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.

 

Gaddafi loyalists take back Bani Walid

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
"Liberation" The gift that apparently keeps giving.


I think now that Gaddafi is no longer with us many have stopped paying attention to the situation and Libya has fallen off the RADAR for many. There have been a smattering of "Unconfirmed reports" of 12,000 US troops arriving in Libya from bases in Malta. PressTV even recently ran with this bit of "Speculation"

I've said many times here at ATS that I oppose US boots on the Ground [In an official Capacity] since day one. Now what? A protracted Civil war [As has been predicted] the possibility of which seems to be escalating.



As always..

Stay tuned.

Gaddafi loyalists take back Bani Walid

Fighters loyal to Muammar Gaddafi have seized back the town of Bani Walid and raised the late dictator's green flag, in a blow to Libya's struggling provisional government.

Reports said at least four people were killed during clashes between besieged forces loyal to the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) and armed and well-organised supporters of Gaddafi. "They control the town now. They are roaming the town," one militia member was quoted as saying of the pro-Gaddafi fighters, according to Reuters.

Bani Walid, a former regime stronghold 110 miles south-east of Tripoli, was one of the last to succumb to pro-government forces after the capital fell in August. The latest clashes mark the most significant loyalist attack since Libya was officially "liberated" on 23 October. It appears further evidence of the NTC's weakness, incapacity and internal divisions ahead of supposed national elections later this year.






edit on 23-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: Muzzleflash was kind enough to inform me of a gramical error





posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


There was a deployment of 15,000 boots to Kuwait around the time people were saying 12,000 boots were in Libya, www.abovetopsecret.com... so I wonder if these reports are being confused.

edit: here's some very recent related links about this town takeover

UPDATE 2-Gaddafi supporters seize control of Libyan town


af.reuters.com...

Fighting Flares in Libyan Town Still Loyal to Qaddafi Regime


www.businessweek.com...

Gaddafi diehards seize former regime base


www.news24.com...

Gadhafi loyalists attack Libyan town, killing 4


www.usatoday.com...

Fighting erupts in Libya's Bani Walid


www.aljazeera.com...

Libya interior minister denies attack 'by Kadhafi men'


www.dailystar.com.lb...


Libya is feared to engage in Civil War



Protesters storm Libyan government HQ in Benghazi


www.portalangop.co.ao... l

Why are Libyans protesting again?


www.aljazeera.com...


Libyan Political Leader Welcomes NTC Member’s Resignation


www.voanews.com...

Protesters shake transitional government in Libya


bostonglobe.com...



edit on 23-1-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Good for them. They got screwed, royally, with the overthrow (unnecessary) and the setting up of a central bank was the kicker. If anyone needs to know whether it was right or wrong, there's your answer. They are now slaves to the International Banking Cartel.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Maybe the fighters from Al Qaeda in the NTC dont see eye to eye with the others.
I've seen the Al Qaeda flag flying from government buildings and they say the sharia is now in place.

Maybe the 12,000 boots on the ground are to keep the "boys" under control.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The war in Libya will probably continue for quite awhile, possibly even a decade. There are many issues, trade disputes, civil unrest, etc.


Originally posted by SLAYER69

I've said many times here at ATS that I appose US boots on the Ground [In an official Capacity] since day one.


You mean you oppose it.

"appose" means :

1. to place side by side or near to each other


Two links:
Link 1
Link 2

Unless of course you meant that you favor intervention in Libya, which I doubt, because I have heard you express your opposition to it many times.

Because if you were in apposition with "boots on the ground", that would mean you are in proximity to that policy, or consider your position equivalent.

"apposition":

1.
a. A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence


edit on 23-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Hey thanks for pointing out my Grammatical error.

I'll fix it now.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
There have been a smattering of "Unconfirmed reports" of 12,000 US troops arriving in Libya from bases in Malta.

Unless there is a report that isn't coming from that loon Cynthia McKinney, or isn't based on her blathering ... I'm not going to buy into the 12,000 US troops chatter. Other than that my only comment at this point is ... there are still Gaddafi loyalists around? Really? They are loyal to the dead guy even though it's really obvious that TPTB have changed the course of Libya?? I'm a bit surprised.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Hey thanks for pointing out my Grammatical error.

I'll fix it now.




Thank you for not taking it the wrong way.

The only reason I bothered pointing it out is because I knew you would find it funny that you accidentally said the opposite of what you meant to say.

edit on 23-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




I remember reading through a pretty heated debate over her on a related thread.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 




Hey thanks for all the various sources.

Having posted them.

I wonder if one could argue that the MSM can at times get the stories straight?
[Still wouldn't trust them though]



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


So what do you think is going to happen now that a 'power vacuum' has been opened in Libya?

I would assume that there will be civil war and strife for a very long time as various power blocs attempt to topple each other and take control of the nation.

Also I expect there will be various exterior influences as well, especially in relation to trade issues.

This conflict could drag on for decades. I wouldn't be surprised.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Yip well Libyians needs to understand for in order for our governments to function we need them to open up there markets and let us sell them Mcdonalds, Starbucks and ipads.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Ixtab because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The Oil fields will be secured [As best they can be] with small pockets of [Secured Areas of the willing] meaning those who will cooperate with the New Landlords. While there will be pockets and regions something similar to the Wild West.

Somehow I feel this as you put it will go on for possibly decades.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972
Maybe the fighters from Al Qaeda in the NTC dont see eye to eye with the others.
I've seen the Al Qaeda flag flying from government buildings and they say the sharia is now in place.



It is impossible to have "law and order", when the people are embroiled within lawlessness and disorder.

This will lead to unnecessary violence and conflict, and we will probably see more extrajudicial killings as the turmoil escalates.

Also I would highly suggest that the terminology "Al Qaeda" is being misapplied here because we are talking about opposition to the National Transitional Council. "Al Qaeda" refers to a terrorist organization, which may indeed be operating within Libya, however the average citizens who are simply opposed to the NTC should be more properly referred to as 'traditionalists', or possibly even the "anti-NTC bloc".

With all things considered we could be talking about four or more separate groups with separate ideologies and agendas here.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Well, none of us predicted this did we.


Libya has the potential to be at least as screwed up as Iraq.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
To be honest since NATO intervened and aided in toppling the original government, NATO is now obligated by international law to restore order.

So now we actually do 'need to' commit to aiding in the resolution of these conflicts and redress the grievances that were caused by the intervention in the first place.

This is why nations should not intervene within internal conflicts of other nations, because through misplaced or illegitimate interventionism a situation has developed where further intervention is necessary otherwise we will be witnessing a prolonged and escalating conflict.

So although it is true NATO should not be involved in the first place, it is now prudent to remain involved in order to resolve the conflicts and keep a lid on the situation. I hate to say that but it's the only way I can see order and lawfulness returning to Libya within 10 years.
edit on 23-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


Disclaimer: That is only under the condition that "NATO would actually do the right thing", of which we all know deep down inside that they probably won't. So in the case that NATO will muck it all up, it doesn't matter if we stay involved or let them have a full blown civil war.
edit on 23-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





I think now that Gaddafi is no longer with us many have stopped paying attention to the situation and Libya has fallen off the RADAR for many.


I have seen very little, if any, coverage on the MSM about Libya recently. I periodically check for recent updates on Libya on the web, and it dosent look like the situation over there has been going anywhere good at all. Here's some of the most recent articles Ive found.

New clashes leave two dead in Libya

(this is from last week)


New clashes in Libya leave at least two people dead and more than 40 injured



A militia group from the town of Gharyan clashed with a rival armed group from the nearby town of Assabia, an official in Prime Minister Abdel Rahim al-Kib's office said. He said there was no immediate information on casualties, but added that the two militias had been fighting since Friday.


Rebels fighting rebels. I believe this conflict was diffused a few days ago with a prisoner swap. I guess opposing rebels had rebel pows.

Libya: Protesters attack TNC offices


BENGHAZI, Libya, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- A mob smashed windows and ransacked offices of Libya's Transitional National Council in Benghazi Sunday in anger over secrecy and ties to the former government.


Looks like some of the population dosent even trust the new government. Plus, wasnt Benghazi the leading rebel town once the revolution started?


Deputy council leader Abdel Hafedh Ghoga quit to protest the protest, al-Jazeera reported.


Quit to protest the protest? Why not actually try to make the situation better, instead of just jumping ship? Fine leadership right there...Plus, on thursday, this guy was confronted by a group of about 4,000 protesters in Benghazi's University of Ghar Yunis.

Libya leader says 'civil war' possible if NTC quits


Libyan leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said Sunday the nation would fall into a "civil war" if the ruling National Transitional Council resigned, as it faced its first major challenge.



"We are not going to resign because it would lead to civil war," NTC head Abdel Jalil said in an interview on the Libya al-Hurra television station late Sunday as protests raged in Benghazi.


This whole situation looks like it is on the edge of a cliff. Rebels have already clashed with eachother, protesters bombed the NTC offices in Benghazi with home-made grenades, and now Gaddafi loyalists are fighting back.

Apparently, the head of the NTC thinks there are "hidden hands" behind the protests to.


Abdel Jalil said some "hidden hands" were "pushing the demonstrators."



Crowds of protesters threw several home-made grenades at and stormed the NTC offices with iron rods and stones before setting the building's front ablaze, witnesses and council members said.

edit on 23-1-2012 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Well, none of us predicted this did we.


Libya has the potential to be at least as screwed up as Iraq.



True.

However, Iraq does have some semblance of a semi functioning Government and I think China [Which was awarded the right to develop the largest untapped fields] came out ahead of everybody.

Libya on the other hand is in total Chaos.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Well, none of us predicted this did we.


Libya has the potential to be at least as screwed up as Iraq.


I am afraid that it already could possibly be.
It's hard to tell with such a lack of communication and information.

I expect sectarian violence to become more extreme as time progresses.
Don't be surprised if this one becomes even more screwed up than Iraq was.

At least in Iraq there was an overpowering superior force to suppress sectarian violence by exerting overwhelming violence. In Libya we don't quite have that card in play in the same manner. Without such a superior force to 'suppress the conflict', we are going to witness smaller factions fighting it out over a prolonged period.

The map could change rapidly. We could see the development of 'city-states' if not already. There would be internal conflict within cities, as factions attempt to take control of the 'city-states'. Rioting, looting, neighbors killing each other for political power or resources, refugees attempting to flee, etc.

All of this could happen in brief spurts over a long period. The situation is liquid, it can flow and change shape quickly. Without up to the minute reports and data, there is no way to tell what is really happening or to predict what will happen next.

Libya is indeed a real Pandora's box. There is no way to tell what will become of it.

I really don't know what to say.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
To be honest since NATO intervened and aided in toppling the original government, NATO is now obligated by international law to restore order.

So now we actually do 'need to' commit to aiding in the resolution of these conflicts and redress the grievances that were caused by the intervention in the first place.


I think those NATO countries most heavily involved should shoulder the Lions share of the cost.

No?



This is why nations should not intervene within internal conflicts of other nations, because through misplaced or illegitimate interventionism a situation has developed where further intervention is necessary otherwise we will be witnessing a prolonged and escalating conflict.


In for a penny, in for a pound?



So although it is true NATO should not be involved in the first place, it is now prudent to remain involved in order to resolve the conflicts and keep a lid on the situation. I hate to say that but it's the only way I can see order and lawfulness returning to Libya within 10 years.

Disclaimer: That is only under the condition that "NATO would actually do the right thing", of which we all know deep down inside that they probably won't. So in the case that NATO will muck it all up, it doesn't matter if we stay involved or let them have a full blown civil war.



Even with your Disclaimer....

No matter what NATO does from here on out they will be considered in many peoples eyes as [Imperialists] or at the very least [Corporate lackeys]
edit on 23-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join