Al-Qaeda Flag Planted On Libyan Courthouse…

Al-Qaeda Flag Planted On Libyan Courthouse…

nation.foxnews.com

It was here at the courthouse in Benghazi where the first spark of the Libyan revolution ignited. It’s the symbolic seat of the revolution; post-Gaddafi Libya’s equivalent of Egypt’s Tahrir Square. And it was here, in the tumultuous months of civil war, that the ragtag rebel forces established their provisional government and primitive, yet effective, media

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.deathandtaxesmag.com

Since the beggining I've been posting right here on ATS how these rebels had strong ties to Al-Qaeda and the Mujahadeen.

Now with the amount of intelligence the U.S. gathers how can mere ATS posters like me and you and even people in general that you spoke about Libya with be asking "Who are these rebels", "they have ties with terroist organizations" but the U.S. didn't ask any of this?

And then people call mainstream news skeptics conspiracy theorists?
I know this is a conspiracy site and I am very much an active member, but I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, just a skeptic.

There's no debate on this anymore, they will ensure that they do everything to have never ending wars.
This is what we'll always have to be accustomed to now.

This is our life now

What can we do other than vote for the guy who predicted Al-Qaeda taking over Libya and how he would never have invaded it.
I'm sure you can all guess who that is.

nation.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Just as Lindsay Williams said, Libya will be ruled by the muslim brotherhood.

reply to post by BarmyBilly

Syria's Mr Assad has said that he is fighting the muslim Brotherhood as well.

Mr Assad described the uprising as a "struggle between Islamism and pan-Arabism".

"We've been fighting the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1950s and we are still fighting with them," he said.

www.bbc.co.uk...

So a few years down the line I think the west will be thinking "darn it we shoulda let Gaddafi stay in power because now we have a regime who hates us even more"

Sigh bloody religion.............

This is quite interesting because I have just literally started work on a new thread looking into the link between Al’Qa’ida and the events in Libya over the past few months. I am still doing quite allot of reading into all of this but so far I have established that some elements within the rebel movement do have links to Al’Qa’ida through affiliated group which has been designated as a terrorist group by the UN 1267 committee. The problem however is that the links between this group, the LIFG and Al’Qa’ida are really rather ambiguous, its really is not as simple as saying “ LFIG are linked to Al’Qa’ida, LFIG are a terrorist group, we are supporting LFIG therefore we are supporting Al’Qa’ida”. It’s much more complex, not all of LIFG is Al’Qa’ida, joined Al’Qa’ida at the same time, some parts of the group have splintered off and others have denied any links to Al’Qa’ida and prior to the uprising in Libya MI6 worked with Libyan intelligence to capture the group’s leaders. Then to top it all off there is also a claim that in 1996 Brittan backed a assassination attempt by LIFG to kill Gaddafi, but its highly doubtful and in 1998 things in LIFG fell to bits. Like i said I hope to explain all this further within the next week or so.

The whole network is really complex as I have said, so far I think that yes there is most definitely a link between some of the rebels and Al’Qa’ida however that does not make them Al’Qa’ida nor does it mean that the west has been supporting terrorists. I hope to explain my position within the week and it may change depending on further reading I am still to do around LFIG.

Getting back to your thread specifically, it’s hard to tell from the picture in the article if this is the “flag of Al’Qa’ida”. I suspect it is not, the Al’Qa’ida flag is traditionally got yellow righting rather than white. There is no doubting that it looks similar but I would not be so quick to say “this is the flag of Al’Qa’ida”.

Shamefully I haven't been following this much at all. Briefly, in simple terms, did we just help a terrorist organisation linked with Al-Qaeda invade a country?

I feel so embarrassed asking this as it seems too crazy to be true. Haha

Yes, many of us knew that Al-Qaeda were prevelant in the uprise of Libya, yet the sheeple still went along with the BS being spouted by TPTB.

Sometimes it's a case of 'better the devil you know', but Gadaafi had been in the cross hairs for a long time and no matter how he was brought to his knees was of little consequence. As long as the end goal was achieved, it really didn't matter.

I think we can safely say that Al-Qaeda are now our friends, who no longer threaten our way of life? We shall see!!

One of the big voices of the "Moderate" Islamist party next door in Tunisia, when he was in exile, ranted about how he was going to hang an activist for women's rights in Tunisia.

This should give people an excellent point against which to pin what Moderate means.

Al-Qaeda from China to Mauritania have been saying the same thing for about 7 years. If you ever actually find a quote from them that isn't scrubbed they specifically say that their government is "resisting the Islamic State."

From China to Mauritania. The same message.

Wait what? Since when do underground evil organizations have their own flag? Am I in the twilight zone here?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by BarmyBilly

 

Mr Assad described the uprising as a "struggle between Islamism and pan-Arabism".

The Islamists are a tool of the Pan-Islamic movement. These things are not separate.

That the Arabs want to sit as the First amoungst them is just seen as their natural place.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Wait what? Since when do underground evil organizations have their own flag? Am I in the twilight zone here?

They have quite a few flags actually, but they are all variations on a theme.

Originally posted by ShedAlert
did we just help a terrorist organisation linked with Al-Qaeda invade a country?

No, we did not but some will argue that.

The terrorist group concerned is the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), now the Libyan Islamic Movement, their goal has always been to remove Gaddafi in the name of Islam, they have different objectives to Al’Qa’ida. However some members of LFIG have in the past had dealings with Al’Qa’ida, as when things went south for the group in 1998, in partly thanks to MI6, some members fled to Sudan and Afghanistan where they became connected with Al’Qa’ida training camps, the group are covered by UN committee 1267. In 2007 Al’Qa’ida’s number two announced that the LFIG was now fighting as part of Al’Qa’ida however many members of the group have refused to accept this as the group became very fractured after things fell apart.

It is undeniable that some of the rebels have links with Al’Qa-ida and may even have been members themselves. However on the whole they are a very small minority of the rebel movement and to my knowledge have no place in the National Transitional Counsel. What we have done is assisted in the liberation of a nation, we have not done this just so we could give Al’Qa’ida a new safe haven that would just never make sense even if you believe in the fictitious notion of “Al’CIAda”.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978I think we can safely say that Al-Qaeda are now our friends, who no longer threaten our way of life? We shall see!!

No, you just bought yourself a couple of years while they ramp up the production of heroine and petroleum so that they can solidify work on expansionism through conquest either through culture, demographics, economics or war.

One days freedom fighter is the next days terrorist......
I think we have learned that with bin laden.
But it all depends what side your on doesn't it?

If al queda (SP?) does take over Libya, it will obviously be easier to track them, than the previous rebel/militant group

We need to come to terms with reality here. No matter what we wish for there will only be 3 forms of government in the Islamic world:

- Absolute monarchies friendly with the West.
- Dictatorships friendly with the West.
- Islamic fundamentalist states that are stuck in the Middle Ages and hate everyone who isent a Muslim.

Pick your choice folks. I certainly prefer the first 2 choices to the last choice.

Does anyone honestly think we didn't know who we were supporting with the one billion in aid to the "rebels?"

please....

www.thedailybeast.com...

The comments after the article tell a more complete story.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!

It's a brave new world!

Are you actually saying that Al-Qaeda just might be friends with Nato, the Usa and Brittan?

But I taught they we're terrorists ...Nato's are not terrorists?!!

/end sarcasm

Originally posted by TKDRL
Wait what? Since when do underground evil organizations have their own flag? Am I in the twilight zone here?

Actually, I think all underground evil organizations have had their flag in history.

You know, I posted this in another forum. But I feel I need to post this here, too. Moderators, feel free to take it off if this violates in rules. My apologies if it does.

So, let me get this straight.

In 2005 we invaded Iraq in order to depose a Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, Bathist tyrant, in order to "liberate" it's various religiously, culturally, ideologically, and ethically fractious citizens. This was, in a very ill conceived attempt, to install a democracy in said country. What followed (predictably) was a bloody, medium-grade civil war, which inflamed secretarial hatred between Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Christians alike. A contention that still continues on (though at a lower intensity), even today. Furthermore, in installing a "democracy", in reality a loose coalition of the previously mentioned groups, whose sole aim is to prevent the other contending groups from having political and economic power (via oil export revenue to America and various allies and, contradictory enough, enemies, ) we have given the Shiite majority in Iraq huge political leverage. An issue most Americans would not care about, had it not been for the fact that Iran ( a majorly Shiite country), a supposed enemy of the United States, is using this Shiite majority in Iraq as a potential tool in a possible asymmetric war in the near future. An Sunni-Shia, asymmetric war that not only encompasses the nation of Iraq, but regional nations such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain and a host of other Middle East states. Most importantly it includes American oil allies (who are themselves Sunni tyrants, of the monarchist kind, hypocritically enough) who have been using their own military and the American military as a shield against rising Shia influence in the region as well is within their own borders.

Meanwhile in early 2011 a grassroots revolution, known as the "Arab Spring", swept through the Middle East, deposing various tyrants, some friends (Mubarak, in Egypt) and others enemies (Qaddafi, in Libya) of America. This authentic and homegrown movement undermined the argument that military intervention by the United States was necessary for political change in the Middle East. Of course, Libya can be considered an exclusion to this fact, but is still up for debate. Even more contradictory, various revolutions calling for liberty and fair elections (Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt) were supported by tyrannical dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, while other revolutions (see Bahrain), which called for same rights, were brutally suppressed by, again, Saudi Arabia. A double-standard overlooked by the United States, because of it's close economic (see oil exports) ties with the Saudi Royal Monarchy.

And now, at the closing of 2011, we find ourselves supposedly withdrawing troops from Iraq at the requests (excuse me---barely heard pleas) of the United States citizen, only to see these same troops be re-stationed, in potentially larger numbers, in the previously mentioned countries monarchist tyrannies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is in preparation for another potential conflict in the same region, only with Iran, instead of Iraq. And just as a historical side note, to heighten the idiocy that is this Middle East Absurdist/Surrealist drama, the United States gave weapons/money to Saddam Hussein (remember him?) in order to neutralize Iranian influence in the 80's. Furthermore, many of the revolutions, including the ones forced by the American military, (Iraq) have already (Tunisia), or are leading to (Egypt) governments whose Islamist tendencies (see Muslim Brotherhood) are antithetical to democratic ideals the United States foreign policy gurus had hoped would emerge.

So with all these realities in play, can someone please explain to me how U.S. foreign policy in the last 2 to 3 decades has made any rational sense? I would call this a conspiracy, but there is so little competence in how we have handled the events over in the Middle East, even that seems unlikely. Did I get any of this wrong? Heck, just to be nice, I've excluded the mess in Afganistan/Pakistan/India and Israel/Palestine/Lebanon. Please, tell me if I'm getting this wrong?

reply to post by theghoster


The "Arab Spring" is anything but grassroots.

It has been clearly a coordinated effort being directed through various actors both real and plants through-out the Arab world. It is being funded by a fund from Western governments.

The final goal is not democracy. It is a Shariahocracy.