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

moon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Muslim Brotherhood was bad without any doubt, they wanted to turn Egypt into Islamic theocracy. If you didn't know that then you are even more dozy than I gave you credit for, ffs.
 
moon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes that's right it's all a big conspiracy yet only years before Tony Blair and Co were in Libya sucking up to Ghaddafi, I suppose that was part of the conspiracy as well!!
 
Moonflower said:
The Muslim Brotherhood was bad without any doubt, they wanted to turn Egypt into Islamic theocracy. If you didn't know that then you are even more dozy than I gave you credit for, ffs.
Click to expand...

The Brotherhood was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, Mail brain. Regime change is illegal and its supporters act with criminal intent. Fool.
 
It is a complete mystery to me why the Republicans spent so much time arguing about Benghazi, when there was a huge open goal awaiting in the form of the aftermath of the toppling of Ghaddafi. Why in Heaven's name was so little done to train up an army? I think that Hillary Clinton and Obama have much to answer for but have been let off the hook with the obsession with Benghazi!!

REPUBLICANS HAVE a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline. On Sunday, a disputed vote in parliament led to the swearing-in of a new prime minister — the sixth since former dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 with the help of U.S. and NATO air forces. The new leader, an Islamist from the city of Misurata, replaced pro-Western prime minister Ali Zeidan, who was driven out of the country this year after his government proved unable to stop a militia from filling a tanker with stolen oil.

From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.

The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

Instead, House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday that he would ask the House to create a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the administration’s alleged attempt to cover up how and why Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. To the extent that it zeroes in on the behavior of White House aides and other U.S. officials in Washington following the Benghazi attack — as it appears likely to do — the investigation will address the least substantial and blameworthy aspect of the Libya record.

Numerous investigations and congressional hearings already have established the basic facts: U.S. intelligence agencies initially judged that the Benghazi attack was spontaneously inspired by reports of protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and it “evolved into a direct assault” by heavily armed militants. That account was turned into talking points for then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice.

More than a year of efforts by GOP congressmen and conservative media to prove that Ms. Rice or the White House conspired to cover up the fact that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” rather than a spontaneous act have gone nowhere, because there are no supporting facts. A recently released e-mail written by National Security Council aide Ben Rhodes reveals a not-so-scandalous proposal to argue that the Cairo and Benghazi protests did not prove “a broader failure of policy.” What’s missing is any evidence that Mr. Rhodes or anyone else knew the facts of Benghazi to be other than what was initially reported by U.S. intelligence. In fact, while an authoritative version of the Benghazi assault is still missing, the account cannot be ruled out.

Republicans may calculate that scandal-mongering about a Benghazi cover-up may rally the base before the fall’s elections. What it’s not likely to do is hold the Obama administration accountable for its actual failings in Libya.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ef7176-d47a-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html
 
Moonflower said:
Yes that's right it's all a big conspiracy yet only years before Tony Blair and Co were in Libya sucking up to Ghaddafi, I suppose that was part of the conspiracy as well!!
Click to expand...

Blair was a good boy and did as he was told. The same can be said of any Brit leader since Harold Wilson. " Come and join us in Vietnam, Mr. Wilson " - " Not my cup of tea, old boy "
 
moon2012 said:
The Brotherhood was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, Mail brain. Regime change is illegal and its supporters act with criminal intent. Fool.
Click to expand...

It was a military coup, if it had been a left wing coup overthrowing a fascist dictatorship you'd have been wetting yourself, wouldn't you? No doubt you were all in favour of the Islamist takeover in Algeria that resulted in over 100,000 deaths back in the 90's. I also notice that you don't have any problems with Mubarak being deposed but then he doesn't count does he?

In the spirit of highlighting President Morsi’s achievements, I would like to add a few extra:


  • First president to transform the fissures within Egyptian society into full-scale divisions.
  • The president with the worst record of minorities’ and women’s rights
  • First president to provide rich resources for satire
  • First president with weird political vocabulary
  • First president with tense relationship with his military establishment
  • The president with highest record of travel in the first eight months of his rule, seeking loans from abroad
  • The president with the highest record of violence during his rule
  • First president to lose the support of many in the Canal region, particularly in the city of Port Said
  • First president to contribute directly to the rising popularity of his deposed predecessor
  • First president to be resented by many who elected him
  • First president to be rushed out of a mosque barefooted (allegedly)
  • First president to take the definition of “uncharismatic” to a new level
  • First president to make Egyptians view enlightenment as an elusive bird
Click to expand...

http://nervana1.org/2013/04/22/the-accomplishments-of-president-morsi/
 
Moonflower said:
It is a complete mystery to me why the Republicans spent so much time arguing about Benghazi, when there was a huge open goal awaiting in the form of the aftermath of the toppling of Ghaddafi. Why in Heaven's name was so little done to train up an army? I think that Hillary Clinton and Obama have much to answer for but have been let off the hook with the obsession with Benghazi!!



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ef7176-d47a-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html
Click to expand...
absolutely. as I've said many times "Libyan war 2011 was the disease -Bengazi but a symptom".

They (Republicans)were so sure of themselves, that they missed doing the research. But McCain and the rest of his cohorts
were going after Obama with such stupidity as "leading from behind"

The Republicans were clamoring for 2011 war, so they tried to finesse around it and go !Beganzi! instead.
 
Moonflower said:
It was a military coup, if it had been a left wing coup overthrowing a fascist dictatorship you'd have been wetting yourself, wouldn't you? No doubt you were all in favour of the Islamist takeover in Algeria that resulted in over 100,000 deaths back in the 90's. I also notice that you don't have any problems with Mubarak being deposed but then he doesn't count does he?

http://nervana1.org/2013/04/22/the-accomplishments-of-president-morsi/
Click to expand...
Morsi was a disaster for Egypt.
Then Obama decides to sanction el-sisi for the coupe' ( when no one in Congress was calling for it)..

as a result Russian/Egyptian ties are closer then in decades, and Egypt has a severe terrorism problem
 
Moonflower said:
The Muslim Brotherhood was bad without any doubt, they wanted to turn Egypt into Islamic theocracy. If you didn't know that then you are even more dozy than I gave you credit for, ffs.
Click to expand...

Is the current dictatorship any better? A bad democratic government can be thrown out, a bad dictatorship just rots indefinitely.
 
Moonflower said:
It was a military coup, if it had been a left wing coup overthrowing a fascist dictatorship you'd have been wetting yourself, wouldn't you? No doubt you were all in favour of the Islamist takeover in Algeria that resulted in over 100,000 deaths back in the 90's. I also notice that you don't have any problems with Mubarak being deposed but then he doesn't count does he?



http://nervana1.org/2013/04/22/the-accomplishments-of-president-morsi/
Click to expand...

The Islamist won the election, it was the militaries rejection of the results of the election and decision to instigate civil war that cause a hundred thousand deaths.
 
Why is it alright for the Christian Democratic Party to rule in Germany, but wrong for the Muslim Brotherhood to rule in Egypt? Are the people not allowed to chose Islamism as their form of government? It's not like the Muslim Brotherhood would win every election. People would get tired of them, as they do in democracies. Hell, in Tunisia a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot won their first election. But we gave them time, and an opposition party won the next. Egypt will never get a second election due to western and military intervention.
 
Last edited:
Patriotic American said:
Why is it alright for the Christian Democratic Party to rule in Germany, but wrong for the Muslim Brotherhood to rule in Egypt? Are the people not allowed to chose Islamism as their form of government? It's not like the Muslim Brotherhood would win every election people would get tired of them as they do in democracies. Hell, in Tunisia a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot won their first election. But we have them time, and an opposition party one the next. Egypt will never get a second election due to western and military intervention.
Click to expand...
Tunisia has a strong democracy because of the Arab Spring. Egypt does not fare so well.
I could list eh powers Morsi granted for himself - but el-Sisi does a lot of the same..
Still it can be argued Egypt in general is better off under el-Sisi

What it really boils down to is Morsi was bad for the middle class, and allowed terrorists to infest the Sinai.
Egypt is one of those cases where today's actions are based on past reactions; and now el-Sisi is overstepping..

The best the west can do is stay out of it - both Mubarak and Qadaffi,
are examples of why our interventionism/meddling just causes more problems
 
Sisi is a tyrant- just like Mubarak. Egyptian tyrants suit the US/Zionist game-plan. It's an absolute disgrace that the ' West ' should continue to bankroll a junta which treats Egyptians far worse than they deserve and maintains power by brutal force- unlike Morsi whose attempt at a Muslim democracy was admirable, if naive.
Egyptians have been robbed of their democracy by US/Israeli sedition and bribery. Egyptians who permit this to continue are traitors to democracy and Egypt. Victory to those who refuse to accept it.
 
Patriotic American said:
Is the current dictatorship any better? A bad democratic government can be thrown out, a bad dictatorship just rots indefinitely.
Click to expand...

A bad democratic government can be thrown out unless they attempt to change the constitution, I have no doubt that Morsi wanted to change Egypt into an Islamic theocracy. When an estimated 14 million people took to the streets to oust him you have to say that grass roots democracy in action.

Most of the blame for the disaster that has befallen Egyptian democracy lies with Mr Morsi. The very size of the protests—some estimates claim that as many as 14m took to the streets—shows that his opponents were not a small bunch of discontents. Most of the country seems to have turned against him. One reason for that is his incompetence. He did nothing to rescue the economy from looming collapse. The Egyptian pound and foreign exchange reserves have both dwindled, inflation is rising and unemployment among those under 24 is more than 40%. The IMF has despaired of agreeing on a big loan that would have opened the way to others. In the broiling summer heat, electricity cuts have become maddeningly frequent. Queues for petrol have lengthened. Farmers are often not being paid for their wheat. Crime has soared—the murder rate has tripled since the revolution.

The Brothers’ failure to include a wide range of views in its first government was even more foolish. Egypt, at the best of times, is hard to govern because society is polarised. Secular-minded and better-educated Egyptians generally want the country to be dragged into a modern, pluralistic and outward-looking world. A more conservative and religious stratum looks to political Islam rather than socialism or capitalism as the answer to centuries of injustice, inequality and corruption. In addition, Egypt has a large and nervous minority of Christians, perhaps a tenth of the populace of 84m, along with a much smaller minority of Shia Muslims, both of whom have been rattled by an Islamist government.

Instead of trying to build up the independent institutions—the courts, the media, a neutral civil service, army and police—that check the power of government in mature democracies, Mr Morsi did his best to undermine them. He legislated through a senate that was elected by only 10% of the voters. He made false, inept or cowardly choices at every turn, finagling constitutional issues, pushing fellow Brothers into key appointments and feeding the secularists’ fears that his brethren were determined, by hook or by crook, to Islamise every aspect of society. He stayed silent when bigots and thugs threatened and attacked religious minorities. He allowed foreigners working for advocacy groups promoting human rights and democracy to be hounded, prosecuted and convicted (most of them in absentia) on patently false charges.

That so many Egyptians should wish to get rid of Mr Morsi is therefore entirely understandable. That they have succeeded in doing so could well turn out to be a disaster, and not just for Egypt.
Click to expand...

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...should-be-cause-regret-not-celebration-egypts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top