It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

About Libya My Findings

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
In my research for the truth, I found a lots of sources and evidence pointing the Rebels to the CIA, NGOs involvement and a study from a 2007 report from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point shows and has clear evidence pointing that the eastern part of libya are a hotbed for in Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber and fighters Recruitment.

Did you know what else and what the western mainstream isn't reporting to you about that the fact the rebels are the National Front Salvation Of Libya?




NFSL was based in Sudan until a coup d'état led to the fall of Colonel Gaafar Nimeiry in 1985. The NFSL has opposed military and dictatorial rule in Libya, and called for a democratic government with constitutional guarantees, free elections, a free press, and separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. NFSL launched a wide campaign to topple Gaddafi in Libya, establishing a short-wave radio station, a commando military training camp and also published a bi-monthly newsletter, Al Inqadh (Salvation). According to various sources, Saudi Arabia and the United States Central Intelligence Agency have supported the NFSL





Now For the that west point evidence

West Point Study

Its there you need the pdf file if you read it from there



Ten reasons why the U.S. war in Libya is a CIA operation
Gives excellent points and sources
Ten Reasons Why Libya Operation its CIA


Fake Western Mainstream News Reports Manipulating the Viewers In The West

Some of the stuff may included graphic content please view it if you want to seek the truth.


What you don't know about Libya conflict

This video with news clips has less graphic content on.


CIA with the rebels
In Short
Gaddafi never fired any first shots or killings at civilians it was the rebels who took the first blood the protest on Feb 17 wasn't about Gaddafi it was about the leading prime minster yet somehow overnight the protests shifted towards Gaddafi and Gaddafi only.

With crystal clear protest signs in English such as these

Game Over Gaddafi

Oil For The West
Ah that protest sign was interesting it was actually a hint for what were protests made for, and yet the protest sign was in clear English, and the text was made in to look like an American flag.


So What did the Terrorists,Armed thugs do in East Libya?



Benghazi- Rebels storm a local army base and force the soldiers at gunpoint to give up there tanks and weapons


Quryna reports that rebels storm and overtaken a prison in Benghazi,freeing 1,000 nonpolitical prisoners



According to Reuters "Protesters in the port city of Benghazi chanted slogans demanding the resignation of prime misnter Baghdadi Al-Mahmoudi. There were no immediate reports of demonstrations agaisnt Gaddafi


attacking your own country soldiers,police officers,setting fires on banks, freeing terrorists and nonpolitical prisoners from prisons well claiming that you want democracy doesn't sound very revolutionary.

Now does it?

I Wonder how do you think how would America Britain if either there own people rise up and thugs do these same things you think the government in America would just let the door open at the Pentagon for the rebels in America? i think not.


So Americans its time to stop watching the western mainstream propaganda, i wasn't surprised that al jazeera actually supports the rebels they do have a Qatar reporter along who has been on the side with them, she has been with them for quite some time.

As For Those pro rebel disinformation agent artists, there tricks aren't going to work here.

edit on 17-8-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on Wed Aug 17 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: ex tags




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Pro-Gaddafi Forces strength = 20,000 - 40,000 soldiers

Anti-Gaddafi (Rebel) Forces = Less than 10,000 + unknown number of NATO and UN troops


Population of Libya (2010) = 6,420,000
Estimated number of rebels = less than 20,000
Proportion of rebels to Libyan Population = 3.12%

When you have roughly 96.9% of the people in Libya supporting Gaddafi, even someone with a pea sized brain would realise that this is an illegal war against him by NATO and the UN.

Sources:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17-8-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 




How can anyone trust polls of a nation that's not a republic or even a democracy?

I mean, it's like in China, or in the US Wisconsin. Polls do not do justice to reality. And the reality is, in all three of those places I mentioned, people are fighting.

Plus you make the assumption of "if they're not with us, they're against us.

There is such a thing as neutrality. IE, people just don't want to go and get killed for wither side.

I would imagine, as is the case in many rebellions, only about 10% or so of the country is actually doing the fighting. And from those numbers alone, and the fact that the rebels are indeed still marching and not having been wiped out yet, which they would have if your numbers were correct, then I'd give a safe bet that it's probably cut maybe 3-2. Can't say whose on whose side, but I can say that it's clear the rebels haven't been wiped out. If they really were so few, they would have been.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


CasiusIgnoranze is a 100% right and your wrong



I would imagine, as is the case in many rebellions, only about 10% or so of the country is actually doing the fighting. And from those numbers alone, and the fact that the rebels are indeed still marching and not having been wiped out yet, which they would have if your numbers were correct, then I'd give a safe bet that it's probably cut maybe 3-2. Can't say whose on whose side, but I can say that it's clear the rebels haven't been wiped out. If they really were so few, they would have been.



Back in March the rebels numbers were only about 500 to 1000 now compare that with libyas army of 79.000
the rebels are hired western terrorists just like the way america created the taliban in the early 1980s just to kick the soviets out and you know what happend then? america gave the taliban right to control the country.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Or that Ghaddafi's forces just plain suck. That is quite a huge difference in numbers even when you add in what NATO has been doing. Maybe most of them ran home once the bombing started.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Yes the US created Alqueada. Your point?

But that was a different administration. Now I know that in countries that have prolonged dictatorships lie yours, you're not used to the concept of elections. But the fact is every 4 years a different person controls the country. What that means is that one leader is not responsible for the ills of another.

IE, while another president authorized the funding of alqueada to fight the soviets, that is not the same president funding the rebels in Libya.

Fact remains, as it always has, that no matter how much you fund something, it doesn't control weather or not the people join it. The US is funding something that people are joining. if they weren't, then the operation would have failed.

Or perhaps that's too much to accept? That Gaddafi simply has no means to win this war. For a man who is supposedly so popular, one would expect more people fighting for him. One would also imagine he wouldn't be planning to blow up his own capitol when he inevitably looses.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Back in March the rebels numbers were only about 500 to 1000 now compare that with libyas army of 79.000
the rebels are hired western terrorists just like the way america created the taliban in the early 1980s just to kick the soviets out and you know what happend then? america gave the taliban right to control the country.


Actually, in March, rebel strength was estimated to be between 15-20,000, with comparable sized forces on Gaddafi's sized consisting mostly of a few loyal Brigades of mostly non-Libyan mercenaries.

The Libyan Army was deliberately weakened over the years by Gaddafi so a revolt could not happen in the same manner as he took power and it is not really the Libyan Army that is fighting the rebels now, just a few loyal Brigades. The bulk of the Army has deserted or defected.

But then, as a studiously informed commentator on these matters, you'd know this.

And the figures presented by the other guy are just deliberate spinning of facts. Using the same logic, you can assume that because Gaddafi only has about the same strength (if not less now) as the rebels, he too only enjoys a tiny amount of support from the Population at large?

What is probably more accurate is the women aren't fighting (half the population gone already) and then you have the children, so that's another significant chunk of the population. Then you have old people and those unwilling to fight, leaving only a few tens of thousands of young, active men willing to fight for either side.

So basically, the premise alluded to about the rebel support based upon their fighting strength is erroneous and is an outright lie.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


with our help

a country with a very high literacy rate, a solid economy, widely available higher education, home ownership, safety and rights for women, medical care and other benefits is about to become

another Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban or whatever they are calling themselves these days,, Muslim Brotherhood?

Its a travesty. We should be concerned about the plight of the ordinary people of a country and things are only going to get worse for the Libyans. Poor women, poor children, poor teachers and professors, poor nurses and doctors, You name it.

And we helped! Proud? or ashamed.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Well that is possible but it's also possible they may do better after we install our puppet government. History has instances of both good and bad examples.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

Maybe but the rebels are getting there.

www.freep.com...

TRIPOLI, Libya -- Rebel fighters inched closer to Tripoli late Saturday, and heavy explosions and gunfire fueled reports that the battle for the stronghold of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had begun.

In a televised statement, Libyan rebel chief Mustafa Abdul-Jalil did not address widespread and unverifiable reports that Gadhafi and his two sons had fled the country. But he called for calm and said the end was near for Gadhafi's 40-year stranglehold on the oil-rich north African nation.

"We are depending on you to protect your wealth, your ports and your national institutions," Abdul-Jalil said on the rebels' satellite channel.

The fighting in Tripoli erupted just hours after rebel fighters captured the key city of Zawiya, just 30 miles away.

Journalists in Tripoli reported hearing gun battles and mortar rounds. NATO aircraft were bombing government positions, including SCUD missile launchers, and loud explosions boomed across the city.

"We planned this operation with NATO, our Arab associates and our rebel fighters in Tripoli," Abdul-Jalil, told Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera.

Rebels said they had taken control of Tajoura, an eastern suburb of Tripoli, and that heavy fighting was going on in the Souk Al-Jumma marketplace in another eastern neighborhood.

Two hours after rebels said they had attacked Tripoli, official television ran what appeared to be a live audio message by Gadhafi. Sounding like he was calling the message in on a poor phone line, he announced the time and date twice to prove that he was speaking live.

Gadhafi condemned the rebels as traitors and vermin who are tearing Libya apart and said they were being chased from city to city.

"The collaborators ... are not in control. They are escaping like rats," Gadhafi said.

"People are kissing my picture," he added. "I am their leader; I am their father."

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim appeared on Libyan television to deny there was an uprising in Tripoli. But he acknowledged that there was some kind of unusual activity.

"There were some armed militants who escaped into some neighborhoods and there were some scuffles, but we dealt with it within a half hour and it is now calm," he said.

If the rebels did indeed attack Tripoli, it would be the first time in the six-month-old civil war. The rebels made early gains in the revolt, capturing most of the east and rising up in a few other major cities such as Zawiya and Misrata. But Gadhafi's forces fought back and until a week ago, the civil war had been mired in a stalemate.

But Gadhafi was increasingly isolated as fighters advanced closer to Tripoli, a metropolis of 2 million people, from the west, south and east and gained control of major supply roads.

After hard-fought battles for a week in Zawiya, the rebels finally wrested the city's oil refinery, central square and hospital from Gadhafi's forces and drove them out in a major victory Saturday.

Hours later, they said they were attacking Tripoli.

Col. Fadlallah Haroun, a military commander in Benghazi, said the battles marked the beginning of Operation Mermaid -- a nickname for Tripoli. He said weapons were assembled and sent by tugboats to Tripoli on Friday night.

"The fighters in Tripoli are rising up in two places at the moment -- some are in the Tajoura neighborhood and the other is near the Matiga airport," he told Al-Jazeera.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join