• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libya’s Islamist militia strike from the sky

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
73b8098e-b533-436c-808b-d133f03e3ccb_16x9_600x338.jpg


A Tripoli-based Islamist militia in Libya carried out their first airstrike late Tuesday on a western Libyan town allied with a rival force headed by renegade general Khalifa al-Haftar, Al Arabiya News Channel reported.

Haftar’s forces, based mainly in the eastern part of the country, have used the air force to pound Islamist positions in Tripoli and other parts of the country. The Islamists have not had similar capabilities, and their first airstrikes have raised fear of possible escalation to air warfare between the two.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New.../Warplane-strikes-Libyan-town-of-Zintan-.html

So now these Islamist freaks are using jets. :doh
 
Obama's reaction: It's the fault of those damn Christians!
 
73b8098e-b533-436c-808b-d133f03e3ccb_16x9_600x338.jpg


A Tripoli-based Islamist militia in Libya carried out their first airstrike late Tuesday on a western Libyan town allied with a rival force headed by renegade general Khalifa al-Haftar, Al Arabiya News Channel reported.

Haftar’s forces, based mainly in the eastern part of the country, have used the air force to pound Islamist positions in Tripoli and other parts of the country. The Islamists have not had similar capabilities, and their first airstrikes have raised fear of possible escalation to air warfare between the two.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New.../Warplane-strikes-Libyan-town-of-Zintan-.html

So now these Islamist freaks are using jets. :doh



One...What evidence do you have that they were "Islamist"? Other than the Alarabia News saying they are "Islamist"?

You see, it is this kind of reporting that really undermines the president.

And the fact that it is Libya and "old news", clearly this is a Tea Bagger attack on the truth
 
Islamists using slow and unmaneuverable civilian aircraft to conduct air raids?
Military fighter aircraft shouldn't have much of a problem shooting those down.

Unless they are using other aircraft. Sorry, but I haven't time to read the article now, but will when I get home from work.
 
Lets hope those in Syria or Iraq can't get any of their stolen military tech to those in Libya. Like choppers or an Assad Mig.
 
Islamists using slow and unmaneuverable civilian aircraft to conduct air raids?
Military fighter aircraft shouldn't have much of a problem shooting those down.

Unless they are using other aircraft. Sorry, but I haven't time to read the article now, but will when I get home from work.

Dont know what aircraft were used here but elsewhere they have migs. The problem is three fold, they can be quite deadly even kamikazes, they complicate aid/defense in the region and its a disturbing development for a war that according to Obama isn't happening.
 
And what of the dangers when civilian aircraft could now to be targeted.
 
73b8098e-b533-436c-808b-d133f03e3ccb_16x9_600x338.jpg


A Tripoli-based Islamist militia in Libya carried out their first airstrike late Tuesday on a western Libyan town allied with a rival force headed by renegade general Khalifa al-Haftar, Al Arabiya News Channel reported.

Haftar’s forces, based mainly in the eastern part of the country, have used the air force to pound Islamist positions in Tripoli and other parts of the country. The Islamists have not had similar capabilities, and their first airstrikes have raised fear of possible escalation to air warfare between the two.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New.../Warplane-strikes-Libyan-town-of-Zintan-.html

So now these Islamist freaks are using jets. :doh



The real scary part?

Four years after the NATO-backed war toppled Qaddafi, Western governments fear Libya is sliding deeper into war as the rival factions battle for control and the country’s oil wealth.

"Western governments" whom?

I have not heard such concerns from the US White House.

And while we're at it, there has been a direct threat issued to a NATO country, Italy. Where is the statement from NATO warning an attack on Rome is an attack on all? Canada, France and the US were pretty eager to start bombing 4 years ago...and now that the chickens have laid and hatched their eggs, where's the fox?
 
The real scary part?



"Western governments" whom?

I have not heard such concerns from the US White House.

And while we're at it, there has been a direct threat issued to a NATO country, Italy. Where is the statement from NATO warning an attack on Rome is an attack on all? Canada, France and the US were pretty eager to start bombing 4 years ago...and now that the chickens have laid and hatched their eggs, where's the fox?

One of them, is cackling, with designs on the white house.
 
One of them, is cackling, with designs on the white house.




Hillary is pretty silent on the status of the war now....

I wonder if she would stand by the statement that "Iran is the largest supporter of terrorism in the world"...and if not can she explain what changed?

Man I hope she runs
 
Hillary is pretty silent on the status of the war now....

I wonder if she would stand by the statement that "Iran is the largest supporter of terrorism in the world"...and if not can she explain what changed?

Man I hope she runs

She's in for the fight of her life, it will make dodging those snipers fresh out of her helicopter seem like a walk in the park. She actually once said she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, btw.
 
She's in for the fight of her life, it will make dodging those snipers fresh out of her helicopter seem like a walk in the park. She actually once said she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, btw.

I am increasingly of the opinion that she will not. I started a thread last fall to that effect citing a list of issues beginning with her age and health. Since then she has done nothing to disavow me of that notion as she has done nothing.

The party took a serious hit last November and we saw the power people falter badly, Debbie blew it with "we know we are right....", and Obama renewed his resolve to make congress a personal war. There has been no leadership, but a few heads pocking up to see if they can see their shadow while eying a shot themselves.

After November, she had two choices; rise up with a new, but subtly stated message. One of "we need to do things differently..." or back Obama 100%. She did neither which tells me:

Her and the grandmaster - and he is - have no idea where the political winds are shifting.

She is less than enthusiastic.

They have some skeletons in the political closet Obama is holding as a trump card...

And, she is not getting good, professional advice.

You strike when the opponent is weak and you are strong, a rattlesnake that has not eaten will run not bite. She is not striking at anything which tells me she is weak. You ride the crest handed to you always prepared to shift with the current and the wind, and she watched a tsunami go by without a blink..."we need to change how we do things..." would have held her in the spotlight, above Obama as the party was reeling from a bitter and predicted defeat.

In short, she seems to have stopped being a politician. If you're not prepared to slice your own kind from asshole to earlobe, then you do not belong in the game.
 
I am increasingly of the opinion that she will not. I started a thread last fall to that effect citing a list of issues beginning with her age and health. Since then she has done nothing to disavow me of that notion as she has done nothing.

The party took a serious hit last November and we saw the power people falter badly, Debbie blew it with "we know we are right....", and Obama renewed his resolve to make congress a personal war. There has been no leadership, but a few heads pocking up to see if they can see their shadow while eying a shot themselves.

After November, she had two choices; rise up with a new, but subtly stated message. One of "we need to do things differently..." or back Obama 100%. She did neither which tells me:

Her and the grandmaster - and he is - have no idea where the political winds are shifting.

She is less than enthusiastic.

They have some skeletons in the political closet Obama is holding as a trump card...

And, she is not getting good, professional advice.

You strike when the opponent is weak and you are strong, a rattlesnake that has not eaten will run not bite. She is not striking at anything which tells me she is weak. You ride the crest handed to you always prepared to shift with the current and the wind, and she watched a tsunami go by without a blink..."we need to change how we do things..." would have held her in the spotlight, above Obama as the party was reeling from a bitter and predicted defeat.

In short, she seems to have stopped being a politician. If you're not prepared to slice your own kind from asshole to earlobe, then you do not belong in the game.

One thing I heard this week was that dems are increasingly supporting the military against ISIS to paint themselves as a stronger party, and for Hillary to distance herself from Obama, I doubt thats going to play out. Historically the republicans are favored in war time, and it seems like wartime to me.
 
One thing I heard this week was that dems are increasingly supporting the military against ISIS to paint themselves as a stronger party, and for Hillary to distance herself from Obama, I doubt thats going to play out. Historically the republicans are favored in war time, and it seems like wartime to me.

There is that. The old saying, they start em we finish em..

No, she won't take a stand and that will hurt her.

I have been waiting to see a poll on support for Obama on the ISIS issue. I will not be surprised to see congressmen soon start criticizing. Canadians do not like starting wars, we finish them too. Yet the war drums are sounding here, very uncharacteristic. If that's the case then your average Democrat in the US is going to vote security. We may be watching another Reagan style 1980 thing if Obama does not soon get a win in his column'
 
There is that. The old saying, they start em we finish em..

No, she won't take a stand and that will hurt her.

I have been waiting to see a poll on support for Obama on the ISIS issue. I will not be surprised to see congressmen soon start criticizing. Canadians do not like starting wars, we finish them too. Yet the war drums are sounding here, very uncharacteristic. If that's the case then your average Democrat in the US is going to vote security. We may be watching another Reagan style 1980 thing if Obama does not soon get a win in his column'

I did start a thread yesterday showing the majority disapprove of Obamas actions against ISIS up till this point. A leader would come out and make his case, this chump potus will wait for the latest poll.

I think its more and more likely the next potus will be republican, but hopefully the world isnt fully engulfed by then.
 
One of them, is cackling, with designs on the white house.


That's completely true. It was Hillary that was pushing Qaddafi out during the Arab spring movement. Obama bought into that as well, and authorized his famous 'lead from behind' policy (what an oxymoron! From behind, you are by definition a follower). The EU nations either jumped in voluntarily, or where pushed to do so by Hill and Bo, I can't remember which it was.

Now look at the mess left behind. One wonders how it would have turned out had greater US leadership been asserted, or even if the entire thing was avoided by NOT pushing Qaddafi out. (See even the left makes that mistakes, it's not just the right, but for the record, after 9/11, there was every reason to invade Afghanistan)

This in and of itself, is a serious threat against Hillary's run to the presidency. Wonder how she'll field that question, if it is ever allowed or if the complicit Biased Lame Stream Media have the compunction to even dare utter it.
 
That's completely true. It was Hillary that was pushing Qaddafi out during the Arab spring movement. Obama bought into that as well, and authorized his famous 'lead from behind' policy (what an oxymoron! From behind, you are by definition a follower). The EU nations either jumped in voluntarily, or where pushed to do so by Hill and Bo, I can't remember which it was.

Now look at the mess left behind. One wonders how it would have turned out had greater US leadership been asserted, or even if the entire thing was avoided by NOT pushing Qaddafi out. (See even the left makes that mistakes, it's not just the right, but for the record, after 9/11, there was every reason to invade Afghanistan)

This in and of itself, is a serious threat against Hillary's run to the presidency. Wonder how she'll field that question, if it is ever allowed or if the complicit Biased Lame Stream Media have the compunction to even dare utter it.

Her foreign policy is a disaster, as is Obama's. Come 2016, everyone will be even more sick of Obama, and she wont have a record to stand on. She's also going to have to come out of hiding sometime...she hasn't made a public appearance in a year, but people are sick of her when they see/hear her.

Add in the radical islam threat and its looking more likely the republicans will gain the white house-if they dont blow it-theres 2 years left.
 
Her foreign policy is a disaster, as is Obama's. Come 2016, everyone will be even more sick of Obama, and she wont have a record to stand on. She's also going to have to come out of hiding sometime...she hasn't made a public appearance in a year, but people are sick of her when they see/hear her.

Add in the radical islam threat and its looking more likely the republicans will gain the white house-if they dont blow it-theres 2 years left.

I'd have to agree. So many are claiming that Hillary's the next Dem prez candidate by default, well, that's going to be a losing ticket, just as soon as her track record, one of little to no achievement, is brought to light and the forefront, as I said, should any in the Biased Lame Stream Media dare bring up any questions about it. Given the breadth and depth of the failure to vet Obama, and expecting a similar repeat, I'm not holing my breath.

The first black president! No need for any in depth digging here! It'll be great!
The first woman president! No need for any in depth digging here! It'll be great!

Yeah, right. What's it called when you do the same thing over and over, and expect different results?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Is the electorate going to repeat the same once again? Is the left going to have their collective orgasm over this ground breaking presidential candidate also?
 
I'd have to agree. So many are claiming that Hillary's the next Dem prez candidate by default, well, that's going to be a losing ticket, just as soon as her track record, one of little to no achievement, is brought to light and the forefront, as I said, should any in the Biased Lame Stream Media dare bring up any questions about it. Given the breadth and depth of the failure to vet Obama, and expecting a similar repeat, I'm not holing my breath.

The first black president! No need for any in depth digging here! It'll be great!
The first woman president! No need for any in depth digging here! It'll be great!

Yeah, right. What's it called when you do the same thing over and over, and expect different results?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Is the electorate going to repeat the same once again? Is the left going to have their collective orgasm over this ground breaking presidential candidate also?

She was also "anointed" running in 08, but eventually the momentum swung to Obama. She's in an even weaker position now, and has probably made more enemies.

I'd like to think that Americans have figured out that symbolism over substance isn't doing anyone any favors. Perhaps frustration with Bush was also a factor, hard to say.
 
OMG, what a love fest we've got going on here. Why can't people learn to be Americans, and have some concern about what's good for America instead of licking all over each other and pretending that a god damn party is paramount, huh? JFChrist
 
She was also "anointed" running in 08, but eventually the momentum swung to Obama. She's in an even weaker position now, and has probably made more enemies.

I'd like to think that Americans have figured out that symbolism over substance isn't doing anyone any favors. Perhaps frustration with Bush was also a factor, hard to say.

You gotta figure that many are tired of Obama after 2 terms the same way that many were tired after 2 terms of Bush, and all the Biased lame Stream Media coverage they unfairly heaped on him didn't help any in the least. It's till hard to find any critical coverage or criticism in the Biased Lame Stream Media of Obama, yet many are fed up with his crap.
 
OMG, what a love fest we've got going on here. Why can't people learn to be Americans, and have some concern about what's good for America instead of licking all over each other and pretending that a god damn party is paramount, huh? JFChrist

Politics is absolutely valid here. Presidents determine where and how military force is used and they are elected.
 
You gotta figure that many are tired of Obama after 2 terms the same way that many were tired after 2 terms of Bush, and all the Biased lame Stream Media coverage they unfairly heaped on him didn't help any in the least. It's till hard to find any critical coverage or criticism in the Biased Lame Stream Media of Obama, yet many are fed up with his crap.

It is indeed. Our "adversarial and unbiased" media in action.
 
Politics is absolutely valid here. Presidents determine where and how military force is used and they are elected.

Stop licking on each other as though that's what's important. Are you an American? Do you care about what's good for America? Or is your ****ing party all that matters, hmm?
 
Back
Top Bottom