[video] Al-Qaeda flag flying with rebels flag over courthouse in Benghazi 29.10.2011

[Immortal Technique]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JigX56qNHmY


Thanks To Barry The Butcher !

[seapilot]

Some People are worried about Ron Paul's foreign policy?? Feel safer yet?? This is freaking insanity at all levels.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Thank You CFR, NATO, ZIONUTS of Washington DC, UN... They don't care because it's all about Sweet Crude Oil, NAT GAS, Water Tables, Sea Ports. The Current NTC puppets have now requested a Huge influx of Military and Police forces into Libya... there's you false freedom and canned Dictatorship Democracy, courtesy of the Money Masters.

So when are the CIA, NSC, DHS, and Obama regime charged with; funding, harboring, and aiding terrorists and terrorism? Yeah, ain't gonna hold my breath with Gun Runner, Secret Totalitarian law garbage Eric Holder.

[CaptainAmerica]

Obama committed treason ,I've been saying it about Libya.

[seapilot]

Obama committed treason ,I've been saying it about Libya.

Another charge to add to the long list. There was a good reason he did not want to go after GWB for lying about WMD in Iraq.

[oyarde]

No suprise , that would be the correct flag for that neck of the woods .

[tropicangela]

Al-Qaeda Flag in Libya's Benghazi 'No Surprise' to US

by Jason Ditz, October 31, 2011

Questions about the US-backed NTC only appear to be growing, with an al-Qaeda flag reportedly flying in the center of Benghazi, the NTC’s de facto capital. The White House insisted that nothing that was happening in Libya was a “surprise” to US forces.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/31/experts-revenge-killings-imperil-libyas-relative-calm/

[jmdrake]

I didn't know Al Qaeda had a flag.

[ibaghdadi]

Not sure if facts still matter around here, but here goes. Alqaeda uses this flag, but the flag doesn't belong exclusively to them.

The flag in question has the "seal of the Prophet" and the declaration of faith in white, over a black background. This was the flag of the Prophet & the early Khilafa. Many Muslims (including, yes, Islamists, and yes, Alqaeda) use it.

Sorry. Look for another "smoking gun" for a direct, organized Alqaeda involvement in Libya.

[oyarde]

Not sure if facts still matter around here, but here goes. Alqaeda uses this flag, but the flag doesn't belong exclusively to them.

The flag in question has the "seal of the Prophet" and the declaration of faith in white, over a black background. This was the flag of the Prophet & the early Khilafa. Many Muslims (including, yes, Islamists, and yes, Alqaeda) use it.
Sorry. Look for another "smoking gun" for a direct, organized Alqaeda involvement in Libya. Benghazi is where most of the recruits have been coming from for some time ??

[jmdrake]

Not sure if facts still matter around here, but here goes. Alqaeda uses this flag, but the flag doesn't belong exclusively to them.

The flag in question has the "seal of the Prophet" and the declaration of faith in white, over a black background. This was the flag of the Prophet & the early Khilafa. Many Muslims (including, yes, Islamists, and yes, Alqaeda) use it.

Sorry. Look for another "smoking gun" for a direct, organized Alqaeda involvement in Libya.

Why do we need another "smoking gun" when we have a direct admission from one of the head rebel leaders?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

[ibaghdadi]

Why do we need another "smoking gun" when we have a direct admission from one of the head rebel leaders?

"Some men with Alqaeda links" is one thing. A high-level Alqaeda decision to move operations into Libya is another.

If a few individuals who once fought in Iraq decide to join in the battle against Gaddafi, it doesn't show that Alqaeda as an organization has established a command & control presence in Libya. Just like if a few individuals who once served in the US army decide to join in (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/06/07/an-ex-gi-trains-libyan-rebels/), doesn't mean the US army itself has just joined the ground war.

But take it from me, jmdrake, and you know me enough to know that when I speak about Alqaeda or the Arab World I'm not trying to bull BS on you or anyone else - had the West not intervened, Alqaeda would have moved into Libya with full weight.

The Libyans would have welcomed them, and they would have become entrenched. No one would be able to blame them either, since they would have been fighting what the Arab World recognizes as a "good fight" of people against a bloodthirsty tyrant.

A few hours after Mubarak stepped down, I tweeted "Good bye Alqaeda! Tahrir Square just showed us that we don't need violence to effect change." My fear was that if Gaddafi gets his way, the idea of violence will be re-infused into the Arab psyche. The spirit of Alqaeda would be back.

The West robbed Alqaeda of a golden opportunity to make a grand comeback, after being sidelined and made irrelevant by the Arab Spring. Had the world left Libya to Alqaeda, Alqaeda would have become part of the lifeblood of the Arab Spring, rather than what they are now - orphans of the Arab Spring.

You may abhor interventionism. We all do. There's nothing wrong with having principles as solid as rock. But our convictions must be stepping stone towards making informed decisions, not a wall we build around ourselves to make make simplistic, snap judgements.

[Zippyjuan]

Not sure if facts still matter around here, but here goes. Alqaeda uses this flag, but the flag doesn't belong exclusively to them.

The flag in question has the "seal of the Prophet" and the declaration of faith in white, over a black background. This was the flag of the Prophet & the early Khilafa. Many Muslims (including, yes, Islamists, and yes, Alqaeda) use it.

Sorry. Look for another "smoking gun" for a direct, organized Alqaeda involvement in Libya.

You are right. The flag actually goes back as far as the prophet Mohammed. It is often used to represent rebel forces in the Arab world.

Let me copy a post I made in another thread earlier if I may:

The flag is actually one not created by Al Qaeda but adopted by them. It is used by many groups in that part of the world. Yes, it is Islamic but does not strictly represent Al Qeada. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/al-qaeda-libya

First, a little background on the flag itself. According to Christopher Anzalone of the McGill University Institute of Islamic Studies, the flag is one that has previously been used by Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Arabic writing on the flag is the Shahada, the Muslim creed that "There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger." Because the Shahada is a basic tenet of the Islamic faith, the design isn't "inherently militant or Salafi," Anzalone says, but this particular design is "often done as a statement, from what I can tell, by those sympathetic to AQ or some of its ideology." A large number of the foreign fighters who went to Iraq to fight the US were from Libya. "My guess is that some of the Libyan rebels who fought in Iraq brought the flag, or the idea for it, from there," Anzalone says.

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

The Black Banner or Black Standard (راية السوداء rāyat al-sawdā' , also known as راية العقاب rāyat al-`uqāb "banner of the eagle" or simply as الراية al-rāya "the banner") is the historical flag flown by Muhammad in Islamic tradition, an eschatological symbol in Shi'a Islam (heralding the advent of the Mahdi), and a symbol used in Islamic extremism and Jihadism.

History

Islamic tradition states that besides his small flag (`alam) in white, nicknamed "The Young Eagle"), Muhammad also had a larger banner (rāya) in black, said to be made from his wife Aisha's bedcloth.[1] This larger flag was also known as "The Eagle" (العقاب al-`uqāb). Both its name and its colour were presumably derived from the earlier flag flown by the Quraysh, which may still have depicted an eagle.

The tradition[clarification needed] reports Muhammad said that the advent of the Mahdi would be signaled by 'Black Standards' proceeding from Khorasan.[citation needed] This may be part of the reason why black was adopted as the color of the Abbasid dynasty, since the Abbasids sought to attract Shi`ite support in their efforts to overthrow the Umayyads.[citation needed] The flag flown by the Emirate of Afghanistan under Abdur Rahman Khan (1880-1901) was also solid black in this tradition.

The Bábí leader Mullá Husayn-i-Bushru'i raised the Black Standard in his westward march from Mashhad starting 21 July 1848, to proclaim the Báb's message. The people of Barfurush confronted the march and a series of battles ensued. The Bábís stopped and built the fort Shaykh Tabarsi which developed into one of the most significant battles of the Bábí religion. It is reported the Black Standard flew above the fortress.[2]

As Arab nationalism developed in the early 20th century, the black within the Pan-Arab colors was chosen to represent the black banner of Muhammad, while the name of "The Eagle" gave rise to the eagle depicted in the flag of the Federation of Arab Republics (1972), which survives as the modern flag of Egypt.

[edit] Jihadist black flag

A black flag with the shahada inscribed in white was spotted on Islamic extremist websites from at least 2001. Even though the historical black banner did not have any inscription, this variant is commonly known as al-rāya "the banner" or rayat al-`uqab "banner of the eagle" after the hadith tradition, and has been dubbed the black flag of jihad by western observers.[3] Islamic extremist organizations that used such a black flag include al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, the Islamic Courts Union, the Islamic State of Iraq and Hizbul Islam (2009). Some variant designs depict the second phrase of the shahada in the form of the historical seal of Muhammad.[


Basically the Arab version of the Gadsden Flag.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?327508-Al-Qaeda-flag-now-flies-in-Libya&p=3710972#post3710972

[oyarde]

You are right. The flag actually goes back as far as the prophet Mohammed. It is often used to represent rebel forces in the Arab world.

Let me copy a post I made in another thread earlier if I may:

The flag is actually one not created by Al Qaeda but adopted by them. It is used by many groups in that part of the world. Yes, it is Islamic but does not strictly represent Al Qeada. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/al-qaeda-libya


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


Basically the Arab version of the Gadsden Flag.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?327508-Al-Qaeda-flag-now-flies-in-Libya&p=3710972#post3710972 Not sure Col. Gadsden would like the comparison .... or would approve of the tax rates imposed on people at that time in that area ....

[jmdrake]

"Some men with Alqaeda links" is one thing. A high-level Alqaeda decision to move operations into Libya is another.

If a few individuals who once fought in Iraq decide to join in the battle against Gaddafi, it doesn't show that Alqaeda as an organization has established a command & control presence in Libya. Just like if a few individuals who once served in the US army decide to join in (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/06/07/an-ex-gi-trains-libyan-rebels/), doesn't mean the US army itself has just joined the ground war.


I don't think you actually read the article. It wasn't simply talking about a "few guys who went to fight the Americans and came back to fight against Gaddafi". The rebel leader being interviewed openly claimed to have recruited these same men for the purpose of fighting the Americans in Iraq in the first place.

From the article:

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".



But take it from me, jmdrake, and you know me enough to know that when I speak about Alqaeda or the Arab World I'm not trying to bull BS on you or anyone else - had the West not intervened, Alqaeda would have moved into Libya with full weight.


Sorry, but I don't at all buy that. Not in a million years. If your "logic" is right then the war in Iraq was justified as well as any other interventionist war the U.S. might get involved in. If the Arabs need help to fight off the tyrants then they should go ask China. No more blood or treasure from America for these wars. None. We need to come home and mind our own business.

[CaptainAmerica]

Thank You CFR, NATO, ZIONUTS of Washington DC, UN... They don't care because it's all about Sweet Crude Oil, NAT GAS, Water Tables, Sea Ports. The Current NTC puppets have now requested a Huge influx of Military and Police forces into Libya... there's you false freedom and canned Dictatorship Democracy, courtesy of the Money Masters.

So when are the CIA, NSC, DHS, and Obama regime charged with; funding, harboring, and aiding terrorists and terrorism? Yeah, ain't gonna hold my breath with Gun Runner, Secret Totalitarian law garbage Eric Holder. I wish we could deport them to a small island in the middle of no where with no way to get back home.

[Zippyjuan]

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Ah- 25 soldiers- out of how many (he even says the actual number is smaller "some of them (of that twenty five) are on the front lines" rebels in the whole country? This is proof that Libya is under the control of Al Queada? Neocons would certainly like to believe they are under every rock and behind everything. Like commies back in the 1950's. The rebels were comprised of may different groups- united in their opposition to Khadafi. Now the difficulty will be sorting out who will run the country afterwards. It was not simply an Al Qaeda movement.

[jmdrake]

Ah- 25 soldiers- out of how many (he even says the actual number is smaller "some of them (of that twenty five) are on the front lines" rebels in the whole country? This is proof that Libya is under the control of Al Queada? Neocons would certainly like to believe they are under every rock and behind everything. Like commies back in the 1950's. The rebels were comprised of may different groups- united in their opposition to Khadafi. Now the difficulty will be sorting out who will run the country afterwards. It was not simply an Al Qaeda movement.

Zippy, your logic is slipping even for you. ;) Let's say this rebel commander commanded a total of 1,000 men. Let's say that out of this total of 1,000 "only" 25 were men that he personally sent to Iraq to kill Americans. Would it then not matter because he only had 25 of his fellow Al Qaeda terrorists working for him again? Really? That's your argument?

[ibaghdadi]

Sorry, but I don't at all buy that. Not in a million years.

What I offered was my informed analysis based upon certain glaring facts. Me and many Muslims like me are plugged in to Alqaeda's sources thorugh their forums and thinkers and we know exaclty how they look at things.

The comparison to Iraq does not stand for more reasons that I have space for here.

When the Tunisian revolution spilled into the Egyptian revolution and led to Mubarak's ouster, Alqaeda was ecstatic. But the smart among them realized what it means to them. Their idea is based upon change through violence, after all.

Libya was their grand opportunity, and even though many of their fighters moved there and took part in the ground war, Alqaeda as an organization was robbed the opportunity, probably the last such opportunity.

Now you can take this analysis and do one of three things:

Reject it, as you did
Accept it, and argue that it justifies intervention (the position that interventionists take)
Accept it, but argue that it still does not justifies any US invovlement because Libya is none of the US's business (a position I would respect)


Similarly, should the US withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably up their war and perhaps even win it. Does this justify continued US intervention? No, it doesn't.

All I'm saying is that non-intervention should be a solid moral principle that we use to make informed ethical decisions based upon the facts. It shouldn't be a pair of blinders that stops us from seeing things for what they are.

[CJLauderdale4]

Hey!

Look at the bright side. We can "declare war" against a state...it was so much harder when they were scattered across the Middle East. You know, sovereignty and all that. Now we just go invade Libya...we know they are there...look at the flag!

[jmdrake]

What I offered was my informed analysis based upon certain glaring facts. Me and many Muslims like me are plugged in to Alqaeda's sources thorugh their forums and thinkers and we know exaclty how they look at things.

I appreciate your expertise. But I don't buy it. Not in this case. There are a lot of experts in the world that say all sorts of things I disagree with. Some Muslim experts still say the Iraq war was the right thing. I disagree with them to. That takes nothing from their expertise. But at the end of the day I still think for myself. For all of your expertise you still haven't even attempted to address the article that I posted about the Libya rebel commander who admitted to being a recruiter of Al Qaeda.



The comparison to Iraq does not stand for more reasons that I have space for here.


Sure it does. Saddam was a dictator hated by many of his own people and so was Qaddafi. Saddam kept his foot down on radical Islamists for his own purposes and so did Qaddafi. Saddam protected a repressed minority (Christians) and so did Qaddafi (blacks). When Saddam fell that repressed minority was ethnically cleansed. The same thing is happening now that Qaddafi has fallen. Saddam had no WMDs to protect himself with and neither did Qaddafi. The new Iraq has Sharia embedded in its constitution and so will the new Libya. You might not think these comparisons are important, but it's inaccurate to pretend they don't exist.



When the Tunisian revolution spilled into the Egyptian revolution and led to Mubarak's ouster, Alqaeda was ecstatic. But the smart among them realized what it means to them. Their idea is based upon change through violence, after all.


Al Qaeda was ecstatic when the U.S. invaded Iraq. OBL said as much. So there you have yet another comparison.



Libya was their grand opportunity, and even though many of their fighters moved there and took part in the ground war, Alqaeda as an organization was robbed the opportunity, probably the last such opportunity.


Iraq was a grand opportunity and many fighters moved there and took part. Some came from Libya. And Al Qaeda seems to have been more successful in Libya than they have in Iraq. In Iraq radical Shiite extremists took over and Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization so AQ will have more friends in power in Libya than they would in Iraq. Iran was the big winner in the Iraq war.



Now you can take this analysis and do one of three things:

Reject it, as you did
Accept it, and argue that it justifies intervention (the position that interventionists take)
Accept it, but argue that it still does not justifies any US invovlement because Libya is none of the US's business (a position I would respect)



I reject it and I've given my reasons why by showing things that you seem to think are different about Libya actually apply to Iraq as well.



Similarly, should the US withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably up their war and perhaps even win it. Does this justify continued US intervention? No, it doesn't.


We are loosing in Afghanistan anyway. It is only a matter of time. The "nation building" we are doing in Afghanistan only serves to ultimately fund the Taliban.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20100094.html



All I'm saying is that non-intervention should be a solid moral principle that we use to make informed ethical decisions based upon the facts. It shouldn't be a pair of blinders that stops us from seeing things for what they are.

I am seeing things as they really are. Qaddafi was playing ball the way we wanted him to. Now he's gone. I don't believe the new regime will be more friendly to the U.S. We should not have helped in Qaddafi's demise.

[Vessol]

Not sure if facts still matter around here, but here goes. Alqaeda uses this flag, but the flag doesn't belong exclusively to them.

The flag in question has the "seal of the Prophet" and the declaration of faith in white, over a black background. This was the flag of the Prophet & the early Khilafa. Many Muslims (including, yes, Islamists, and yes, Alqaeda) use it.

Sorry. Look for another "smoking gun" for a direct, organized Alqaeda involvement in Libya.

Thank you for this. I was kind of suspicious at first as to why they would fly the flag of some organization, over a courthouse of all places. Al Qaeda has never been known to fly flags or banners that I'm aware of.

You explanation of the symbolism in the flag being the "seal of the prophet" makes perfect sense. That's why they are flying it over a courtroom. In Libya there is a very strong fundamentalist movement I imagine after the secular dictatorship of Ghadaffi. The flag being held above the NTC flag is to show that God is above country, kind of similar to how in the US the national flag is flown above state flags, to show that the federal government is above the state governments.