SAS has been fighting against ISIS in Libya since start of year says King of Jordan

cancel2 2022

Canceled


This is what should have happened after the Ghaddafi was toppled, hopefully it is not too late to save Libya.


  • SAS troops are operating against ISIS along with Jordanian special forces
  • King Abdullah of Jordan confirmed the deployment on a trip to the US
  • The King briefed congressional leadership on the deployment in January
  • The Ministry of Defence has refused to comment on the SAS deployment

The SAS has been fighting ISIS on the ground in Libya since the beginning of the year according to King Abdullah of Jordan.
Senior ISIS commanders have been fleeing into Libya as their control of large areas of Iraq and Syria is being weakened.
Details of a secret briefing between King Abdullah and US congressional leaders which was leaked to a specialist Middle East security website confirm the elite warriors presence in the failed north African state.

According to Middle East Eye, King Abdullah told the US politicians that his own special forces were operational in Libya alongside the SAS. The leaked document states: 'His Majesty [King Abdullah] said he expects a spike in a couple of weeks and Jordanians will be embedded [sic] with British SAS, as Jordanian slang is similar to Libyan slang.' The King continued: 'The problem is bigger than ISIL, this is a third world war, this is Christians, Jews working with Muslims against Khawarej, outlaws.'

He added: 'The problem is many countries are still living the cold war, but they have to get beyond that and focus on the third world war.'

23607FE400000578-0-image-a-14_1458997794651.jpg

King Abdullah of Jordan confirmed the SAS are operating in Libya with his Special Forces

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-says-King-Jordan-World-War-Three-begins.html
 
This is what should have happened after the Ghaddafi was toppled, hopefully it is not too late to save Libya.
uh huh. do you think the SAS could have held the country together? ( no)
Do you think the SAS had access to al-Qaeda under Qadafi? ( yes)

Do you think ISIS would have found an easy political vacuum under Qadaffi to move into Sirte? ( no)

Do you think the US/NATO destruction of Libya accomplished anything worthwhile? (no) -
then maybe it's time to rethink the whole premise of that "humanitarian war"....
 
Bloody Tories. They still live in the days of Monty versus Rommel. Empire is ENDED, chaps. Brits, go home. Israel only needs your UN abstentions.
 
uh huh. do you think the SAS could have held the country together? ( no)
Do you think the SAS had access to al-Qaeda under Qadafi? ( yes)

Do you think ISIS would have found an easy political vacuum under Qadaffi to move into Sirte? ( no)

Do you think the US/NATO destruction of Libya accomplished anything worthwhile? (no) -
then maybe it's time to rethink the whole premise of that "humanitarian war"....

It was right to take Ghaddafi out but there should have been a peacekeeping force sent in to stop insurrections. It is also good to see Jordan getting involved as they have much to lose if Daesh invaded Jordan
 
Last edited:
It was right to take Ghaddafi out but there should have been a peacekeeping force sent in to stop insurrections.

Absolutely not. Regime change is ILLEGAL under international law- no matter what your false sense of morality tells you. Libya is a disaster area- just what your degenerate neoZionist heroes wanted.
 
Absolutely not. Regime change is ILLEGAL under international law- no matter what your false sense of morality tells you. Libya is a disaster area- just what your degenerate neoZionist heroes wanted.

Ghaddafi was ousted by his own people with the help of a NATO air campaign which was sanctioned by the UN.
 
It was right to take Ghaddafi out but there should have been a peacekeeping force sent in to stop insurrections. It is also good to see Jordan getting involved as they have much to lose if Daesh invaded Jordan

no it wasn't "right" , I see you're still the interventionist, and still haven't done any homework since last time I spoke to you about this.

First off -what chance was there for a UN peacekeeping mission? where would they deploy?
Not Tripoli, General Hiftar (Tobruk gov't) was bound and determined to take out "the Islamists" who shelled the Parliament.
Recall the rise of the militia rule - not just in Tripoli but across the country as law and order broke down.

The PM was kidnapped by local militia; the oilfields fell in to disrepair or stopped pumping because of security
Libyan output is about 335k bpd -down from over 1.5M bpd under Qadaffi -the central bank can't pay it's bills (etc)
The country lost the dictator Qadaffi -and with him - control of a unified Libyan army.
It left the power vacuum the militias quickly formed and filled ( so called militia rule) - aided by the NTC hiring of them for "security"
In Libya, Militias Rule
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/libya-intelligence-security-benghazi.html#
Vital security questions are being asked of [Prime Minister] Ali Zeidan’s government, which threatened Libya’s long-term diplomatic prospects. How have armed groups across the country been able to assemble lethal explosive devices, transport and execute attacks against sensitive targets? Moreover, how does the most densely armed territory on earth, with one of the most porous borders in the world, lack a functioning intelligence service?

Continued civilian protests across the country have focused on reinstating the army and police, and integrating militias under the Ministries of Defense and Interior. However, with numerous bombings and new actors seeking Libya’s depot of arms from across the region, the security picture is more complex than the domestic picture may indicate. The most feared arm of the ex-regime, the intelligence services, is never spoken of and could be the first step toward controlling the situation......

UN Peacekeepers are not match for the influx of al_qaeda and tribal strongmen who took over Libya.
It's a strawman argument I hear all the time from the interventionists -recall NATO wouldn't even put a ground campaign into Libya
What chance was there of US/UN/NATO peacekeeping forces afterwards?

You're a smart guy and well traveled, and I enjoy speaking to you about world affairs - but you simply haven't dug into
the horror we created by regime change of Qaddafi.

Look at my blog for details - I documented much of this over the years
Libyan Civil War 2014 -Present

Hillary Clinton was a chief international architect of organizing various players, and even she isn't saying "we should have done more"
She is reduced to "Libya had free election" & Obama is busily blaming Cameron for his lack of post war "boots"
 
Last edited:
no it wasn't "right" , I see you're still the interventionist, and still haven't done any homework since last time I spoke to you about this.

First off -what chance was there for a UN peacekeeping mission? where would they deploy?
Not Tripoli, General Hiftar (Tobruk gov't) was bound and determined to take out "the Islamists" who shelled the Parliament.
Recall the rise of the militia rule - not just in Tripoli but across the country as law and order broke down.

The PM was kidnapped by local militia; the oilfields fell in to disrepair or stopped pumping because of security
Libyan output is about 335k bpd -down from over 1.5M bpd under Qadaffi -the central bank can't pay it's bills (etc)
The country lost the dictator Qadaffi -and with him - control of a unified Libyan army.
It left the power vacuum the militias quickly formed and filled ( so called militia rule) - aided by the NTC hiring of them for "security"
In Libya, Militias Rule
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/libya-intelligence-security-benghazi.html#


UN Peacekeepers are not match for the influx of al_qaeda and tribal strongmen who took over Libya.
It's a strawman argument I hear all the time from the interventionists -recall NATO wouldn't even put a ground campaign into Libya
What chance was there of US/UN/NATO peacekeeping forces afterwards?

You're a smart guy and well traveled, and I enjoy speaking to you about world affairs - but you simply haven't dug into
the horror we created by regime change of Qaddafi.

Look at my blog for details - I documented much of this over the years
Libyan Civil War 2014 -Present

Hillary Clinton was a chief international architect of organizing various players, and even she isn't saying "we should have done more"
She is reduced to "Libya had free election" & Obama is busily blaming Cameron for his lack of post war "boots"

The French didn't seem to have too many problems deploying in Mali and Chad to stop Islamists there, so what's so special about Libya? The main problem was that Ghaddafi was so terrified of being overthrown that he deliberately kept the National Army weak preferring to surround himself with hand picked bodyguards. The US and the West should have gone all out to train up a National Army not just a few thousand men but at least 50,000 well equipped and trained soldiers. It is also a pity that the Arabs decided to leave all of the heavy lifting to the West as usual, where was Egypt and Jordan before now?
 
The French didn't seem to have too many problems deploying in Mali and Chad to stop Islamists there, so what's so special about Libya? The main problem was that Ghaddafi was so terrified of being overthrown that he deliberately kept the National Army weak preferring to surround himself with hand picked bodyguards. The US and the West should have gone all out to train up a National Army not just a few thousand men but at least 50,000 well equipped and trained soldiers. It is also a pity that the Arabs decided to leave all of the heavy lifting to the West as usual, where was Egypt and Jordan before now?
Yet the army kept tribal Libya intact, with a high standard of living, and a lid on "Islamists"..With due respect I've heard it all before...
The Libya army virtually melted away/disbanded after Qaddafi's assassination -or was already blown up by the massive NATO air campaign of the 2011 civil war.
++
The French were working with the Mali government if I recall. That's a big difference.
But I'm far from an expert on that having devoted a lot of study
to Libya ( being an American and the horrid ex. of Iraq - our 2 main misadventures under Obama and Bush)
++
Egypt has it's hands full in the Sinai - I do know this for sure - a result of Mosri's support of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood
who call themselves "Sinai Province" ( the same group that blew up the Russian airliner).

Jordan of course has it's border and refugee crisis with Syria.
 
The French didn't seem to have too many problems deploying in Mali and Chad to stop Islamists there, so what's so special about Libya? The main problem was that Ghaddafi was so terrified of being overthrown that he deliberately kept the National Army weak preferring to surround himself with hand picked bodyguards. The US and the West should have gone all out to train up a National Army not just a few thousand men but at least 50,000 well equipped and trained soldiers. It is also a pity that the Arabs decided to leave all of the heavy lifting to the West as usual, where was Egypt and Jordan before now?
maybe they should have in 20:20 hindsight but what you're really suggesting is that the US should have carried the burden of the cost in blood and treasure when we were just exiting an unpopular and immoral interventionist war that turned into a giant cluster fuck.
 
Ghaddafi was ousted by his own people with the help of a NATO air campaign which was sanctioned by the UN.

Bullshit. Didn't you just hear Obama chastise Cameron and Allende for creating the conditions for chaos and then failing Libyans ? Fool.
 
Libya: It Was About Regime Change, and It Was a Disaster
Hillary Clinton was part of a campaign to mislead us about the purposes of the Libyan intervention.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/24/libya-it-was-about-regime-change-and-it

The war was FUBAR for 100 reasons - Qaddafi offered safe passage of civilians out of Bengazi
and the NTC could flee to Egypt if they lay down there arms.
Recall Qaddafi was in good stand in the world community, and shook hands with Obama at the 2009 G-8.

Clinton was behind much of this, and spread the false lies like "Viagra rape" by Qadaffi troops.
Her idea of 'smart power' was interventionism on the cheap ( no ground troop).
She's a neocon/ uber-hawk.

The French are the neocolonialist who wanted to keep Africa under their thumb.
This is all in the Clinton Emails released. see it on my blog.

NYTimes also New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’ --> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Libya is a festering, failed terrorist state because of our mis-adventurism.
 
It was right to take Ghaddafi out but there should have been a peacekeeping force sent in to stop insurrections. It is also good to see Jordan getting involved as they have much to lose if Daesh invaded Jordan

It was wrong to take Ghaddafi out. It was incredibly wrong to take him out and have zero plans for peacekeeping in the mess you'd just created.
 
Last edited:
The French didn't seem to have too many problems deploying in Mali and Chad to stop Islamists there, so what's so special about Libya? The main problem was that Ghaddafi was so terrified of being overthrown that he deliberately kept the National Army weak preferring to surround himself with hand picked bodyguards. The US and the West should have gone all out to train up a National Army not just a few thousand men but at least 50,000 well equipped and trained soldiers. It is also a pity that the Arabs decided to leave all of the heavy lifting to the West as usual, where was Egypt and Jordan before now?

Arab powers do not have significant ability time project force.
 
It wasn't wrong to prevent a bloodbath by Ghaddafi but the West pretty much sat on its hands afterwards.

Gaddafi was anti-neoZionism. His alleged ' blood-bath ' was an excuse. Once the state threat to Israel was reduced nobody gave a toss. Same with the illegal coup in Egypt. Muslim Brotherhood = bad, Mubarak-lite military junta on US payroll = good.
Wakey, wakey.
Iran is still in the sights. Billary is tooling up.
 
Bloodbath Bullshit

For the Libyan conflict, Alan Kuperman, a Democrat and author of The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention, did the calculations that the media refused to do. Just two weeks after the president’s address on Libya, Kuperman made the simple point, “The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured.” He cited the Human Rights Watch data from Misurata, a city of 400,000 that Qaddafi’s forces had recently seized. There, in nearly two months of war, only 257 people were killed, including combatants. In Rwanda by contrast, more than 800,000 Tutsis were killed in just ninety days.

What did happen in Libya, Kuperman explained, was that rebel forces, fearing imminent defeat, faked a humanitarian crisis. On March 14, a rebel spokesman told Reuters that if Qaddafi attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ On March 21, the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick reported,
“The rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.”
No matter, the U.S. military had already started bombing. A month later, Obama cosigned a letter claiming, “The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented.” In reality, the only people who promised bloodbaths were the rebel spokesmen and the Western leaders.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_genocide_lie.html

Soliman Bouchuiguir, president of the Libyan League for Human Rights, told Reuters on March 14 that if Gaddafi’s forces reached Benghazi, “there will be a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda”. .....

Dallaire, in a precipitous sprint to judgment, not only made repeated references to Rwanda when trying to explain Libya, he spoke of Gaddafi as “employing genocidal threats to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’”. This is one instance where selective attention to Gaddafi’s rhetorical excess was taken all too seriously, when on other occasions the powers that be are instead quick to dismiss it: U.S. State Department spokesman, Mark Toner waved away Gaddafi’s alleged threats against Europe by saying that Gaddafi is “someone who’s given to overblown rhetoric”......

On February 21, when the first alarmist “warnings” about “genocide” were being made by the Libyan opposition, both Al Jazeera and the BBC claimed that Gaddafi had deployed his air force against protesters—as the BBC “reported”: “Witnesses say warplanes have fired on protesters in the city”. Yet, on March 1, in a Pentagon press conference, when asked: “Do you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?” U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates replied, “We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that”. Backing him up was Admiral Mullen: “That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever”.

In fact, claims that Gaddafi also used helicopters against unarmed protesters are totally unfounded, a pure fabrication based on fake claims. This is important since it was Gaddafi’s domination of Libyan air space that foreign interventionists wanted to nullify, and therefore myths of atrocities perpetrated from the air took on added value as providing an entry point for foreign military intervention that went far beyond any mandate to “protect civilians”.

David Kirpatrick of The New York Times, as early as March 21 confirmed that, “
the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior”.
The “vastly inflated claims” are what became part of the imperial folklore surrounding events in Libya, that suited Western intervention. Rarely did the Benghazi-based journalistic crowd question or contradict their hosts.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/31/the-top-ten-myths-in-the-war-against-libya/

Professor Alan J. Kuperman in “False pretense for war in Libya?”:

The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially—including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi….Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields….Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacreU]Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged[/U]. The ‘no mercy’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those ‘who throw their weapons away’. Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight ‘to the bitter end’”.


August 31, 2011
The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya
 
Back
Top