and reasoned debate and not just blanket statements and opinions.