Libyan rebels recieve 'foreign training'

Libyan rebels recieve 'foreign training'

english.aljazeera.net

US and Egyptian special forces have reportedly been offering covert armed training to rebel fighters in the battle for Libya, Al Jazeera has been told.

An unnamed rebel source related how he had undergone training in military techniques at a "secret facility" in eastern Libya.

He told our correspondent Laurence Lee, reporting from the rebel-stronghold of Benghazi, that he was sent to fire Katyusha rockets but was given a simple, unguided version of the rocket instead.

(visit the link for the full news article)

While the debate rages on wether the U.S and external froces should arm the rebels, it appears as if it is already being covertly done. I would just like to recite somthing that I have learnt from history. External forces do not arm men, if they believe they have nothing to gain from it. 800 people died in one village Cote d'Ivorie yesteray, yet supporters of this intervention dare speak to us about humanitarianism.
Obama, is this what you meant by no boots on the ground?

english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


We killed off a lot of al'Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan that the CIA had previously trained and provided weapons to, so most of these new guys were incompetent. Looks like we're finally bringing them up to speed.

*facepalm* How long until this turns against us?

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Seems to me it's SOP for the US..
Divide and conquer...
Prolong the war by aiding one side but not enough to ensure their victory..
That way death and destruction is maximized...

We have to be careful arming them because we can't let be a mistake like the US, UK, Saudi Arabia did the Al-Qaeda though.

This is nothing new. We trained civilian police in Iraq. This is a tactic that has been put in place long before "the CIA and al qaeda"

This has already been posted before. Please do a search next time if your topic has already been posted in a thread.

reply to post by backinblack


war is a racket
The U.S intervened in the same way during the Bosnian-Serb war. All it caused was a destructve stalemate.

Based on what I've seen in the news so far, it looks like they really need it. Footage never seemed to show much in the way of a cohesive strategy or tactics from what I could tell. (Regular players of paintball or FPS games would appear to have better understanding of these things. The troublemakers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan certainly do.) Of course the press footage could have been from "safe" areas, or maybe those people were being "bait" but still it looked really sloppy.

I think some starter points would be not to shoot in the air when NATO air cover is present, and not to waste any ammo. No more celebratory gunfire, and no more attempts of cover fire when shots are considerably out of range. Save celebrating the outcome of battles and skirmishes for after the war is won. You've got to lie low and prepare for the next step, since being smart and sneaky is more likely to win this kind of conflict. It seems like really basic stuff, but it appears that's what needs to be taught.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by backinblack

 

war is a racket
The U.S intervened in the same way during the Bosnian-Serb war. All it caused was a destructve stalemate.

edit on 3-4-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

Pretty much what I said

BTW, good book..Should be compulsory reading in school...
Might stop many from joining our corporate run military...

"An unnamed rebel source related how he had undergone training in military techniques at a "secret facility" in eastern Libya. "

That sounds like a "training camp".. and if al-queada linked terrorists were there, these "rebels" came from a "terrorist training camp"..

And I thought these so called "rebels" were every day freedom craving folks who have had enough.

"rebel" is a modern euphemism for "freedom fighter".. new wars and justifications for violence need new and improved terms.. freedom fighter is so 80's, people wouldn't but it. "Sir polling data shows the ipod generation responds favorably to being "rebellious", so our firm recommends "rebel" be the focal point of your Libya war profiteering marketing campaign.."..."hrrrumph! haaaarrumph!!.."

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
We have to be careful arming them because we can't let be a mistake like the US, UK, Saudi Arabia did the Al-Qaeda though.

You think arming them will be the only blowback factor? The very fact that they are being trained and manipulated into killing their own countrymen will come back ten fold in the future. Weapons are easy to acquire; knowledge and experience in hatred are well earned and not easily lost.

GovtFlu-
you make a good point. Would you agree that these "rebels" are actually terrorists, backed up by training, ideology and objectives beyond regime change? Because I fail to see the major difference between Al Qaeda-trained fighters and CIA-trained "rebels".

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


"GovtFlu- you make a good point. Would you agree that these "rebels" are actually terrorists, backed up by training, ideology and objectives beyond regime change? Because I fail to see the major difference between Al Qaeda-trained fighters and CIA-trained "rebels"."

I'll agree that gadaffi considers rebels to be terrorists.. and if these same "rebels" were being trained at a camp in Waziristan, ozamba would summarily drone slaughter them... announcing "terrorists" were killed.

IMO these so called "rebels" are what they are: trained fighters.. they don't appear to be regular folks motivated by an urge to rise up and fight for Libyan freedom.. so I'm guessing they were motivated by PAY, making them mercenaries... probably funded by some greasy govt related bag of dicks.

Since when has the MSM used "rebel"?.. lol.. wtf is that?.. is there a strict journalist standard defining who is an "insurgent", a "terrorist", or a "rebel"?.. who decides?.. and what happened to "freedom fighters"?.. are there no more left? if they're all gone does that mean freedom lost?

reply to post by GovtFlu

I'll agree that gadaffi considers rebels to be terrorists.. and if these same "rebels" were being trained at a camp in Waziristan, ozamba would summarily drone slaughter them... announcing "terrorists" were killed.

But who's fighting on Gadaffi's side?
Didn't he bring in paid mercenaries??

reply to post by GovtFlu


Freedom is ours through knowledge. Eve ate the apple to be free, and thus both Adam and Eve were expelled from the perceptual paradise and into the bleak infinity that is freedom.

Because of our awareness, and our willingness to infect others with knowledge, we are freedom fighters.

This would seem to contradict other threads' claims that these fighters in Libya are battle-hardened Al Queda fighters from Iraq. Looks more like they are incompetent locals who know nothign about military strategy.

Originally posted by GovtFlu


IMO these so called "rebels" are what they are: trained fighters.. they don't appear to be regular folks motivated by an urge to rise up and fight for Libyan freedom..

They don't 'appear' Based on what?

Thanksinadvance

I don’t really think this is news, we were told last week that CIA SAD operatives were on the ground and long before that knew that the SAS were on the ground, its logical to assume that the French special forces are also on the ground. It is reasonable to assume that these troops have multiple objectives, one of the obvious ones being to locate targets and recognisance but it also seems that they will be assisting the rebels in more direct ways. Most probably in training, providing weapons and attempting to establish a command structure and communications network. It is a clear breach of UN resolution 1970, however can be justified under UN Resolution 1973, it’s all very complicated but why is it ok to arm one side but not the other. This is about regime change, and it should be about protecting civilian populations.

Although I do agree with some posters who have pointed out the comparison between the arming of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan I think you are approaching it from the wrong angle. The Mujahedeen trained back in the 1980’s were not Al’Qa’ida or Taliban, not of them came from the Northern Alliance who helped the during the first phased of the war in Afghanistan. I do accept that some of those who were trained under operation cyclone probably did join the Taliban or Al’Qa’ida however this is not true of the entirety of the membership of these groups nor did the intelligence services at the time have the opportunity to recognise how they may present a future threat.

However, I digress, I am do not approve of arming the rebels, I think it is in breach of both UN resolutions and will lead to a blood bath at some point in the future. It is clear that the international community is seeking regime change and not to protect civilian populations, this must be addressed.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by backinblack

 

war is a racket
The U.S intervened in the same way during the Bosnian-Serb war. All it caused was a destructve stalemate

Which side would you have prefered to win so it could massacre the other?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by backinblack

 

war is a racket
The U.S intervened in the same way during the Bosnian-Serb war. All it caused was a destructve stalemate

Which side would you have prefered to win so it could massacre the other?

Just so you during the Bosnian war in the so called massacre the Muslim leadership wanted the massacre to happen that way the U.S would intervened and also if the serbs did the massacre where are the satellite images to prove it? besides the us had huge interests in the Balkans and that interests were about Oil.


Did you know camp bondsteel in kosovo rests along side near the oil pipelines of kosovo? and the fact halliburton
was the one whom made camp bondsteel? and why did they made it, simple to protect the oil interests.

Which side would you have prefered to win so it could massacre the other?

I would have let the serbs win and not intervened because of oil, tell me why doesn't america intervene in yemen?


And now that Bosnians muslim run bosnia why wont they fix there own country up? afterall there muslim leaders during the war promised Bosnians an Islamic state of bosnia would bring them jobs and low prices, i guess they have lied haven't they.


About serbinnca serbs also lived in serbinnca there, so serbinnca it just wasn't a muslim town it was a mixer, but dont expect the western media to tell you that.