Libyan Rebel Leader is with Al Queda! Cure worse than the disease...

Mostly, it's really semantics as to whether "Al Qaeda" exists, etc. (there are a bunch of different groups, loose alliances, etc.), but the simple fact is that the man leading the revolution for deposing Kadaffi (Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi) admits to: 1) actively recruiting men to fight the allied troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 2) many of his men being Al Qaeda.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, 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 insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

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.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Personally, maybe Kadaffi isn't worse than the alternative...??? Personally, I think the CIA was behind this insurrection from the start (after all, they released this guy earlier), but I'm not thinking this was a particularly good move. Kadaffi had pretty much retired from the world stage.

I'm intrigued to see if the Prince comes back to claims his throne as he came out early in support of the rebels. Now that would make an interesting twist.

I suspect a lot more is going on that we realise.. oh how I wish I could peek behind the curtains.

I completely agree with you. This was never about the LIbyan people.

According to eye witness reports coming out of Libya, NATO forces have fired on groups of innocent civilians, and deliberately carried out massive bombing of civilian targets.

The ranks of so-called rebels, have been increased by NATO shipping in mercenaries of all kinds, including Blackwater.

It seems that now the rebels are running amok, inflicting horrendous violence indiscriminately and carrying out ethinic cleansing against blacks.

NATO has deliberately created a hell hole, and much of the propaganda against Ghadaffi appears to have been almost certainly fabricated.

What has gone on in Libya is deliberate and widespread massacre and destruction by NATO forces in order to assuage their own bloodlust, greed for gold, oil and power and to suppress any country they perceive as a threat.

reply to post by Gazrok


Libya will become another "Southern Lebanon" in just afew short years; controlled by extremist Muslims. I have absolutely no doubts about it. That, my friend, was part of the plan. Five more stops to go.

reply to post by wcitizen



I guess that's where I'm having trouble....seeing the motivation of NATO, etc. After losing a few family members to U.S. bombs, Momar was pretty pliable, and no longer a major threat to world peace. (at least as far as the evidence suggests).

What on Earth would motivate us to support this rebel leader who is basically already our enemy right out of the gate? I'm just not seeing the big picture here. (but at least I can admit it).

reply to post by Gazrok


Enermies are always brought and sold; and they are all expendable without notice.

How much more proof do you need that "al-Qaeda" is nothing more than a CIA/mossad front? Israel was the one who sent 50k mercenaries to libya to fight for Qaddafi. They are the same people who were slaughtering libyans, which was used as a pretext for the NATO involvement. Here's the game: A. Send in mercenaries to cause mischeif. B. OMG people are being murdered by thugs, we gots to stop it!? C. Depose leader of said country and install a scary new "al-qaeda" guy as leader. D. OMGZ al qaeda controls that country, we have to police them to make sure they don't upload any more youtube videos. E. Rinse, and repeat. For reference see Egypt, Libya, Syria, and coming soon, Iran.

reply to post by Gazrok


If Qaddafi was a threat to world peace, then what does that make US? The brainwashing continues, next phase of brainwashing is enforced by Al-Jazeera.

Regarding this supposed "Al-Qaeda" (a term coined by US), he isn't that fond of NATO, nor is he that fond of NATO Haftari militia. This news merely shows how unpopular the fake revolution in Libya is, if it had at least a portion of the popularity which is claimed by MSM, then NATO bombs wouldn't have been needed for 6 months and surely NATO would not be that desperate, to sides with its own enemy.

This has always been the case, supporting unpopular groups, dictators, fascists, criminals... Why is this beneficial? Because if the extremely unpopular group rules a country, then they will continuously need the support of foreign powers, and foreign powers will ask for their own favours in exchange, for example France has been promised 35% of Libyan oil for its support.

The Libyan Jamahariya government was extremely popular, and it still is, after 6 months of heavy bombardment, the resistance continues, and NATO militia begging NATO to continue the attacks.

This is not a revolution, this is a failed war, they underestimated the will of the Libyan people, they probably thought after all that propaganda, and after all those bombs and after all those public hangings, torture and burning black people alive, mass abduction of at least 50,000 supporters of the Libyan government just in Tripoli, they thought after all of that, maybe that would break the will of the Libyan people, but no!!

reply to post by accentedsoul


Got proof of that my friend?

Until then....another conspiracy!

reply to post by accentedsoul


If that was the case though, why not skip the middle man, and simply prop up a rebel force that will be FRIENDLY to your cause, so that when they come to power, you can wheel and deal?

That's what we USED to do when staging rebellions and coups....

Well as I've already stated before ,Libya is good news for the military complex ,it's there wet dream of a perputuating war ,without end ,2000 tribes all armed to the teeth ,all have different religious factions ,all want a piece of the pie in a massive oil rich nation.

Simple logic dictates that its a matter of time before the west has to put troops on the ground ,to protect there large commercial contracts ,that are all being drawn up as we type ,and you can bet your life no one african nation gets one of these contracts.

The madness is only just beginning.

For instance the Obeidi tribe is furious with the TNC already as there's been no investigation over who killed rebel army commander Abdul Fattah Younis ,and the tribals have already threatened to exact justice with their own hands.
Then we have the chief suspect in the killing is the Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah brigade a hardcore Islamic fundamentalist militia that has rejected NATO intervention and refused to fight under the TNC ,branding both TNC and NATO as "infidels".


Then we have General Abdelhakim Belhaj the Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)-al-Qaeda ,how long before his group organize their own putsch to take out the TNC?.

I could go on and on ,but I'm sure you all get the gist of what I'm getting at here.

reply to post by TheMaverick

Well as I've already stated before ,Libya is good news for the military complex ,it's there wet dream of a perputuating war ,without end ,2000 tribes all armed to the teeth ,all have different religious factions ,all want a piece of the pie in a massive oil rich nation.

Simple logic dictates that its a matter of time before the west has to put troops on the ground ,to protect there large commercial contracts ,that are all being drawn up as we type ,and you can bet your life no one african nation gets one of these contracts.

True, it's the one thing that makes sense...and I was really hoping that some other conclusion could be drawn as to why we'd be doing this.... I have to admit though, even though I had a similar idea at first, I had dismissed it as being a bit too paranoid and too much of a conspiracy. But, so far, it does seem to be the only reason that makes sense.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I guess that's where I'm having trouble....seeing the motivation of NATO, etc. After losing a few family members to U.S. bombs, Momar was pretty pliable, and no longer a major threat to world peace. (at least as far as the evidence suggests).

What on Earth would motivate us to support this rebel leader who is basically already our enemy right out of the gate? I'm just not seeing the big picture here. (but at least I can admit it).

There are many reasons, I think. The NWO always have multiple layers in their plans. Here's a few.

1. Resources. Gold, Oil, huge bank accounts (Europe and US are broke)
2. He was standing up to the NWO.
3. He was creating a different kind of blueprint for democracy, which was a threat to the status quo of our 'Western' style democracies and in many ways puts them to shame.. It wasn't well known, but had it become widely known in the West it could have exposed and challenged the banksters' and governments power and their defrauding of the people of their country. He had faults, yes, but he also did a lot of good things for his country.
4. He intended to ditch the dollar as the oil currency.
5. Another US military base in that region - preparation for a future attack Iran?
6. Creates more chaos in the world, which the NWO seem to see as desirable for their own insane reasons.
7. Perpetual war.
8. To keep people all over the world in a state of fear.
9. Psychopathy. Our leaders are psychopaths.

It has been interesting to see that the two first things the 'rebels' did was make oil agreements with NATO coalition countries and set up a Rothschild controlled bank.

He intended to ditch the dollar as the oil currency.

That alone would likely be reason enough for a regime change, it seems....was for Saddam...