AC-130s and A-10s over Libya now? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AC-130s and A-10s over Libya now? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:33:03 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:35:19 AM EDT

[#2]

I think some folks here are being entirely optimistic.

"Some of the rebels." Is that suppose to be a joke? Folks do know that Libya has been crawling with fundamentalist and radical since the 70s right? Training camps for terrorists were well established there throughout the 80s. To assume that only "some" of the rebels are radicals I think is being incredibly optimistic.

Hell, Ayman al-Zawahiri (AQ's number 2) is from right next door Egypt where he ran Egyptian Islamic Jihad. North Africa crawls with radicals. Place has been infested with them for decades. I don't trust any movement that doesn't have clear leadership over there that we can meet with and put a face saying "this guy is not a terrorist."

Name me the rebel leader in Libya. Nobody can do it. Oh, it's a rebel council, which really means a loose confederation of folks only held together by their common desire to take out Gaddafi. Once Gaddafi is gone they'll turn on each other at record speed as someone tries to take the lead.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:38:14 AM EDT

[#3]

Great way to...

Piss away billions of dollars we don't have.

Give the next Osama Bin Laden a start.

Turn a thoroughly fucked up yet relatively stable nation into... who knows but it will likely be worse than what it was.

Create some additional temporary insincere friends and some permanent dedicated enemies.

Further wear down a military already stretched pretty thin.

Did I mention further spend our children into permanent oppressive tax slavery?

Our once great nation is little more than a rotting corpse.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:38:43 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Where do you see a government like that? Sounds like a strawman.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:39:59 AM EDT

[#5]

Democracy without protection for religious freedom or minority groups can be just as helpful to AQ as any dictatorship and maybe more so. Hitler did pretty well in free and fair elections. Democratic elections don't ensure freedom.

AQ can manipulate the mob through their religious preachings especially during times of economic hardship when the mob is more prone to follow anyone with an answer.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:49:48 AM EDT

[#6]

We're withdrawing from Iraq December 31st, 2011.

Afghanistan draw down starts in July.

It remains to be seen as to whether or not they will produce nations ruled by laws created by elected officials with religious freedom and minority rights. To jump into another conflict to practice a theory still unproven "COIN/Nation Building" just seems a little foolish when no threat is presented to the USA or our interests that is immediate.

IN FACT, our involvement in Libya is COUNTER to our national interests and the interests of our allies. If Gaddaffi had been allowed to put down the rebels the 2% of the world's oil supply that Libya produces would again flow onto the market. Now, we have prolonged this conflict and that oil will not be exported at full capacity to the markets in Europe. The drop in oil supply from Egypt will allow nations like Iran and Russia to profit from the rising crude oil prices. Iran is going to use the increased profits they obtain through this oil increase to further fund their nuclear program AND to fund terrorist attacks against Israel contributing to regional instability. Europe will become ever more dependent on Russian oil, which increases Russian influence over Europe and blocks any hopes of including more Eastern European nations into NATO or of further developing sites for US/NATO missile defense.

This whole operation is total FUBAR and it's going to come back again and again for decades to come to bite us in the ass repeatedly.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:51:51 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
According to this aviation blog, both are starting to perform missions over Libya now that the Libyan's air defenses have been taken out.

Why did a "no fly zone" turn into a full up air war on a country we are not at war with?

Because when the U.S. puts an ass whoopin' on, we don't pussy foot around. Screw the "at war with" malarky.

Shortly, the Libyan army will be reduced to running Toyota hilux trucks with light machineguns bolted to the bed... we will have absolutely eliminated the Libyan military threat in that region. It will take a decade or longer to rebuild those assets... if they're even allowed to rebuild forces beyond simple defensive equipment.

Why leave any potential adversary with the means to attack or retaliate when you have opportunity to gut their forces and decimate their defenses?

For 30 some years the U.S. has wanted to stomp the living daylights out of Qaddaffi... Perfect opportunity!!!!

The Brits are singin' the blues because they missed incinerating his ass when they tomahawked the C&C compound in Tripoli. If they could get their hands on him, they'd keel haul him on an ancient frigate.

For all we know at this point, Libya may be slated for a NATO/ U.N. occupation and 'temporary' governance complete with U.N. observers for their upcoming 'democratic' elections.

I'm sure the U.N. has a throbbing hard-on anticipating the fucking they're about to give Libya.

The kenyan may well be viewed as a hero and savior to the new rulers in Libya! He may well be nominated to a high level U.N. position for this timely intervention!!

In the U.S. not so much.

A little too much NATO and UN rah rah for me..

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:53:38 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Have we heard from the Pres lately on this?

Hell no, he's playing golf until sometime Monday.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:56:35 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Where do you see a government like that? Sounds like a strawman.

Oh I don't know, this is what one of several groups are working towards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council
That's just the one France recognized.

There are others like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Conference_for_the_Libyan_Opposition

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:56:50 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:57:43 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Posted: 3/27/2011 11:58:37 AM EDT

[#12]

This has turned into a full blown interdiction op. They are decimating Quadlacky's supply lines. And, if they see any big metal objects, they hit with a Hellfire.

I actually give obammy some props on this. If you're going to fo, then fo all the way

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:00:48 PM EDT

[#13]

Needed some A-10 pron

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:00:52 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:06:09 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm really having a hard time understanding why Arfcom has such a hard time liking that we're bombing another Middle East dictator who's killed a bunch of Americans in the past... is this DU now or did I miss something?

My biggest reason? We're fucking BROKE, not to mention I do not like the POTUS initiating military actions without the congress's approval. Especially when there is no discernible, concrete benefit on the horizon for us. All people can provide is that this might help us democratize the M.E. then again though it might be the next hard line theocracy that comes to power, and even if we install a decent govt there's no guarantee it'll stay loyal after we bring back our forces (and eventually we do have to bring them back).

Easier to understand?

All valid points, and to top it off we are doing it on behalf of AQ

Again with the lie.

There are reports that some of the rebels are AQ. I have no first hand knowledge to say there are not, do you?

Some of the rebels. Not all of the rebels. In fact, from the reports that are out there they are a small minority. You make it sound like they are all AQ. They are not.

You also make it sound like AQ has radios with direct contact to our aircraft calling in strikes, they do not and they are not.

Making the claim that all of them are radical Islamists, specifically AQ, makes this fit with their world view. They want to believe that all Muslims are the same politcally and religiously and that they all hate the US. It makes the world simple and easy for them to understand, instead of the world being the complex, nuanced place that it is flul of people with often divergent and sometimes contradictory motivations and goals.

Throw their rapid hatered for anything Obama does just because they disagree with his political perspective. If he decided that he wasnt going to put sugar in his cofee one morning, and some people here found out about it, they'd criticize him for being an idiot and then go on to claim that decisions like these were ruining our country.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:06:58 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

That Constitution was valid for 18 years, from 1951 to 1969.

Essentially the entire population of Libya is Muslim, hence any "democratic" government formed by them will be under Sharia law. Sharia law does not allow for freedom of religion, thus this short-lived (and no longer valid) Constitution violates it, and will never have any effect.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:12:35 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

That Constitution was valid for 18 years, from 1951 to 1969.

Essentially the entire population of Libya is Muslim, hence any democratic government formed by them will be under Sharia law. Sharia law does not allow for freedom of religion, thus this short-lived (and no longer valid) Constitution violates it, and will never have any effect.

Essentially the entire population of Turkey is Muslim...Essentially the entire population of Indonesia...

Never said that Constitution was currently valid. You asked if the people of Libya are looking for that sort of government. They are. At least two of the opposition groups want to bring back those 18 years. Both of those groups are larger than the one guy who leads people in one city who claims to have worked for AQ.

You're drawing a false conclusion by saying that just because a people are Muslim then there must be Sharia law. That simply is not the case.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:15:02 PM EDT

[#18]

From what I have read the Libyan Rebel Leadership that is known (some are not know for reported "Security Reasons") are:

Mustafa Abdul Jalil - A judge from Eastern Libyan town of al-Bayida who resigned as Justice Minister after the uprising began.

Mahmoud Jebril -The current "Prime Minister" of the Libyan Rebel Government and a politician who had long advocated for democratic reform in Libya.

Ali Aziz al-Eisawi - Libyan Ambassador to India who resigned.

It's their military leadership that seems more questionable and remains largely to be seen. We know that Omar Hariri who lead the original Gaddafi coup and was later jail is a key player and General Abdul Fatah Younis who did head Libya's special forces is the side of the rebels, but overall it seems that their military command structure is fragmented and at present not that organized while their civilian administrative leadership are starting to become more organized.

What I would like to see from the rebel leadership though is a declaration of intent signed by all civilian and military leadership involved with the rebellion. I want to know what their view on religious freedom, minority rights, and commerce with the global community is exactly.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:15:20 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Making the claim that all of them are radical Islamists, specifically AQ, makes this fit with their world view. They want to believe that all Muslims are the same politcally and religiously and that they all hate the US. It makes the world simple and easy for them to understand, instead of the world being the complex, nuanced place that it is flul of people with often divergent and sometimes contradictory motivations and goals.

Throw their rapid hatered for anything Obama does just because they disagree with his political perspective. If he decided that he wasnt going to put sugar in his cofee one morning, and some people here found out about it, they'd criticize him for being an idiot and then go on to claim that decisions like these were ruining our country.

If they are right and there is no negotiations and any Muslim nation will adopt radical Sharia law and be radicalized then we have no choice but "to kill them all." I don't believe that. I believe that oppressive regimes in the region have created disenchantment in the electorate in those nations. Add on top of that failed economies and scapegoating the Jews and the west and we have the extremists movements we have today.

The best way of dealing with that is to give people a stake in their government and their economy.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:17:28 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21

Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

Boy that last part gives a lot of wiggle room doesn't it? Maybe Christians and Jews are practicing faiths contrary to morality?

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:19:19 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
What I would like to see from the rebel leadership though is a declaration of intent signed by all civilian and military leadership involved with the rebellion. I want to know what their view on religious freedom, minority rights, and commerce with the global community is exactly.

That's an absurd demand to see them all sign the same document. Let's be realistic. Not all have the same goals.

After Q there will be a time of transition where the Libyan people themselves will have to choose what government they want, but at least they will get to choose.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:20:56 PM EDT

[#22]

Even if Dport is right and the rebel leadership or at least majority believe in religious freedom it doesn't mean that they will not have opposition from not only those who will remain loyal to Gaddafi's government even after its fallen, but from the radicals.

I don't think it's going to be this neat little transition to power. A lot of fingers all stuck in the same pie right now. What kind of deals are being made behind the scenes to hold together the rebel alliance? What promises are being made and deals struck with radicals at the same time that they're reaching out to us? Politics is the art of compromise and like it or not there are a lot of radical groups with radical ideas in Libya.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:22:27 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Boy that last part gives a lot of wiggle room doesn't it? Maybe Christians and Jews are practicing faiths contrary to morality?

Ah yes, you think Christians and Jews got a better shake in the Kingdom of Libya where there was a Constitution or under MQ where he declared Sharia law?

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:22:56 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Even if Dport is right and the rebel leadership or at least majority believe in religious freedom it doesn't mean that they will not have opposition from not only those who will remain loyal to Gaddafi's government even after its fallen, but from the radicals.

I don't think it's going to be this neat little transition to power. A lot of fingers all stuck in the same pie right now. What kind of deals are being made behind the scenes to hold together the rebel alliance? What promises are being made and deals struck with radicals at the same time that they're reaching out to us? Politics is the art of compromise and like it or not there are a lot of radical groups with radical ideas in Libya.

Name the radical groups.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:23:51 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What I would like to see from the rebel leadership though is a declaration of intent signed by all civilian and military leadership involved with the rebellion. I want to know what their view on religious freedom, minority rights, and commerce with the global community is exactly.

That's an absurd demand to see them all sign the same document. Let's be realistic. Not all have the same goals.

After Q there will be a time of transition where the Libyan people themselves will have to choose what government they want, but at least they will get to choose.

Our Founding Fathers laid out our principles that all men are created equal in our Declaration of Independence after much debate and deliberation. Nothing absurd about our Declaration of Independence. Nothing at all.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:24:37 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Making the claim that all of them are radical Islamists, specifically AQ, makes this fit with their world view. They want to believe that all Muslims are the same politcally and religiously and that they all hate the US. It makes the world simple and easy for them to understand, instead of the world being the complex, nuanced place that it is flul of people with often divergent and sometimes contradictory motivations and goals.

Throw their rapid hatered for anything Obama does just because they disagree with his political perspective. If he decided that he wasnt going to put sugar in his cofee one morning, and some people here found out about it, they'd criticize him for being an idiot and then go on to claim that decisions like these were ruining our country.

If they are right and there is no negotiations and any Muslim nation will adopt radical Sharia law and be radicalized then we have no choice but "to kill them all." I don't believe that. I believe that oppressive regimes in the region have created disenchantment in the electorate in those nations. Add on top of that failed economies and scapegoating the Jews and the west and we have the extremists movements we have today.

The best way of dealing with that is to give people a stake in their government and their economy.

Agreed that is a very accurate interperatation of the situation. Islam, specifically radical Islam, has become the politcal and practical vehicle of dissent in a region plauged by authoritarianism. The best way to improve things, for both the US and the people of the ME, is to support democratic reform, while maginalizing the radical Islamists, gaining the support and approval of most of the populace, and balancing those with more short term US intersests in the region.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:26:05 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What I would like to see from the rebel leadership though is a declaration of intent signed by all civilian and military leadership involved with the rebellion. I want to know what their view on religious freedom, minority rights, and commerce with the global community is exactly.

That's an absurd demand to see them all sign the same document. Let's be realistic. Not all have the same goals.

After Q there will be a time of transition where the Libyan people themselves will have to choose what government they want, but at least they will get to choose.

Our Founding Fathers laid out our principles that all men are created equal in our Declaration of Independence after much debate and deliberation. Nothing absurd about our Declaration of Independence. Nothing at all.

Our Founding Fathers were able to meet in one place and weren't in the middle of the Revolution when they signed the Declaration. What is going on in Libya isn't Lexington and Concord.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:27:02 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

That Constitution was valid for 18 years, from 1951 to 1969.

Essentially the entire population of Libya is Muslim, hence any democratic government formed by them will be under Sharia law. Sharia law does not allow for freedom of religion, thus this short-lived (and no longer valid) Constitution violates it, and will never have any effect.

Essentially the entire population of Turkey is Muslim...Essentially the entire population of Indonesia...

Never said that Constitution was currently valid. You asked if the people of Libya are looking for that sort of government. They are. At least two of the opposition groups want to bring back those 18 years. Both of those groups are larger than the one guy who leads people in one city who claims to have worked for AQ.

You're drawing a false conclusion by saying that just because a people are Muslim then there must be Sharia law. That simply is not the case.

Turkey had Ataturk, and a secular government. Ataturk's mission in life was essentially to remove Islam from the government of Turkey, and he managed to succeed –– but Libya has no Ataturk. Turkey is rapidly sliding into radical Islam now, as well –– as all Islamic countries eventually will.

Indonesia has a strong Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, and has actually prohibited by law the practice of Sharia until recently (of course now they are dealing with a resurgence of radical Islam as well).

Radical Islam leaves no room for any other form of government, and Libya, just like Egypt and Turkey, will likely move straight into radical Islam. We are witnessing the re-emergence of the Caliphate right now.

BTW –– I've been to Turkey. There's a vast difference between those who claim Islam in Turkey, and those who live Sharia in the middle east. Turkey is not recognizable as a country with an Islamic majority to the untrained eye, because they do not practice Islam as Egypt and Libya do.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:27:54 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:28:08 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

You don't see a problem with that?

What happens when you not praying towards Mecca is a breech of public order? Or it is considered immoral to worship Jesus Christ, or Buddha, or Mother Earth?

Wording such as that is a trap.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:30:16 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm really having a hard time understanding why Arfcom has such a hard time liking that we're bombing another Middle East dictator who's killed a bunch of Americans in the past... is this DU now or did I miss something?

Because the people we are doing so in support of are the same ones that committed 9/11, and have been fighting us in iraq and afganistan for the last decade?

Again with the sweeping generalizations. One commander in one town has claimed AQ involvement.

Are there some who are sympathetic to AQ? Yes. There is no doubt. There are radical elements everywhere. Nothing is 100% pure as the wind-driven snow.

How do you marginalize the radicals? Give the people a say in how they are governed.

That's not really true. History has proven that view to be wrong. The masses, either democratically via democratic institutions, or extra-legally, and sometimes in other ways, have usually been the facilitators of radicalism. Radicals require the masses for strength and power and they are also usually the types most able to sway and appeal to the masses given the type of language they use. Democracy has served as the facilitator for the rise of radicalism with perhaps one of the most well-known examples being the German revolution. That is why democratic institutions must be checked by non-democratic institutions which is something that the 1951 Libyan Constitution does via a monarch and an upper legislative house that is not directly elected. It was probably also why the coup was necessary to enact radical policies; even if the people could have been swayed to vote for Qaddafi's ideology, they would have been checked.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:32:04 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

What does Egypt have to do with Libya? Oh yeah, nothing. As a matter of fact, do a search, I warned about the MB in Egypt. They are already organized. I believe I said as much.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:33:25 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Turkey had Ataturk, and a secular government. Ataturk's mission in life was essentially to remove Islam from the government of Turkey, and he managed to succeed –– but Libya has no Ataturk. Turkey is rapidly sliding into radical Islam now, as well –– as all Islamic countries eventually will.

Indonesia has a strong Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, and has actually prohibited by law the practice of Sharia until recently (of course now they are dealing with a resurgence of radical Islam as well).

Radical Islam leaves no room for any other form of government, and Libya, just like Egypt and Turkey, will likely move straight into radical Islam. We are witnessing the re-emergence of the Caliphate right now.

BTW –– I've been to Turkey. There's a vast difference between those who claim Islam in Turkey, and those who live Sharia in the middle east. Turkey is not recognizable as a country with an Islamic majority to the untrained eye, because they do not practice Islam as Egypt and Libya do.

I've been to Turkey too.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the despotic governments in the Middle East have a bearing on how the religions are practiced?

ETA: You made the connection with Islam with no pre-conditions.
Secondly, we don't know if there is an Ataturk or a George Washington there right now. George Washington was a bit of a surprise. He was a failed military commander who couldn't even get a regular commission in the British Army.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:34:50 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

I think some folks here are being entirely optimistic.

"Some of the rebels." Is that suppose to be a joke? Folks do know that Libya has been crawling with fundamentalist and radical since the 70s right? Training camps for terrorists were well established there throughout the 80s. To assume that only "some" of the rebels are radicals I think is being incredibly optimistic.

Hell, Ayman al-Zawahiri (AQ's number 2) is from right next door Egypt where he ran Egyptian Islamic Jihad. North Africa crawls with radicals. Place has been infested with them for decades. I don't trust any movement that doesn't have clear leadership over there that we can meet with and put a face saying "this guy is not a terrorist."

Name me the rebel leader in Libya. Nobody can do it. Oh, it's a rebel council, which really means a loose confederation of folks only held together by their common desire to take out Gaddafi. Once Gaddafi is gone they'll turn on each other at record speed as someone tries to take the lead.

The rebel leader has been named if you mean the military leader. He was named in another thread. The rebel council is a loose confederation, but it does have a head representative and there are names within it and als the leaders of the political groups that have aligned with it/under it. The political groups have all been named here in multiple threads as well as many of the leaders. The jihadists are a small part of the rebellion and have no senior leadership role; they have largely been shunned in that regard. Yes, Qaddafi brought in all manner of terrorist groups, both Muslim and non-Muslim. This is well known. But there is no logical connection between that and the claim that they are the rebellion. There's been a recent falling out in the case of some of the remaining groups with Qaddafi, and this is the main reason why you see them fighting Qaddafi; otherwise they would likely be on his side since he's the one that invited them there and tolerated them for decades.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:36:01 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm really having a hard time understanding why Arfcom has such a hard time liking that we're bombing another Middle East dictator who's killed a bunch of Americans in the past... is this DU now or did I miss something?

Because the people we are doing so in support of are the same ones that committed 9/11, and have been fighting us in iraq and afganistan for the last decade?

Again with the sweeping generalizations. One commander in one town has claimed AQ involvement.

Are there some who are sympathetic to AQ? Yes. There is no doubt. There are radical elements everywhere. Nothing is 100% pure as the wind-driven snow.

How do you marginalize the radicals? Give the people a say in how they are governed.

That's not really true. History has proven that view to be wrong. The masses, either democratically via democratic institutions, or extra-legally, and sometimes in other ways, have usually been the facilitators of radicalism. Radicals require the masses for strength and power and they are also usually the types most able to sway and appeal to the masses given the type of language they use. Democracy has served as the facilitator for the rise of radicalism with perhaps one of the most well-known examples being the German revolution. That is why democratic institutions must be checked by non-democratic institutions which is something that the 1951 Libyan Constitution does via a monarch and an upper legislative house that is not directly elected. It was probably also why the coup was necessary to enact radical policies; even if the people could have been swayed to vote for Qaddafi's ideology, they would have been checked.

I think you misunderstand my meaning.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:36:44 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

That Constitution was valid for 18 years, from 1951 to 1969.

Essentially the entire population of Libya is Muslim, hence any "democratic" government formed by them will be under Sharia law. Sharia law does not allow for freedom of religion, thus this short-lived (and no longer valid) Constitution violates it, and will never have any effect.

The majority want a return to the Constitution Qaddafi threw out. The change in Libya's character in terms of national policy is by and large the result of Qaddafi's coup.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:37:26 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Even if Dport is right and the rebel leadership or at least majority believe in religious freedom it doesn't mean that they will not have opposition from not only those who will remain loyal to Gaddafi's government even after its fallen, but from the radicals.

I don't think it's going to be this neat little transition to power. A lot of fingers all stuck in the same pie right now. What kind of deals are being made behind the scenes to hold together the rebel alliance? What promises are being made and deals struck with radicals at the same time that they're reaching out to us? Politics is the art of compromise and like it or not there are a lot of radical groups with radical ideas in Libya.

Name the radical groups.

The Eastern Libyan City of Darnah sent at least 52 militants to Iraq out of its population of 80,000 people, which was the single largest source of foreign fighters in Iraq with Riyadh (population of 4 million) a distant second. This rebel effort is being carried out primarily by those living in Eastern Libya.

Benghazi, the current rebel capital sent 21 fighters to Iraq that we know about from a population of just a little over a half million people.

Now that's the numbers we know about and those are folks from relatively small cities by US standards willing to travel to a foreign nation to kill Americans. How many of them would be willing to kill Americans in their hometown?

Obviously there are radicals in Eastern Libya and they are not an insignificant force.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:37:27 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What I would like to see from the rebel leadership though is a declaration of intent signed by all civilian and military leadership involved with the rebellion. I want to know what their view on religious freedom, minority rights, and commerce with the global community is exactly.

That's an absurd demand to see them all sign the same document. Let's be realistic. Not all have the same goals.

After Q there will be a time of transition where the Libyan people themselves will have to choose what government they want, but at least they will get to choose.

Our Founding Fathers laid out our principles that all men are created equal in our Declaration of Independence after much debate and deliberation. Nothing absurd about our Declaration of Independence. Nothing at all.

Our Founding Fathers were able to meet in one place and weren't in the middle of the Revolution when they signed the Declaration. What is going on in Libya isn't Lexington and Concord.

WHAT?

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:39:23 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Turkey had Ataturk, and a secular government. Ataturk's mission in life was essentially to remove Islam from the government of Turkey, and he managed to succeed –– but Libya has no Ataturk. Turkey is rapidly sliding into radical Islam now, as well –– as all Islamic countries eventually will.

Indonesia has a strong Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, and has actually prohibited by law the practice of Sharia until recently (of course now they are dealing with a resurgence of radical Islam as well).

Radical Islam leaves no room for any other form of government, and Libya, just like Egypt and Turkey, will likely move straight into radical Islam. We are witnessing the re-emergence of the Caliphate right now.

BTW –– I've been to Turkey. There's a vast difference between those who claim Islam in Turkey, and those who live Sharia in the middle east. Turkey is not recognizable as a country with an Islamic majority to the untrained eye, because they do not practice Islam as Egypt and Libya do.

I've been to Turkey too.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the despotic governments in the Middle East have a bearing on how the religions are practiced?

ETA: You made the connection with Islam with no pre-conditions.
Secondly, we don't know if there is an Ataturk or a George Washington there right now. George Washington was a bit of a surprise. He was a failed military commander who couldn't even get a regular commission in the British Army.

It takes no effort to make a connection between the country of Libya, which is essentially 100% Muslim, and Islam. If you build a democratic government, you're going to elect only Muslims, because Muslims are the only people who can hold office, based on Sharia law.

The two go hand in hand.

We can pretty much guarantee there is no Ataturk there. Ataturk was a national hero, a person who had spent his entire life in the service of his country. Libya doesn't have that. They have Qadaffi and his minions.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:40:51 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

The majority want a return to the Constitution Qaddafi threw out. The change in Libya's character in terms of national policy is by and large the result of Qaddafi's coup.

How do you know?

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:40:53 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

Boy that last part gives a lot of wiggle room doesn't it? Maybe Christians and Jews are practicing faiths contrary to morality?

Christians and Jews were free to practice their faiths before Qaddafi. Contrary to morality is essentially the same as saying that freedom of religion stops at doing things that are inherently bad and harmful, such as human sacrifice. Under the constitution, you would not have been allowed to freely practice a relgiion that promoted such things and engaged in them. Aside from some pagan Africans there really weren't any religions with a presence in libya that engaged in any such practices. The same policy is pretty common throughout the world, including the West.

And some of the current leaders actually want a return of the Christians and Jews who had to flee Libya over the years.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:41:19 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What I would like to see from the rebel leadership though is a declaration of intent signed by all civilian and military leadership involved with the rebellion. I want to know what their view on religious freedom, minority rights, and commerce with the global community is exactly.

That's an absurd demand to see them all sign the same document. Let's be realistic. Not all have the same goals.

After Q there will be a time of transition where the Libyan people themselves will have to choose what government they want, but at least they will get to choose.

Our Founding Fathers laid out our principles that all men are created equal in our Declaration of Independence after much debate and deliberation. Nothing absurd about our Declaration of Independence. Nothing at all.

Our Founding Fathers were able to meet in one place and weren't in the middle of the Revolution when they signed the Declaration. What is going on in Libya isn't Lexington and Concord.

WHAT?

Just about every city in Libya is embroiled in conflict. We had Boston, then New York. In fact, while the Declaration was being draft the Brits had left Boston and were on their way back to NYC and engaged in the first Battle in August.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:42:32 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

It takes no effort to make a connection between the country of Libya, which is essentially 100% Muslim, and Islam. If you build a democratic government, you're going to elect only Muslims, because Muslims are the only people who can hold office, based on Sharia law.

The two go hand in hand.

Libya was essentially 100% Muslim in the 50s as well and yet it took a coup and a dictator to declare Sharia law.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:42:37 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
We're withdrawing from Iraq December 31st, 2011.

Afghanistan draw down starts in July.

If that happens on time... what do we do when (not "if") those countries immediately devolve back into civil war, tribal war, etc? Do we go back in to "save the progress we made"? Or do we let them go to Hell?

Iraq was a huge mistake. Afghanistan was a smaller mistake. Libya is a mistake, too.

Who's next? What's the next country we need to invade to "protect democracy and human rights"? I can list dozens of candidates... several of which are "allies" of ours. When do we invade them?

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:42:43 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

That presumes that the people of Libya are looking for a secular government, not a radical Islamic one.

They are.

I'll believe it when I see it. Libya's history does not support that assertion.

Actually, it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Constitution

Article 21
Freedom of conscience shall be absolute. The State shall respect all religions and faiths and shall ensure to foreigners residing in its territory freedom of conscience and the right freely to practice religion so long as it is not a breach of public order and is not contrary to morality.

Boy that last part gives a lot of wiggle room doesn't it? Maybe Christians and Jews are practicing faiths contrary to morality?

Christians and Jews were free to practice their faiths before Qaddafi. Contrary to morality is essentially the same as saying that freedom of religion stops at doing things that are inherently bad and harmful, such as human sacrifice. Under the constitution, you would not have been allowed to freely practice a relgiion that promoted such things and engaged in them. Aside from some pagan Africans there really weren't any religions with a presence in libya that engaged in any such practices. The same policy is pretty common throughout the world, including the West.

And some of the current leaders actually want a return of the Christians and Jews who had to flee Libya over the years.

That's how *you* interpret it. That is *not* how anyone who follows Sharia law interprets it.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:43:25 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

That's how *you* interpret it. That is *not* how anyone who follows Sharia law interprets it.

Before Q Libya was NOT under Sharia law. In fact, Q is the one who instituted Sharia law in Libya.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:44:54 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What I would like to see from the rebel leadership though is a declaration of intent signed by all civilian and military leadership involved with the rebellion. I want to know what their view on religious freedom, minority rights, and commerce with the global community is exactly.

That's an absurd demand to see them all sign the same document. Let's be realistic. Not all have the same goals.

After Q there will be a time of transition where the Libyan people themselves will have to choose what government they want, but at least they will get to choose.

Our Founding Fathers laid out our principles that all men are created equal in our Declaration of Independence after much debate and deliberation. Nothing absurd about our Declaration of Independence. Nothing at all.

Our Founding Fathers were able to meet in one place and weren't in the middle of the Revolution when they signed the Declaration. What is going on in Libya isn't Lexington and Concord.

By 1774 each colony had formed individual self-governing states and in 1775 and sent representatives to the Second Continental Congress. The British sent troops to re-impose direct rule and it wasn't until July 4th, 1776, that the Declaration of Independence was signed. So I think you should respect the Founding Fathers and give credit where credit is due, because they sure as hell did sign the Declaration of Independence in the middle of Revolution.

I agree though that what is going on in Libya isn't Lexington or Concord, but that's because I think the Libyan have it a hellava lot easier than we did. They have a city Benghazi protected by Western air power. So they have a central place to meet. We didn't get support from the French until early 1776 and sure wasn't as immediate in its support as the US and NATO has been of the Libyans.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:45:27 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The majority want a return to the Constitution Qaddafi threw out. The change in Libya's character in terms of national policy is by and large the result of Qaddafi's coup.

How do you know?

Because they are members of political groups who have said so. It is also based in part on field interviews of people and also photographic evidence, which shows people carrying signs promoting the monarchy and/or the constitution. Cyrenaica, which is the powerbase of the rebellion, is also the political powerbase of the monarchists and constitutionalists in Libya. The rebellion was in fact started by a monarchist and constitutionalist group.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:46:06 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

I agree though that what is going on in Libya isn't Lexington or Concord, but that's because I think the Libyan have it a hellava lot easier than we did. They have a city Benghazi protected by Western air power. So they have a central place to meet. We didn't get support from the French until early 1776 and sure wasn't as immediate in its support as the US and NATO has been of the Libyans.

I disagree. It's hard to get people to a protected city, which has only been protected for about a week, when all the other cities are embroiled in conflict.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:46:59 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm really having a hard time understanding why Arfcom has such a hard time liking that we're bombing another Middle East dictator who's killed a bunch of Americans in the past... is this DU now or did I miss something?

Because the people we are doing so in support of are the same ones that committed 9/11, and have been fighting us in iraq and afganistan for the last decade?

Again with the sweeping generalizations. One commander in one town has claimed AQ involvement.

Are there some who are sympathetic to AQ? Yes. There is no doubt. There are radical elements everywhere. Nothing is 100% pure as the wind-driven snow.

How do you marginalize the radicals? Give the people a say in how they are governed.

That's not really true. History has proven that view to be wrong. The masses, either democratically via democratic institutions, or extra-legally, and sometimes in other ways, have usually been the facilitators of radicalism. Radicals require the masses for strength and power and they are also usually the types most able to sway and appeal to the masses given the type of language they use. Democracy has served as the facilitator for the rise of radicalism with perhaps one of the most well-known examples being the German revolution. That is why democratic institutions must be checked by non-democratic institutions which is something that the 1951 Libyan Constitution does via a monarch and an upper legislative house that is not directly elected. It was probably also why the coup was necessary to enact radical policies; even if the people could have been swayed to vote for Qaddafi's ideology, they would have been checked.

I think what he was trying to say, is that given that authoritarianism has largely spawned and fed the trend of radical political Islam in the region, it can be politcally nuetered or demobilized by given those in the region a legitimate means for political participation. If one can vote a tyrant out of office, then way strap a bomb to youself and blow a bunch of people up( ye I know its a bit more compicated then that). Theoretically, with democratic reform there will be less of a need for violent radical political Islam to exist, and even if hardline Islamists still exist in the new politcal landscape, it is likely they will be diluted in their power or entirely drowned out by more moderate factions. Obviously though we need to play our cards right to ensure that the transitional .gov or new regime is not just a new form of tyranny with the racial Islamists at the head, but as long as they arent allowed to take control and squash th emerging democracy they will likely be marginalized by more moderate factions.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AC-130s and A-10s over Libya now? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us