PDA

View Full Version : Obama asks CIA to arm Libyan rebels




libertyjam
03-31-2011, 12:03 PM
The day after he promised no arms to Libya to the American public, worldwide news proves just how much he is a BIG, FAT, HYPOCRITICAL LIAR.

http://www.newstoday.com.bd/index.php?option=details&news_id=23765&date=2011-04-01

Plus more proof that the whole thing is just another CIA organized coup. CIA troops have been "on the ground for weeks".
Toward the end of the front page:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/31/Obama-secretly-OKd-arms-to-Libyan-rebels/UPI-99901301560200/

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/10283-news-obama-sent-cia-operatives-a-authorized-arms-to-libyan-rebels-weeks-ago.html

WyoLiberty
03-31-2011, 12:14 PM
So Obama is asking Al Qaida to arm the rebels? :P

Anti Federalist
03-31-2011, 12:17 PM
Jesus fucking Christ...it's like a surrealistic nightmare anymore.

HOLLYWOOD
03-31-2011, 12:18 PM
Has this turned into a reality movie or what? 14 miles from CIA global HQ(Langley, Virginia) imagine that. :rolleyes:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/libyan-rebel-general-fairfax-virginia/story?id=13256324

Libyan Rebel Commander Is From Fairfax, Virginia

Gen. Khalifa Haftr Wears Pinstripe Suit Instead of Camouflage


By ALEXANDER MARQUARDT and MARK MOONEY

BENGHAZI, Libya March 30, 2011


Gen. Khalifa Haftr, the self-proclaimed commander of the Free Libyan Army (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=13253618), does not dress for battle. On a recent day after his forces had reclaimed much of the territory they had lost, the commander was wearing a pinstripe suit and a black turtleneck sweater.

Haftr, who lived in Fairfax, Va., until recent weeks when he returned to join the rebellion against Moammar Gadhafi (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-noose-tightening-gadhafi-circle/story?id=13246679), was appointed to lead the rebel army (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/libyan-rebel-general-fairfax-virginia/International/wireStory?id=13244447) earlier this month. His top aides appear to be his sons.


It is difficult for the media as well as the Obama administration to determine who, if anyone, is in charge of the rebellion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said recently, "We don't know as much as we would like to know and as much as we expect we will know. We're picking up information."
A U.S. official said, "There's still a fair amount of uncertainty here on who's who in the opposition camp."
After a surge across eastern Libya (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/beyonce-donated-gadhafi-money-haiti-relief/story?id=13039422) following allied aerial attacks on Gadhafi's forces, the rebel army is again in retreat (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=13253618) from the city key oil city of Ras Lanouf, and it's not clear who is commanding them.
Haftr, a general in Gadhafi's army during the 1980s, claims to be in charge. Haftr told ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/) that he doesn't officially report to Omar Hariri, the rebels' defense minister; or to Gen. Abdel Fattah Younes, who has the title of chief of staff. Haftr spoke with ABC News earlier this week at a time the rebels were on the march behind allied air power. At the time, Haftr predicted that the rebels' advance on Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte would not be a major test for his ragtag army, and that the city would fall easily.
Instead, the rebels ran into tanks and artillery and are now fleeing for safety.



(http://www.twitter.com/abcnewsblotter)
The opposition's military command structure -- what is known of it -- has some inherent problems. A U.S. official pointed out that Haftr and Younes have been on opposite sides for a long time.
When Haftr served under Gadhafi, he fought in Chad, a military debacle in which thousands of Libyan soldiers died. After being arrested in Chad, Haftr says he was sentenced to death by Gadhafi, but managed to seek asylum in the U.S. He said he returned to Libya in recent weeks and was promptly put in charge of the rebel forces.

Dr.3D
03-31-2011, 12:18 PM
In any case, I'm pretty sure, the U.S. military will some day be fighting against those very same weapons that are being supplied to the Libyan rebels at this time.

specsaregood
03-31-2011, 12:25 PM
Jesus fucking Christ...it's like a surrealistic nightmare anymore.
One thing is for sure, no other country/dictator is gonna end their WMD/nuclear ambitions based on promises from the US ever again.

Romantarchist
03-31-2011, 12:32 PM
It's Charlie Wilson's War all over again.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10045/1035502-149.stm

libertyjam
03-31-2011, 12:33 PM
So Obama is asking Al Qaida to arm the rebels? :P

That would be Al CIAda

Anti Federalist
03-31-2011, 12:43 PM
One thing is for sure, no other country/dictator is gonna end their WMD/nuclear ambitions based on promises from the US ever again.

No shit, that^^^

I'll try to dig up the story, basically it was NK saying "hah hah" to Libya for giving up their nukes.

specsaregood
03-31-2011, 12:46 PM
No shit, that^^^

I'll try to dig up the story, basically it was NK saying "hah hah" to Libya for giving up their nukes.

Yeah I saw that and it so true. With this libya situation and the related wikileaked embassy documents the US has given up ALL credibility it ever had in regards to WMD negotiations.

dean.engelhardt
03-31-2011, 01:08 PM
In any case, I'm pretty sure, the U.S. military will some day be fighting against those very same weapons that are being supplied to the Libyan rebels at this time.

Obama's 2012 campaigne slogan:

Lets party like its 1979!

Pericles
03-31-2011, 01:13 PM
The difference between the people running the country and the boy scouts, is that the boy scouts generally have adult supervision.

ds21089
03-31-2011, 01:15 PM
What I fail to understand is how our troops don't understand what is going on and just say "you know what. enough is enough. I'm done" If that were to happen, what the hell would the president be able to do?

Are a lot of our troops really blood-hungry thirsty savages or are they just in such fear of doing so?

specsaregood
03-31-2011, 01:20 PM
What I fail to understand is how our troops don't understand what is going on and just say "you know what. enough is enough. I'm done" If that were to happen, what the hell would the president be able to do?


You mean like some of the libyan troops evidently did? :)

armstrong
03-31-2011, 01:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSeuLsNV4CA

armstrong
03-31-2011, 01:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viYdHvYM6ao&feature=related

armstrong
03-31-2011, 01:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ud5sMV2uu8&feature=related

Pericles
03-31-2011, 01:33 PM
What I fail to understand is how our troops don't understand what is going on and just say "you know what. enough is enough. I'm done" If that were to happen, what the hell would the president be able to do?

Are a lot of our troops really blood-hungry thirsty savages or are they just in such fear of doing so?
I'll give you a serious answer to the question, although I'm uncertain that you really want that based on the way the comment is phrased.

Warfare has substantially changed in the last 60 years, in that the purpose is seldom one of national survival or national interest, but coalitions of geopolitical or ideological considerations. Therefore, the motivations of the soldiery range from the patriotic and "defense" of home or country, to advancing the form of political / economic system that the soldiery adhere to, which provide their foundation for being. Thus, US troops who are exposed to other cultures by virtue of their deployment, find those cultures severely lacking in the qualities they find beneficial in their own culture.

As a result, the average soldier develops an absolute contempt for those societies which inhabit the modern battlefield. When placed in circumstances in which 80% of your problems can be solved with automatic weapons, the rational solution is to eliminate the primitive culture that forms the source of your problems.

This is why I posit that the US military is less a threat to the US civil population - you don't destroy the source of your cultural frame of reference.

Krugerrand
03-31-2011, 01:37 PM
No shit, that^^^

I'll try to dig up the story, basically it was NK saying "hah hah" to Libya for giving up their nukes.
two quick links.


A North Korean statement that Libya’s dismantling of its nuclear weapons program had made it vulnerable to military intervention by the West is being seen by analysts as an ominous reinforcement of the North’s refusal to end its own nuclear program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/asia/25korea.html


North Korea could hardly have come up with a better reason for not giving up its nuclear weapons program than the United States-led bombing of the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
...
Repeatedly the neo-cons held up the Libyan example as a model for North Korea in all those rounds of six-party talks that culminated in elaborate agreements in 2007 for the North to abandon its nukes.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/MC29Dg01.html

ds21089
03-31-2011, 01:54 PM
I'll give you a serious answer to the question, although I'm uncertain that you really want that based on the way the comment is phrased.

Warfare has substantially changed in the last 60 years, in that the purpose is seldom one of national survival or national interest, but coalitions of geopolitical or ideological considerations. Therefore, the motivations of the soldiery range from the patriotic and "defense" of home or country, to advancing the form of political / economic system that the soldiery adhere to, which provide their foundation for being. Thus, US troops who are exposed to other cultures by virtue of their deployment, find those cultures severely lacking in the qualities they find beneficial in their own culture.

As a result, the average soldier develops an absolute contempt for those societies which inhabit the modern battlefield. When placed in circumstances in which 80% of your problems can be solved with automatic weapons, the rational solution is to eliminate the primitive culture that forms the source of your problems.

This is why I posit that the US military is less a threat to the US civil population - you don't destroy the source of your cultural frame of reference.

Yes but don't they read the news? They have no source of seeing how Obama is clearly lying to everyone about what is happening and they wont take a stand to at least expose him? If they were to do that, everyone would be calling for his head and he'd have no choice but to change his plans. Ron Paul got the most military contributions of any candidate, yet none of them will speak up? I just don't understand.

Even after reading your post I'm left to wonder why the troops currently on the ground whilst Obama says "we have no troops on ground" dont come forth and say "We've been on the ground long before Obama mentioned we were. I'm unsure of his agenda, but if he has to keep it a secret from the American people, clearly it can't be good"

Kords21
03-31-2011, 03:45 PM
So, we need tougher gun laws in the US, if not an outright secret desire by Obama and his band of bobcats to take our guns, but it's all good when it comes to arming Mexican drug cartels and Al-Qaidia in Libya. What's next and order from the commander in chief for our troops in Afghanistan to hand over their weaopns to Al-Qaida/Taliban there? Feels like I'm living in the twilight zone here.

Pericles
03-31-2011, 08:06 PM
Yes but don't they read the news? They have no source of seeing how Obama is clearly lying to everyone about what is happening and they wont take a stand to at least expose him? If they were to do that, everyone would be calling for his head and he'd have no choice but to change his plans. Ron Paul got the most military contributions of any candidate, yet none of them will speak up? I just don't understand.

Even after reading your post I'm left to wonder why the troops currently on the ground whilst Obama says "we have no troops on ground" dont come forth and say "We've been on the ground long before Obama mentioned we were. I'm unsure of his agenda, but if he has to keep it a secret from the American people, clearly it can't be good"

The astute military mind deals in harsh reality - ammunition is the perfect non descriminatior, it cares not where you went to school, who your parents are, or the color of your skin. Reality is (A) don't go there, and (B) having ignored our previous advice by having the President and Congress decide to do it - the outcome least lethal in the long run is to win as fast as possible. As a rule, overwhelming and excessive force wins faster, so that is what you do.

Next item, you will be hard pressed to find military folks who consider Islam to be anything other than a hindrance to the development of civilization in Muslim countries. As such. most have concluded that we are now embroiled in a conflict of cultures, and there is unlikely to be any easy way out of that.

As why they don't "just say no", there are two reasons (A) civil supremacy over the military is a deeply ingrained cultural value, and (B) most of the generals and colonels that would or did say "No" were fired under the Rumsfeld regime. Most people like the idea of getting their retirement checks. Speaking to the case of the Army, it has been exhausted by the last 10 years of war, trying to do it with a peacetime personnel system, that won't go to fulltime war mobilization because that would mess up too many careers.

sailingaway
03-31-2011, 08:45 PM
Will we never learn?

AFPVet
03-31-2011, 08:46 PM
The astute military mind deals in harsh reality - ammunition is the perfect non descriminatior, it cares not where you went to school, who your parents are, or the color of your skin. Reality is (A) don't go there, and (B) having ignored our previous advice by having the President and Congress decide to do it - the outcome least lethal in the long run is to win as fast as possible. As a rule, overwhelming and excessive force wins faster, so that is what you do.

Next item, you will be hard pressed to find military folks who consider Islam to be anything other than a hindrance to the development of civilization in Muslim countries. As such. most have concluded that we are now embroiled in a conflict of cultures, and there is unlikely to be any easy way out of that.

As why they don't "just say no", there are two reasons (A) civil supremacy over the military is a deeply ingrained cultural value, and (B) most of the generals and colonels that would or did say "No" were fired under the Rumsfeld regime. Most people like the idea of getting their retirement checks. Speaking to the case of the Army, it has been exhausted by the last 10 years of war, trying to do it with a peacetime personnel system, that won't go to fulltime war mobilization because that would mess up too many careers.

...and there are still people who don't think that politics exists in the military... politics play a huge role!

Anti Federalist
03-31-2011, 08:54 PM
...and there are still people who don't think that politics exists in the military... politics play a huge role!

"War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means" von Clausewitz

jdowns
03-31-2011, 09:15 PM
What is Oath Keepers' stance on this matter?