Libya: Paris Arming Rebels for Assault on Tripoli
The reported involvement of Qatar in arming the rebels is notable in and of itself. The state-owned Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera has played a prominent role in broadcasting reports of alleged atrocities committed by Libyan government forces. Such reports have served to provide much of the justification for international intervention in the Libyan conflict.
According to a “senior French official” cited by Le Figaro, the end-game of the French strategy is to provoke an uprising in the Libyan capital. “If the rebels get to the outskirts of Tripoli, the capital will surely rise up against Gaddafi,” the official claims. “The regime’s mercenaries are no longer being paid and are barely being fed. There is a severe gas shortage. The population cannot stand it anymore.”
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 reasserted an embargo on arms shipments to Libya already established by Resolution 1970. Resolution 1973 is commonly presented as the legal basis for current NATO military action in Libya.
Greetings:
Well, if this is part of President Sar-ko-zy’s strategy for his imminent “Mediterranean Union”, I sure hope that he can handle all the Muslim gratitude that’s likely to result. You’ve heard of Muslim gratitude, n’estce pas? It’s like a Missouri/Warhol River; a verbal mile wide, an actual inch deep and lasts for about 15 minutes. Rots of ruck, Monsieur Le President.
Sarkozy knows that Islam sucks; that’s for sure. He’s hosted gatherings to discuss Islam and its implications for the West. France is now taking the lead in the fight against Islam; and I might add, that they already did it once (the Crusades) and they can and will do it again.
Yes, even stateists like Sarkozy (of Hungarian descent I think) can show some semblance of having gonads in the face of some very real consequences at home; having over 6+ million Islamists living in their midst, or should I say living in their “enclaves”. I applaud Sarkozy for staying with it, even though I disagree with much of his views and political stances. The EU version of the DREAM act has brought sheer misery to their shores and now the tide is turning in spite of what the MSM says. The Dutch are basically claiming Durch sovereignty and are now requiring “immigrants” (Muslims to assimilate, learn Dutch or get out). The Dutch are going banning the Burkha in the near future and I reckon that once they decide to do something; it’s over for the Islamist scum. Geert Wilders is not alone and he deserves our respect for hanging in there at great cost to his own personal life; and I reckon he’ll be rewarded for his courage.
I never thought I’d be defending France and Holland…but I see hope even for them. Imagine what we can do as Americans against Islam once we decide to get with the program.
Anybody who does NOT think that there already are British, French, and American Special Ops forces in Libya is kidding themselves. Who do you think are guiding in all of those air strikes? Who do you think is organizing and probably training these “rebels?” And if you think the French are just dropping equipment out of planes and hoping that the “rebels” get it, that’s just plain silly. Somebody is on the receiving end of the drops and making sure they are dropped at the right place and at the right time so that the rebels get the equipment and not Gaddafi’s forces. We are already IN Libya. Hopefully, none of these Special Ops people will get killed in this useless civil war.
I see Ghaddafi’s head rolling as we speak…and yes; as Libertyship46 stated; we are already there.
The West is led by people that are as stupid as rocks, supporting the Islamists elements from eastern Libya that Ghaddafi has kept down, until now. The death march of the West continues.
“The West is led by people that are as stupid as rocks …”
LOL.
Whenever you find muslims fighting muslims immediately provide free weapons and ammunition to both sides.
Ha! Yeah! Do “Daisy Busters” need to be dropped from warplanes? Could suicide balloonists carry it off?
Does anyone care about the fact the UN Resolution supposedly authorizing this regime change attack said clearly that NO ONE was supposed to let ANY arms into the country. There was an explicit arms embargo in that France voted for in fact. The Gulf Countries did NATO’s bidding (smuggling cash and weapons) at first in secret, but now France sees a benefit to let the truth out. Why? So future transgressions of the UN Resolution by NATO countries are even easier swallowed. Boots on the ground already and more soon – just not in uniform.
No, I don’t care about a UN resolution. Nor do I about Sarkozy and the rebels. Eventually I want our troops out of the Middle East and maybe, the UN out of America.
We promised if Qaddafi gave up his WMD’s that we would let him be part of the international community. We would leave him alone. We lied. We actively broke that promise. We are doing our best to take advantage of Qaddafi believing our promise and destroy him.
Now any dictator we make similar promises to will point to Libya and ask, “Why should I believe you?” That should significantly increase the likelihood of WMD’s being a destabilizing influence in the world.
Arming the Berbers is the first sign of intelligence the West has shown. The Berbers and the Kurds are the two weak links in the Arab hegemony of the middle east.
Depending on which Berbers. If these are Berbers who want independence or to liberate themselves from Arab domination and oppression, or Islamists who just happen to be Berbers.
@#2 Husky
You state:
“Sarkozy knows that Islam sucks; that’s for sure”
We don’t know what he knows but we do know what he says and it’s quite nasty:
“Arabic the language of the future, of science and of modernity,” and expressed the hope that “more French people share in the language that expresses great civilizational and spiritual values.”
snip
“France is a friend of Arabic countries. We are not seeking a clash between the East and West”
The complete long quotation can be found here:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3591
The French language original text is here:
http://www.fdesouche.com/5104-la-france-arabe-de-nicolas-sarkozy
His anti-Israeli, pro Palestine leaning is quite palpable.
Also behold the complete secrecy that surrounds this operation: we don’t know anything as to who is who and why … people are not interested in this conflict.
The US armed the Mujahadeen/Taliban in much the same way.
Let’s see, how did that work out?
A QUESTION OF SANITY
The Western media for quite some time has utilised Gaddafi’s eccentricities to portray him as mad.
In reflecting on how this war in Libya has progressed, I, however, have reason to doubt the sanity of some Western leaders.
The war has been advanced by mainly three NATO nations, America, France and Britain.
Obama, while bombing Libya has professed that this is not a “war”. With stunning linguistic gymnastics, the war has somersaulted from the feet first “war” to a head over heels “support” mission and merely an “intervention”. I must now conclude that if I dislike my neighbour and start throwing Molotov cocktails on his roof and stones into his windows, I am not at war with him, but in an effort to have him remove from the neighbourhood, I am involved in a support mission and have merely intervened across the fence into his property. Sounds like a defence, then once I run it, I would have provided the Judge a good reason to order a psychiatric examination.
Sarkozy, for his part, is faced with a UN Resolution which prohibits the supply of arms to Libya. He then in seeking to enforce the UN Resolution supplies arms to the rebels, while professing to be upholding that UN Resolution. Candidate number two for mental status assessment.
In Britain, by parity of reason, one must assume that if a community took up arms, set up its own central bank, professed itself the new legitimate government of the UK, then for consistency, David Cameron, would simply fold his arms and direct that the British army not suppress the rebellion? Absolutely, because, no doubt, he would have to be politically consistent with his conduct in Libya – now, would he? On the 1st of July, and after 3 months of bombardment of Libya by NATO, several thousand people have marched in the streets of Tirpoli in support of Gadaffi, yet in the words of Cameron:-
“As I’ve said, we will help fulfil the UN Security Council [resolution] – it is for the Libyan people to determine their government and their destiny. But our view is clear – there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power. [The world cannot] stand aside while this dictator murders his own people.”
So, there are no equivalent public mass rallies in Benghazi of any size, and yet Gadaffi’s own people come out in mass support of their leader, but we cannot forget what Obama said:-
“Muammar Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave,”
and that Cameron and Obama are of one mind.
All three leaders are, of course, on a “humanitarian mission”. And to implement same, one drops bombs relentlessly on the Libyan people, who then come out in mass support of their leader and demand that the NATO bombing stops. But, as we know, Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron are all great humanitarians and thus they shall not relent from the humanitarian bombing for accomplishment of the noble humanitarian mission of removing the leader who over a million people want, while insisting that a leadership that no one ever heard of before – is installed in power to uphold the democratic wishes of the Libyan people.
Who really needs to consult the psychiatrist, Gadaffi, Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron or the masses of Libyans who marched in Tripoli ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHVDIMP-l80)?
P.S. I note now that you tube is busy, yet again, blocking the videos showing the size of the pro-Gadaffi demonstrations. Of course, we have freedom of expression here in the West.
(www.globaljusticeonline.com)
The Libyan war is proof that the Constitutional requirement that Congress declare our wars is not only moral but practical.
We have no idea why the leadership has begun this war. Might be a good idea. Might be a bad idea. Certainly it has no ‘buy in’ from the public and if things go badly we will not have the stamina that we showed, despite ourselves, in Iraq.
Why do the reasons for out involvement and for our trusting of the rebels need to be a secret? Maybe they are good reasons. Maybe they are bad reasons and if so we can concentrate on our many other regional wars.
John,
You say:-
” We have no idea why the leadership has begun this war. Might be a good idea. Might be a bad idea.”
Logically, legally, constitutionally, morally, politically:-
:;
081. A bad
\’[ueqWSAD8idea.
2. In contravention of the War Powers Act.
3. In contraventon of the US Constitution.
The citizens of the US have every justifiation to question this “bad idea” of attacking Libya, while Saudi Arabia chops off heads and hands – so what does the US do – bomb Libya – why – oil, hegemony, greed, misguided foreign poilcy….? aredgtb32