Conquer Club

Saxi's informants at V-Men HQ in Cologne have provided him US reports showing a steady pipeline of Base fighters from the group's Libyan strongholds of Benghazi and Darnah - "coincidentally", now the center of "insurgency" - to Iraq where they served as foreign paramilitaries. I have uploaded it here:

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/51275537/CTCF ... r-19-Dec07

The 2007 report outlines captured Al Qaeda records on recruits and pays special attention to a sudden upsurge in foreign fighters to Iraq from the LIFG (Libya Islamic Fighting Group, an anti-Qadaffi Islamic fundamentalist armed front that formally affiliated with Qaeda in '05)

The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s Northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (53) and Benghazi 23.9% (21). Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid‐1990s. The Libyan government blamed the uprising on “infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt” and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jamaʹah al‐libiyah al‐muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. Like other governments in the region, Libya appears concerned about the possibility of jihadi violence within its borders.

This is just the tip of the iceberg that the U.S.-Ar makes in its own connections, the full report reveals even more troubling and concerning points that demonstrate a high probability that recent unrest in Libya really is the work of Al Qaeda as Col. Qadaffi noted. The U.S. and allies are now engaged in a dangerous gamble for the sake of security of the western oil concessions, similar to mistake they made in Afghanistan in the '80s. Once again the U.S. finds itself grudgingly aiding those who it - itself - catalogs as terrorists.

Ten years from now which New York skyscrapers will today's celebrated (and US-backed) Libyan insurgents knock down?


Fighting Al-Qaeda Since Before It Was Cool

Gaddafi threatens West with al Qaeda alliance
Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:28 [IST]

Tripoli, Mar 16: In a clear sign of desperation to cling on to power, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has threatened US and other western powers, to not to attack his country or else he would ally with the al Qaeda to rage a "holy war".

Gaddafi's 41-year old regime has been threatened by Egypt-inspired revolts which have turned violent with the protesters sticking to their demand of his ouster and he in turn using his military to crush the rebels. Till date, nearly 4,000 people are feared to be killed by the bombings by Libyan warplanes and tanks.

shoot, and ol' Sax thought this thread could discuss important, just-revealed documents

Saxi in '84: we should support Babrak Karmal
jefjef in '84: no! we must support Osama bin Laden!

2001:


Saxi in '11: we should support Muammar Qadaffi
jefjef in '11: no! we must support XYZ!

2022:


round and round, round and round - the wheels on the bus go round and round ...

jefjef wrote:Gaddafi threatens West with al Qaeda alliance
Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:28 [IST]

Tripoli, Mar 16: In a clear sign of desperation to cling on to power, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has threatened US and other western powers, to not to attack his country or else he would ally with the al Qaeda to rage a "holy war".

Gaddafi's 41-year old regime has been threatened by Egypt-inspired revolts which have turned violent with the protesters sticking to their demand of his ouster and he in turn using his military to crush the rebels. Till date, nearly 4,000 people are feared to be killed by the bombings by Libyan warplanes and tanks.

Are you just making stuff up now? Where is this link?

radiojake wrote:

jefjef wrote:Gaddafi threatens West with al Qaeda alliance
Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:28 [IST]

Tripoli, Mar 16: In a clear sign of desperation to cling on to power, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has threatened US and other western powers, to not to attack his country or else he would ally with the al Qaeda to rage a "holy war".

Gaddafi's 41-year old regime has been threatened by Egypt-inspired revolts which have turned violent with the protesters sticking to their demand of his ouster and he in turn using his military to crush the rebels. Till date, nearly 4,000 people are feared to be killed by the bombings by Libyan warplanes and tanks.

Are you just making stuff up now? Where is this link?

Dear anti-American,

There are many links from many sources in re of this Godaffy threat. It was something you could have discovered with little effort, but as usual, an American was asked to accomplish what someone else could and should. Here is that requested link of that "made up" quote.
http://news.oneindia.in/2011/03/16/gadd ... d0120.html MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Many well wishes to you and yours and may you live in peace and safety in a world FREE of terrorism!

Dear Mr.Current Events from anywhere

It is common for people to provide links to credible sources when posting "stories" as there is a lot of BS on the web and occasionally those sources are BS too. This News Flash was reported a week ago jef, thanks for keeping us in the know.

As you so generously pointed out anyone could have discovered this information. Likewise anyone could have posted the "story" with a link, but since this is a forum, why not include an opinion on the subject of the original post?

Did you find it ironic that Gaddafi claimed "the rebels are drug addicts incited by al Qaeda?" I'm quoting the OneIndia news online there, since they imply the Libyan leader said that without actually quoting him. OneIndia news does quote Gaddafi from an interview with the Italian daily Il Giornale that says he is "fighting al Qaeda" and "Libya will leave the international alliance against terrorism" and "ally with al Qaeda" if the west "treats us like Iraq."

oVo wrote:
Did you find it ironic that Gaddafi claimed "the rebels are drug addicts incited by al Qaeda?

Yes I believe he also declared the media to be responsible too.

He also originally claimed to not be a terrorist himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Not exactly a credible "stand up" guy. But I spose some of ya thought Saddam H and Osam Bin were good men too.

As for news sources I have noticed if it opposes some views and injures some arguements, no matter the source, it is maligned and questioned. Those same people treat those same news sources as concrete truth if it supports their views no matter how obscure those sources are...

Should I really respond to that, jefjef, or are you "playing stoopid"?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Should I really respond to that, jefjef, or are you "playing stoopid"?

Counter it by all means BBS if you can dispute truth cuz resorting to name calling is only a reflection on yourself, is weak and equivalent to a childs tantrum.

Gadhafi and Al Qaeda together? oh gosh...

jefjef wrote:As for news sources I have noticed if it opposes some views and injures some arguements, no matter the source, it is maligned and questioned. Those same people treat those same news sources as concrete truth if it supports their views no matter how obscure those sources are...

We both know a lousy source is rarely validated by the content of it's words. Credibility and integrity are earned over time and not assigned simply because of a shared opinion.

I found the Libyan leader's "quotes" to be quite funny and wonder if there is much truth to them or if his world view is really that skewed. It's also possible that something was lost in translation as his words were passed down the chain of news outlets.

The events of this week end the relevance of that old news story as the situation has already moved on. Now we wait to hear a response to the recent developments in Libya.

Saxi's link claims documents show 74 people in northern Libya had associations with al Qaeda four years ago and I'm not convinced that confirms the subject line of this thread.

oh CIA has just figured out that Gadaffy belongs to Al-Qaida ....

gosh CIA is getting rusty

- AC

oVo wrote: Saxi's link claims documents show 74 people in northern Libya had associations with al Qaeda four years ago and I'm not convinced that confirms the subject line of this thread.

You may be experiencing a gap of comprehension.

The 2007 U.S. government report - which no media have reported on and which Saxi broke to the world here on Conquer Club - said Qaeda records - which are notoriously incomplete as the Base doesn't keep formalized membership rolls as such - indicated 74 active foreign fighters in Iraq were from Benghazi.

However, it goes on to catalog a trend of jihadist fundamentalism in eastern Libya that the Libyan government has been trying to get under control since the mid 1990s. It notes that the last two uprisings in Benghazi have both been provoked by a Base-affiliated group. A reasonable person, operating under reasonable circumstances, would conclude that - under these conditions - it's highly likely that a third uprising was also Qaeda backed.

tl;dr: Benghazi uprisings are Al-Qaeda, Qadaffi has been fighting Al-Qaeda since before 9/11, US is now backing Al-Qaeda just like they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s

Actually the documents show a few Libyans went to fight in Iraq
and proves nothing about the rebel activities in Libya or that
Qadaffi has been fighting Al-Qaeda for a decade.

oVo wrote:Actually the documents show a few Libyans went to fight in Iraq
and proves nothing about the rebel activities in Libya or that
Qadaffi has been fighting Al-Qaeda for a decade.

At no point in this thread have I ever used the word "prove." Only you have.

As I have said: a reasonably intelligent person, operating under reasonable circumstances, and with reasonable global literacy, will be able to draw reasonable conclusions from the information provided, specifically on pages 8, 9, 12, 13 and 27. Obviously the situation is fluid and chaotic enough that court-room evidence cannot be presented.

And, naturally, in the absence of courtroom proof those who enjoy an almost religious commitment to the jingoistic, pro-war, narrative-of-the-day that their favorite celebrity, sports star or politician has presented to them will be unlikely to form reasonable conclusions when presented with reasonable indicators.

You may find there are other threads in this forum which better meet your unique requirements.

Well any reasonably intelligent person can conclude a lot of things from that information. Given the subject line of this thread reads it's "confirmed" that Qadaffi is correct that the Benghazi insurgents are Al Qaeda, when it is a mere assumption at best. A simple minded person might anticipate discovering some easily verifiable information that reaches that conclusion. Unfortunately such sumptuous reading is not available so far and another attention seeking headline falls short of it's mark. Try gleaning some legitimate facts from those documents and present a new title that fits, or just continue trolling.

You did manage a few nibbles.

jefjef wrote:
Not exactly a credible "stand up" guy. But I spose some of ya thought Saddam H and Osam Bin were good men too.

Resorting to binary opposites again, jefjef? You're either with us or a terrorist, right? Think outside the box - The dominant hegemony has you fooled

oVo wrote:Well any reasonably intelligent person can conclude a lot of things from that information. Given the subject line of this thread reads it's "confirmed" that Qadaffi is correct that the Benghazi insurgents are Al Qaeda, when it is a mere assumption at best. A simple minded person might anticipate discovering some easily verifiable information that reaches that conclusion. Unfortunately such sumptuous reading is not available so far and another attention seeking headline falls short of it's mark. Try gleaning some legitimate facts from those documents and present a new title that fits, or just continue trolling.

You did manage a few nibbles.

your breathless "nothing to see here!" exclamation was:

"nothing about ... Qadaffi has been fighting Al-Qaeda for a decade."

Page 12, in one of many instances, says (paraphrased):
1 - Benghazi was the scene of Islamic uprisings
2 - these occurred throughout the mid '90's (for the math challenged, this was over a decade ago)
3 - the uprisings were backed in part by the LIFG

The LIFG is listed on a UN codex of Al-Qaeda affiliates.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/co ... list.shtml

I guess I could do this page by page but I'm not certain it would make a difference. You're a bit like the popular myth of the Dominican natives in 1492 who couldn't see the European ships approaching, even though they were gigantic, because they didn't want to see them.

radiojake wrote:

jefjef wrote:
Not exactly a credible "stand up" guy. But I spose some of ya thought Saddam H and Osam Bin were good men too.

Resorting to binary opposites again, jefjef? You're either with us or a terrorist, right? Think outside the box - The dominant hegemony has you fooled

Speeking of fooled. Are you actually saying that Osama Bin, Sodomy H and Godaffy aren't/weren't terrorists, sponsors of terrorism and human sewage wastes of skin?

jefjef wrote:

radiojake wrote:

jefjef wrote:
Not exactly a credible "stand up" guy. But I spose some of ya thought Saddam H and Osam Bin were good men too.

Resorting to binary opposites again, jefjef? You're either with us or a terrorist, right? Think outside the box - The dominant hegemony has you fooled

Speeking of fooled. Are you actually saying that Osama Bin, Sodomy H and Godaffy aren't/weren't terrorists, sponsors of terrorism and human sewage wastes of skin?

The United States removed Libya as a "state sponsor of terrorism." Welcome to 2006.

The subject line still doesn't fit the content and repeating the mantra
Al Qaeda Al Qaeda Al Qaeda doesn't alter those facts.

George Bush being a partying booze hound with a nose full of cocaine
when he was younger doesn't make him an affiliate drug addict today.

oVo wrote:The subject line still doesn't fit the content and repeating the mantra
Al Qaeda Al Qaeda Al Qaeda doesn't alter those facts.

George Bush being a partying booze hound with a nose full of cocaine
when he was younger doesn't make him an affiliate drug addict today.

I regret you feel troubled by the word-choice in the subject line. I'm certain someday you will alter your rabidly pro-War mindset and join those of us working for a better world based on peace, social justice and economic and racial equality. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Anyway ...

oVo: "nothing about ... Qadaffi has been fighting Al-Qaeda for a decade."

Page 12:
1 - Benghazi was the scene of Islamic uprisings
2 - these occurred throughout the mid '90's (over a decade ago)
3 - the uprisings were backed in part by the LIFG

The LIFG is listed on a UN codex of Al-Qaeda affiliates.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/co ... list.shtml

jefjef wrote:

radiojake wrote:

jefjef wrote:Gaddafi threatens West with al Qaeda alliance
Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:28 [IST]

Tripoli, Mar 16: In a clear sign of desperation to cling on to power, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has threatened US and other western powers, to not to attack his country or else he would ally with the al Qaeda to rage a "holy war".

Gaddafi's 41-year old regime has been threatened by Egypt-inspired revolts which have turned violent with the protesters sticking to their demand of his ouster and he in turn using his military to crush the rebels. Till date, nearly 4,000 people are feared to be killed by the bombings by Libyan warplanes and tanks.

Are you just making stuff up now? Where is this link?

Dear anti-American,

There are many links from many sources in re of this Godaffy threat. It was something you could have discovered with little effort, but as usual, an American was asked to accomplish what someone else could and should. Here is that requested link of that "made up" quote.
http://news.oneindia.in/2011/03/16/gadd ... d0120.html MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Many well wishes to you and yours and may you live in peace and safety in a world FREE of terrorism!

@jefjef

My comment was in regards to the underlined. (So I should've been more clear).

It's ridiculous because what's the alternative? A world "FREE of terrorism" through the US invading Afghanistan, where the Taliban were letting Al-Qaeda use some remote mountains as their area of operations? Saudi Arabia supplies tons of funds to such terrorist groups, so why not invade them? Obviously, the US can't given the strong economic and political ties between the two countries, so what does the US do instead?


Invade Afghanistan which after decades of civil war finally had at least some form of government that appeared to be able to unify them enough. The US failed to even address the main source of funding for such groups by ignoring Saudi Arabia, so instead they threaten other countries like Iran and Iraq with declarations of war. The US since the Persian Gulf War went on occasional bombing campaigns to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq for a decade until leading up to Persian Gulf War II. Then the US actually invades them, is responsible for killing 200,000+ civilians, and is responsible for causing this ongoing civil war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which has been resulting in more deaths.

How is the US imposing a world free of terrorism?

The US has destroyed the livelihood and standards of living for millions of Iraqis, Kurds (through double-crossing them in the Persian Gulf War, and during the Persian Gulf War II, enabling the Turks to use US-operated airbases in order to bomb their Kurds), Iranians, Somalians, Vietnamese, and on and on.

Pakistan is a main hub of anti-American terrorist groups, and once again the US is playing dangerous games over there. By bombing some "terrorist" groups and a lot of civilians, the US ends up aligning anti-American sentiment among a lot of Pakistan.

As the US has become more and more unnecessarily aggressive, it mainly adds fuel to the fire of guerrilla organizations like Al-Qaeda and various other "terrorist" sects.

How can you think that such a foreign policy of engaging in war will promote freedom? How can you think that the US imposes a world "free" of terrorism by supplementing the accounts of many dictatorships through foreign "aid"? It's completely irrational once seen from a greater context.

Because I don't connect the dots to support your assumption I now have a rabidly pro-war mindset? Tell me you're trolling with that absurd subject line and I will agree with you. Should I cut bait or fish?

BBS:
Invade Afghanistan which after decades of civil war finally had at least some form of government that appeared to be able to unify them enough. The US failed to even address the main source of funding for such groups by ignoring Saudi Arabia, so instead they threaten other countries like Iran and Iraq with declarations of war. The US since the Persian Gulf War went on occasional bombing campaigns to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq for a decade until leading up to Persian Gulf War II. Then the US actually invades them, is responsible for killing 200,000+ civilians, and is responsible for causing this ongoing civil war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which has been resulting in more deaths.

How is the US imposing a world free of terrorism?

The US has destroyed the livelihood and standards of living for millions of Iraqis, Kurds (through double-crossing them in the Persian Gulf War, and during the Persian Gulf War II, enabling the Turks to use US-operated airbases in order to bomb their Kurds), Iranians, Somalians, Vietnamese, and on and on.

Pakistan is a main hub of anti-American terrorist groups, and once again the US is playing dangerous games over there. By bombing some "terrorist" groups and a lot of civilians, the US ends up aligning anti-American sentiment among a lot of Pakistan.

As the US has become more and more unnecessarily aggressive, it mainly adds fuel to the fire of guerrilla organizations like Al-Qaeda and various other "terrorist" sects.

How can you think that such a foreign policy of engaging in war will promote freedom? How can you think that the US imposes a world "free" of terrorism by supplementing the accounts of many dictatorships through foreign "aid"? It's completely irrational once seen from a greater context.

I agree with what you are trying to say, but using Afghanistan as an example here is a serious mistake. To say the Taliban formed a government that unified the Afghani's as a people is like saying the pre civil war Americans did a good job at organizing employment opertunities for Africans.

Try being a Christian in Afghanistan in the Taliban era. Or anyone with a university degree, or hell, just being a woman was to be subjected to brutal opression. That kind of theocratic fundamentalist bullshit needed to be stomped out ans pissed on in the worst way, and was as close to a justified was as you are ever going to get.

Johnny Rockets