Libya’s violent free-for-all

Libya's violent free-for-all

TRIPOLI, Libya — On paper, Libya should be booming. It’s one of the world’s top 10 countries in oil reserves.
It has more than a thousand miles of coastline on the Mediterranean. And it serves as a vital conduit linking Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

Once Qadaffi was shot to death after being droned abd chased into a drainage pipe in the coastal city of Sirte by the US and France , militias that had been organized along tribal or ideological lines turned on each other.
With no true national actor among them (politics is a local affair in Libya, a result of Kadafi playing off different sides so a clear challenger would never emerge), the country fractured into a vicious free-for-all. Criminal and Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda and Islamic State, operated in full view of a government unable (and often unwilling) to do anything about them.

Last month, Khalifa Haftar, who served under Kadafi as a general but eventually sought to overthrow him, launched an all-out offensive to wrest Tripoli, the capital, from the U.N.-recognized Government of National Accord. But his self-styled Libyan National Army, despite having made significant gains in eastern and southern Libya, has been stymied in attempts to enter the capital, home to more than 2.5 million people, by armed factions loyal to the GNA.
Libya’s violent free-for-all | National | heraldmailmedia.com

What you need to ask yourself is 'Who instigated Qadaffi's fall, and why'.

Cui bono "to whom is it a benefit?"

Libya was stable before Qadaffi's fall, and hasn't been stable since.

^ the bare bones basics. One more key paragraph to show the defenders of Tripoli
( control for the airport once again is where the big clashes happen. )

The four major factions controlling the capital, known as the Tripoli Protection Force, have mounted the main defense.
They are what is known as the Tripoli Revolutionaries Brigade, the Nawasi Battalion,
the Abu Salim Central Security Forces and the Bab Tajoura Brigade. (The names reflect the tribal and location-conscious nature of their formation.)

They’ve been joined by groups from western Libyan cities such as Zintan and Misrata; the latter are known to be especially fierce fighters. Also with them are Islamists seeking to pay back their losses at Haftar’s hands.

Click to expand...

^link above

eohrnberger said:

What you need to ask yourself is 'Who instigated Qadaffi's fall, and why'.

Cui bono "to whom is it a benefit?"

Libya was stable before Qadaffi's fall, and hasn't been stable since.

Click to expand...

of course. here is a title of one of Hillary's Emails

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO,
and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya.

She was instrumental in securing the
authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

sorry about the thread title, something happened when I c/p'd it

Haftar leads the Libyan National Army (LNA)and is tied to the Bengazi/Tobruk government.

The old House of Parliament from the initial government broke apart and the House claimed legitimacy and sojourn to Bengazi from Tripoli ( and at one time found a perch on a houseboat)
Libyan Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

The Tripoli governments never represented the east well -and the current Tripoli GNA
is a creation of the UN

annata said:

of course. here is a title of one of Hillary's Emails

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO,
and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya.

She was instrumental in securing the
authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

Click to expand...

But benefit to the US, or to Hillary, it's not. I suppose one could add it to the list of her Lybian **** ups, which would include the Benghazi fiasco, and the persistent rumor of missing stinger missiles.

Gen. Khalifa Haftar is very likely an American proxy puppet determined to unseat the internationally (UN) recognised but also completely incompetent "National Unity Government" in Tripoli. NATO, Europe and America made a huge mistake in toppling the Gaddafi Government in 2011, but French financial interests trumped common sense and eight years of bloody chaos followed. Behold the face of invisible, neo-colonialism in the modern context. However European financiers can breathe easy that Gaddafi's African Development Fund is dead and robbed blind so North African economic nationalism will be held in check long enough to entrench control of the huge natural gas resources of Northwestern Saharan Africa securely in Western hands.

International finance and capitalism just as it was in the early 20th Century but without the imperial entanglements. Poor, bloody Libya.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Gen. Khalifa Haftar is very likely an American proxy puppet determined to unseat the internationally (UN) recognised but also completely incompetent "National Unity Government" in Tripoli. NATO, Europe and America made a huge mistake in toppling the Gaddafi Government in 2011, but French financial interests trumped common sense and eight years of bloody chaos followed. Behold the face of invisible, neo-colonialism in the modern context. However European financiers can breathe easy that Gaddafi's African Development Fund is dead and robbed blind so North African economic nationalism will be held in check long enough to entrench control of the huge natural gas resources of Northwestern Saharan Africa securely in Western hands.

International finance and capitalism just as it was in the early 20th Century but without the imperial entanglements. Poor, bloody Libya.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Just goes to show that the globalists give a rat's ass about the people...just about their profits.

eohrnberger said:

What you need to ask yourself is 'Who instigated Qadaffi's fall, and why'.

Cui bono "to whom is it a benefit?"

Libya was stable before Qadaffi's fall, and hasn't been stable since.

Click to expand...

Gaddafi sponsored practically every terrorist group under the sun for decades and ordered terrorist attacks in the West, including at least one which killed Americans.

But hey, we all know conservatives don't give a **** about that

Tigerace117 said:

Gaddafi sponsored practically every terrorist group under the sun for decades and ordered terrorist attacks in the West, including at least one which killed Americans.

But hey, we all know conservatives don't give a **** about that

Click to expand...

So exactly like Iran then. But hey, we all know liberals don't give a **** about that.

Whether or not 'Gaddafi sponsored practically every terrorist group under the sun for decades', still seems a reasonable question to ask, the stability if the region before and after.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Evilroddy said:

Gen. Khalifa Haftar is very likely an American proxy puppet determined to unseat the internationally (UN) recognised but also completely incompetent "National Unity Government" in Tripoli. NATO, Europe and America made a huge mistake in toppling the Gaddafi Government in 2011, but French financial interests trumped common sense and eight years of bloody chaos followed. Behold the face of invisible, neo-colonialism in the modern context. However European financiers can breathe easy that Gaddafi's African Development Fund is dead and robbed blind so North African economic nationalism will be held in check long enough to entrench control of the huge natural gas resources of Northwestern Saharan Africa securely in Western hands.

International finance and capitalism just as it was in the early 20th Century but without the imperial entanglements. Poor, bloody Libya.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Gen. Khalifa Haftar may have been CIA at one time ,but now he's strictly acting as the commander of the LNA.
Trump backs Haftar as well, but there is no evidence of any American assitence

Yes the US/NATO were warmongers - Hillary was a main pusher of removing Qadaffi
( getting him to be classified a military target) but the ensuing chaos is really their own civil war.

Qadaffi held the place together, but when removed the ensuing lack of security led to the formation of "militia rule"
Militia rule means that the government and locals and the various "brigades" all do their own security

Re: Libya's violent free-for-all

annata said:

TRIPOLI, Libya — On paper, Libya should be booming. It’s one of the world’s top 10 countries in oil reserves.
It has more than a thousand miles of coastline on the Mediterranean. And it serves as a vital conduit linking Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

Once Qadaffi was shot to death after being droned abd chased into a drainage pipe in the coastal city of Sirte by the US and France , militias that had been organized along tribal or ideological lines turned on each other.
With no true national actor among them (politics is a local affair in Libya, a result of Kadafi playing off different sides so a clear challenger would never emerge), the country fractured into a vicious free-for-all. Criminal and Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda and Islamic State, operated in full view of a government unable (and often unwilling) to do anything about them.

Last month, Khalifa Haftar, who served under Kadafi as a general but eventually sought to overthrow him, launched an all-out offensive to wrest Tripoli, the capital, from the U.N.-recognized Government of National Accord. But his self-styled Libyan National Army, despite having made significant gains in eastern and southern Libya, has been stymied in attempts to enter the capital, home to more than 2.5 million people, by armed factions loyal to the GNA.
Libya’s violent free-for-all | National | heraldmailmedia.com

Click to expand...

Thank Obama for this mess. Helped them kill Gaddafi, but didn't offer to help form any kind of transitional govt in the war-torn country

Re: Libya's violent free-for-all

Roadvirus said:

Thank Obama for this mess. Helped them kill Gaddafi, but didn't offer to help form any kind of transitional govt in the war-torn country

Click to expand...

'Cause a mess and then walk away denying any responsibility for the mess' ??

When have we seen that before from Democrats. Hmm.

Re: Libya's violent free-for-all

Roadvirus said:

Thank Obama for this mess. Helped them kill Gaddafi, but didn't offer to help form any kind of transitional govt in the war-torn country

Click to expand...

National Transitional Council - Wikipedia < refused western troops,or UN troops. Mustafa Abdul Jalil - Wikipedia
The country was in chaos and then the next civil war broke out

eohrnberger said:

What you need to ask yourself is 'Who instigated Qadaffi's fall, and why'.

Cui bono "to whom is it a benefit?"

Libya was stable before Qadaffi's fall, and hasn't been stable since.

Click to expand...

Iraq was also stable, then ended up with ISIS.

Let's look at 2001.

Hugo Chavez had been trying to get OPEC together as a proper cartel for the first time in ages.

Four countries of the 12 were really opposed to the US. Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Libya.

Fast forward 18 years and two leaders have been deposed, sanctions against the other two, Trump has threatened war with both of them in the last couple of weeks too.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, plays the game of a two faced f*cker. They will go along with OPEC but pretend they don't have anything to do with it if the US asks. They had the majority of the 9/11 bombers and yet manage not to get on Trump's Muslim list to make the US a safer country. Venezuela on the other hand manages to get on it.

It's not hard to see it's all about oil. The US couldn't give a stuff about Libya right now, as long as it's not in a position to help OPEC control prices, they're happy for the Libyans to be at civil war.

Had Syria been OPEC and opposed to the US, it wouldn't have taken them long to oust Assad.

annata said:

Gen. Khalifa Haftar may have been CIA at one time ,but now he's strictly acting as the commander of the LNA.
Trump backs Haftar as well, but there is no evidence of any American assitence

Yes the US/NATO were warmongers - Hillary was a main pusher of removing Qadaffi
( getting him to be classified a military target) but the ensuing chaos is really their own civil war.

Qadaffi held the place together, but when removed the ensuing lack of security led to the formation of "militia rule"
Militia rule means that the government and locals and the various "brigades" all do their own security

Click to expand...

McCain was also a big pusher of removing Gadaffi, along with the French and British (both right wing governments)

Looking at what McCain said when both Libya and Syria ended up at civil war and you see completely different narratives. Libya had to be bombed to safeguard blah blah, but Syria the US needs to be patient and not take any risks.

Frigidweirdo said:

Iraq was also stable, then ended up with ISIS.

Let's look at 2001.

Hugo Chavez had been trying to get OPEC together as a proper cartel for the first time in ages.

Four countries of the 12 were really opposed to the US. Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Libya.

Fast forward 18 years and two leaders have been deposed, sanctions against the other two, Trump has threatened war with both of them in the last couple of weeks too.

Click to expand...

More in context, Trump threatens retaliatory military action against an aggressor. Fair enough.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, plays the game of a two faced f*cker. They will go along with OPEC but pretend they don't have anything to do with it if the US asks. They had the majority of the 9/11 bombers and yet manage not to get on Trump's Muslim list to make the US a safer country. Venezuela on the other hand manages to get on it.

Click to expand...

So, your claim is that the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian state sponsored terrorists? This should be interesting, if you can demonstrate this.

It's not hard to see it's all about oil. The US couldn't give a stuff about Libya right now, as long as it's not in a position to help OPEC control prices, they're happy for the Libyans to be at civil war.

Had Syria been OPEC and opposed to the US, it wouldn't have taken them long to oust Assad.

Click to expand...

Meh. Supposition unsupported by any facts in this post, that "Had Syria been OPEC and opposed to the US, it wouldn't have taken them long to oust Assad."

In the mean time the US has become a net exporter of oil.

U.S. Becomes Net Exporter of Oil, Fuels for First Time in Decades - WSJ
Page Not Found...

US becomes a net energy exporter in 2020, Energy Dept says
Page not found...
Jan 24, 2019 - The boom in U.S. oil and natural gas production will make the U.S. a net energy exporter in 2020 — a feat the country has not achieved in ...

Something doesn't seem to add up in your logic.

eohrnberger said:

More in context, Trump threatens retaliatory military action against an aggressor. Fair enough.



So, your claim is that the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian state sponsored terrorists? This should be interesting, if you can demonstrate this.



Meh. Supposition unsupported by any facts in this post, that "Had Syria been OPEC and opposed to the US, it wouldn't have taken them long to oust Assad."

In the mean time the US has become a net exporter of oil.

U.S. Becomes Net Exporter of Oil, Fuels for First Time in Decades - WSJ
Page Not Found...

US becomes a net energy exporter in 2020, Energy Dept says
Page not found...
Jan 24, 2019 - The boom in U.S. oil and natural gas production will make the U.S. a net energy exporter in 2020 — a feat the country has not achieved in ...

Something doesn't seem to add up in your logic.

Click to expand...

Well, Trump threatens retaliatory action. Really? So there was an attack on an oil tanker. There's a big chance either Israel or Saudi Arabia did this. No evidence has been presented, and with the US having a history of faking evidence to go to war, with the Saudis having evidence of hating the Iranians to the point where they've embargoed Qatar because Qatar refused to be the Saudi's b*tch and Israel having a history of hiding stuff. What are the chances?

How convenient is it?

North Korea was on the brink of war at one point. Turns out Trump had no intention of going to war. Now when the missiles fly, he bigs up Kim. There's been talk of war with Venezuela and Iran. Two of the four OPEC countries which hated the US in 2001. The other two had regime change.

No, I didn't say the Saudi terrorists were state sponsored. They probably were, the Saudis pumped lots of money into terrorism, however like the politicians they are, they'd filter the money through other people so there's no trace back to them.

WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists | World news | The Guardian

"Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton."

At best we have the Saudis not doing anything when they know the money is leaving the country and going to such groups.

However the point I was making was that Trump wanted a travel ban on certain countries because the people from those countries supposedly posed a threat to US security. Doesn't matter if they're state sponsored or not. It's whether they can get to the US or not. Which country's people pose the BIGGEST THREAT to terrorism in the US? Saudi Arabia.

Frigidweirdo said:

Well, Trump threatens retaliatory action. Really? So there was an attack on an oil tanker. There's a big chance either Israel or Saudi Arabia did this. No evidence has been presented, and with the US having a history of faking evidence to go to war, with the Saudis having evidence of hating the Iranians to the point where they've embargoed Qatar because Qatar refused to be the Saudi's b*tch and Israel having a history of hiding stuff. What are the chances?

How convenient is it?

Click to expand...

Some in the administration might be neo-con war hawks, but I don't think Trump is. Seems far more likely that the oil tanker attack was a Iranian, or Iranian supported terrorists. Rather doubtful that it would have been Saudi or Israel.

North Korea was on the brink of war at one point. Turns out Trump had no intention of going to war. Now when the missiles fly, he bigs up Kim. There's been talk of war with Venezuela and Iran. Two of the four OPEC countries which hated the US in 2001. The other two had regime change.

No, I didn't say the Saudi terrorists were state sponsored. They probably were, the Saudis pumped lots of money into terrorism, however like the politicians they are, they'd filter the money through other people so there's no trace back to them.

WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists | World news | The Guardian

"Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton."

At best we have the Saudis not doing anything when they know the money is leaving the country and going to such groups.

Click to expand...

LOLz. Believe a single word that comes out of Hillary's mouth? Naa. Lot percentage that it'd be the truth.

There's a difference between the Saudi state and the Islamic sect with wealthy individuals, that fund other Islamic militant extremists that commit terrorist acts. Yes, there is a difference. The 9/11 terrorists is an example of the latter and not an example of the former.

However the point I was making was that Trump wanted a travel ban on certain countries because the people from those countries supposedly posed a threat to US security. Doesn't matter if they're state sponsored or not. It's whether they can get to the US or not. Which country's people pose the BIGGEST THREAT to terrorism in the US? Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

Do you even know what Wahhabism is? Here's a link. Read up on it before you make yourself look even more foolish. Osama Bin Laden, the money man behind the 9/11 attacks is an independently wealthy Wahhabist, for example.

eohrnberger said:

Meh. Supposition unsupported by any facts in this post, that "Had Syria been OPEC and opposed to the US, it wouldn't have taken them long to oust Assad."

In the mean time the US has become a net exporter of oil.

U.S. Becomes Net Exporter of Oil, Fuels for First Time in Decades - WSJ
Page Not Found...

US becomes a net energy exporter in 2020, Energy Dept says
Page not found...
Jan 24, 2019 - The boom in U.S. oil and natural gas production will make the U.S. a net energy exporter in 2020 — a feat the country has not achieved in ...

Something doesn't seem to add up in your logic.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll prove it.



15th February 2011 was the start of it all in Libya.

Republicans upset with Obama's regime change remarks - CNN.com

"When U.S. President Barack Obama said Monday it would be wrong to seek regime change in Libya by force, Republican lawmakers took issue -- saying removing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is and should be precisely the goal." March 29, 2011

""The reason why we wage wars is to achieve the results of a policy that we state," McCain said."

"Overall, however, McCain said Obama made a "strong case" for the military effort in Libya and laid out the reasons why the president thought it was important to intervene."



McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya - CNN.com

"McCain pushes heavier U.S. involvement in Libya" April 22, 2011

"Libyan opposition leaders received a major morale boost Friday when a top U.S. senator made a surprise visit to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and urged greater American involvement in the bloody campaign to oust strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

The visit from Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, came a day after the United States said it was deploying predator drones to Libya."


In Syria it all kicked off on the 15th March 2011.

Oh this is massively frustrating. I'm struggling to find the things I found before. Even went back to an old political forum and the search function hardly works, and Google is throwing up so much rubbish it's ridiculous. Type in McCain and Syria and the only thing with McCain in it is to do with Libya.


Anyway, McCain was essentially giving reasons they the US should not go into Syria at this time, in total contrast to what he said with Libya.

Here's McCain two years later talking about arming rebels, no talk of bombing.

John McCain makes surprise visit to rebel leaders in Syria | World news | The Guardian

"
This article is more than 6 years old John McCain makes surprise visit to rebel leaders in Syria"

eohrnberger said:

Some in the administration might be neo-con war hawks, but I don't think Trump is. Seems far more likely that the oil tanker attack was a Iranian, or Iranian supported terrorists. Rather doubtful that it would have been Saudi or Israel.



LOLz. Believe a single word that comes out of Hillary's mouth? Naa. Lot percentage that it'd be the truth.

There's a difference between the Saudi state and the Islamic sect with wealthy individuals, that fund other Islamic militant extremists that commit terrorist acts. Yes, there is a difference. The 9/11 terrorists is an example of the latter and not an example of the former.



Do you even know what Wahhabism is? Here's a link. Read up on it before you make yourself look even more foolish. Osama Bin Laden, the money man behind the 9/11 attacks is an independently wealthy Wahhabist, for example.

Click to expand...

Do you know how things work?

Sometimes the president doesn't know about things. This doesn't need to have been a US job. It could have been CIA without the knowledge of Trump. It could have been Saudi and it could have been Israeli. Either way Trump isn't going to be in on it.

With the realization from the Saudis and Israelis that Trump is easy as pie to manipulate, they're clearly going to try such things at some point.

But the reality is we can't know. It could have been the Iranians. It could have been anyone.

Do I believe Hillary? Not really. Do I believe Trump? No. Israelis? No. Saudis? No. CIA? No.

That's not the point here. The point is that a LOT OF PEOPLE believe the Saudis are complicit in terrorism. I mean, they brutally executed a Journalist working for the Washington Post. They got away with it. To the point where the US continued to sell arms to the Saudis. The Saudis have got a lot more confident since Trump became president.

Trump went to Saudi Arabia in May 2017, in June Qatar got blockaded. Coincidence? No chance.

eohrnberger said:

So exactly like Iran then. But hey, we all know liberals don't give a **** about that.

Whether or not 'Gaddafi sponsored practically every terrorist group under the sun for decades', still seems a reasonable question to ask, the stability if the region before and after.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Um....no, it's not a "reasonable question to ask" because we know full well that he did sponsor those groups.

Conservatives having crushes on every dictator under the sun does not change that fact

Tigerace117 said:

Um....no, it's not a "reasonable question to ask" because we know full well that he did sponsor those groups.

Click to expand...

If this is the position then there's an explanation empowering Iran and their sponsorship of terrorists groups, quite different than the deposing of Qaddafi.

Conservatives having crushes on every dictator under the sun does not change that fact

Click to expand...

Yeah, right. As if that's realistic in any sense.

Whom gave the Iranian's dictators their sweetheart deal?
Whom gave ISIS their sweetheart deal over Bergdahl?

Please parrot DNC issued talking points to someone else. I'm not interested in them.

Some years ago, poor Libya had the misfortune of suggesting that African nations move away from petrodollar to a gold-backed reserve currency, not dissimilar to a proposal made by one Saddam Hussein in the 1990s.

TPTB in Washington were not so enthralled with the idea.

Syria would likewise be nothing more than a smoking crater in the Earth right now, if Russia hadn't stepped in to protect its national interests.