Libyan Islamist theocrats kill the head of their army, but the NTC blames Qaddafi Loyalists

[PurityOfEssence]

Younes was Qaddafi's Interior Minister and helped in the crackdown on the extremist Islamist Fundamentalists in their botched attempt to kill Qaddafi in the mid-nineties.

They've always hated him, and now have killed him. Jalil tried to give them cover by saying that, although he had been called to a meeting with the seemingly transcendent power of the revolution--the bat-shit crazy asshole fundamentalists--he was somehow killed by Qaddafi Loyalists. This is the most pathetic bit of propaganda since the Poles attacked Germany in 1939. This mendacious cover is now gone, and presumably to be denied by the stalwarts.

Who's running the opposition? Besides the English and French oil interests, along with the CIA and Hifter, it's hard to tell. Well, such as it is, it seems the Islamists are jockeying for control.

Where are the interventionists in justifying this bullshit? Once again, they hide behind their ego-driven need to be morally correct, and they hide behind the blanket assumption that our President would NEVER do something ugly and corporatist.

This is ugly and obvious. Those who, to use a 60s term, are running dogs for the establishment, are perfidious dupes and deserve no succor.

Nothing about this WAR is as depicted in our corporate media: it's a resource grab.

Yes, we'll deal with ANYONE to get a good deal on oil, including rabid Islamists. We'll prop up ANYONE. We suck with a suckitude of legendary proportions, and the teary-eyed apologists for this naked resource grab are pathetic in their self-aggrandizement.

[PurityOfEssence]

1. and nobody cares...

If Republicans foster wars of economic domination, it's hell, but if we do...

[Starry Messenger]

2. k&r

[Distant Observer]

3. We are killing and lying to feel good supporting a bunch of murderous opportunitsts. Sad.

[sabrina 1]

4. What really is sad is that they used the genuine uprisings

in Egypt and Tunisia to piggy back on to and for a while, a lot of people, including me, were fooled. But before long something seemed off about this. On Twitter eg, there were people supposedly in Libya urging support for the rebels and urging THEM to march on Tripoli. That seemd reckless to me, like sending them, barely armed, to their deaths. And when people did begin to ask questions of these people on Twitter they disappeared, but not before we learned that many of them were not in Libya at all. For all I know we might have been following CIA agents.

It began to dawn on people that this was not what it seemed and could no longer support it. Now, months after all of this, the rebels still can't take the country over, even with NATO's help. The tragedy is that some of the earlier rebels probably were genuine and many of died as a result of being urged to do the impossible, just to get support for Western Intervention.

Resources and I also think that Libya's proximity to Egypt and Tunisia, events there were of concern to the Western Colonialists, and to have a presence in Libya would make attempts to control events throughout the region, simpler.

It does seem tha we may now be supporting Al Queda. All I know is that Qadaffi was keeping the extremists under control as part of his agreement with the West, and because they were a threat to him also. His biggest victory will be if we end up supporting Al Queda. I hope there are some sane people around who can stop this before we have troops in Libya also.

[joshcryer]

6. "It does seem tha we may now be supporting Al Queda."

:puke:

[Distant Observer]

24. That this was seen as an "opportunity" by the same militants active for decades was obvious to any

that cared to pay attention.

Unfortunately these Islamic groups have long been supported by the Saudis, Qataris and other Oil Emirs so it was convenient not to care what kind of scam was behind the Libyan rebellion.

[joshcryer]

5. Can you provide a link where the NTC blamed Gaddafi loyalists?

Or is this yet another dishonest portrayal of the events as they happened?

The NTC took responsibility, as the information came out, but they are holding the killers responsible, which is completely contrary to the idea that the NTC is held hostage by islamists or that the rebels as a whole will consider the islamists a relevant entity.

[Distant Observer]

7. I thought you watched Al Jazeera. The sly propaganda was released in press conference

"Libyan rebel commander reported killed by Gadhafi loyalists"

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/28/2335860/libyan-rebel-commander-reported.html#ixzz1TZpbGgZg

Al Jazeera screamed the same headline and reported claim by NTC head -- until evidence started leaking out that it was an NTC faction that was behind the assassination of their own commanding General.

The video is still up though the headline has been radically changed.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/07/2011728202129941725.html

[joshcryer]

8. Interesting, so the NTC took the blame for it after saying it was Gaddafi's forces.

Because as it stands now they're taking responsibility.

I didn't trust the claims that it was Gaddafi's forces since that was mainly on twitter and blogs that I saw.

[Distant Observer]

9. Watch the video of the original claim on Al Jazeera

The lies was quickly refuted by Obeidi tribesmen loyal to General Younes
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/07/2011728202129941725.html

[joshcryer]

10. What's important is that they're taking responsibility. Distinct from the OPs dishonest portrayal...

...of them (the NTC and the rebel fighters at large) as islamists.

[Distant Observer]

11. The OP may be speculating. But it is reasonable speculation. Younis was hated by Islamist rebels

and certainly the West has tried to push their own man General Khalifa Hifter, reputedly The CIA’s Man In Libya

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cias-man-in-libya-2011-4


"The likelihood that Hifter was brought in to be some kind of asset is pretty high. Just as figures like Ahmed Chalabi were cultivated for a post-Saddam Iraq, Hifter may have played a similar role as American intelligence prepared for a chance in Libya.

We do need to ask to what extent the Libyan uprising is a proxy battle, with the United States far more involved that it would care to admit."

[joshcryer]

12. Suleiman Mahmoud Obeidi is taking his place, not Hifter.

Meanwhile absolutely no connection has been shown between NTC and the presumed islamist killers. It seems awfully strange that if the NTC was behind it they'd be denouncing the act, wouldn't you say?

[PurityOfEssence]

26. Please stop calling me dishonest, especially when you persist in posting falsehoods

How many times have you dismissed the FACT that we've been making manned bombing raids as recently as June 18th, and continually claimed that Operation Odyssey Dawn ended when we passed the baton to NATO?

You should be alerted for this, but I want people to see who and what you are.

Read the board rules: calling another member something like "dishonest" is against both the letter and spirit of the rules. It's because it's an attempt to tar someone as unfit for the social circle and vilify the individual in an attempt to discredit the person's statements.

As for my portrayal of this, it's clear that YOU are the one coloring the truth by making the TNC look good by having taken responsibility for this. The reality is rather clear: Jalil was caught making a preposterous lie of the first order and they HAD to take the heat for this. There is an obvious element of Islamists in the TNC, and the LIFG is still very much alive. These were the people who summoned Younes to his assassination.

The tenor of your post here is that the TNC is stepping forward in honorable veracity and "taking responsibility". That's a whole bunch of crocks of shit: they were caught in such an infantile lie that they had no choice. Now, they try to cover their tracks, and their apologists are perfectly happy to run interference. That's not decency on their part, it's inescapable damage control.

(edited for civility, and yes, that means to add some...)

[inna]

32. +1,000,000 - and no secret to anyone who has followed the discussion

[joshcryer]

37. So first the Islamists are "jockeying for power" and now there is an "obvious element" of them?

Wow, they made good headway.

Jalil was unable to give actual details of the attack, the fact that he said it was Gaddafi people indicates to me he was being misinformed. The twitterverse and blogosphere was ripe with the rumors (indeed, we had them posted in the revolution thread). In such a climate I cannot expect the full facts so quickly and indeed, I do not typically attribute to malice that which can most easily be explained by ignorance, or stupidity, or lack of knowledge of a given situation.

However, it appears that you're quite quick to attribute to malice some bogus language. If there was even a remote element of Islamist power in their group it would've been trivial to make Jalil continue the meme that Gaddafi forces were behind it. Indeed, by blaming the Islamist forces he just completely ruined any chance for an Islamist insurgence (and personally I don't even think that is true, I think it's more likely some regular Libyans were out for blood over either a vendetta or mistrust, but I can't prove it).

Golly gee, that "obvious element" just ruined itself.

BTW, no need to make things personal, if I find something is dishonest that is not a character judgment on you, merely an observation of what is or is not honest. Outside of this debate you appear to be a perfectly honest person.

edit: and to be clear, Operation Odyssey Dawn was the operation that Obama was explicitly referring to with his statement, so the trivial and childish "weeks not days" statements continue to be false, and it continues to be true that Obama stuck to his word. That is in no way a "falsehood."

[PurityOfEssence]

44. I said "jockeying for power" and you called it a dishonest portrayal of the TNC as Islamists

Please get your story straight. Now my polite phraseology of the LIFG "jockeying for power" is somehow not up to snuff. I did not equate the NTC with Islamists, and you said in a post on this thread that I did. Now, you contradict yourself again.

By what horrendous bullshit do you grant yourself the right to repeatedly call someone "dishonest" and not expect some recrimination for it? You've shown yourself to be extremely thin-skinned, and you've repeatedly distorted my statement on UN Article 42, the War Powers Resolution, the UN Participation Act and made wholly incorrect statements about them when repeatedly presented with evidence to the contrary.

If you think that repeatedly calling someone "dishonest" isn't something for the target to take umbrage at, then you need to go back to finishing school and learn some manners and decency. Do not expect to be treated as a fine upstanding and polite member of society when repeatedly doing it, and don't turn it back on the victim for taking exception to it. Certainly, belittling someone for taking exception to it shows some confusion about the concept of ethics.

Some of us feel that honesty is the bedrock of civilization, not merely a norm of convenience, and we feel that attacking others as dishonest isn't just "fair play" and an acceptable rhetorical device; those who do this cross a line, and should be treated harshly, especially if their accusations are false.

What the fuck is this? Do you REALLY feel your position is so morally "good" that you're loosed from any restrictions of reality, proof or decency? This is unfathomable in its expedient self-aggrandizement.

Finally, NO, Operation Odyssey Dawn was NOT the fig leaf that was being referred to with the phrase "days, not weeks". It was cited a few times, and it was used as a calming device to assure the American people that it would be a minor and quick affair.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/obama-to-members-of-congress-action-versus-libya-in-days-not-weeks.html

You've seen the following posted a few times, too, but conveniently ignore it; it's from Denis McDonough, briefing Congressional members:

“The president expects the preponderance of our involvement to last a matter of days, not weeks,” McDonough said. ”At the front end of this effort, the United States will contribute our unique capabilities to neutralize air defenses and military equipment that threatens civilians and civilian-populated areas to enable ongoing enforcement operations led by our partners,” he said. “We will then enable and support other countries to enforce the no-fly zone…with us in a support role…. It will not be an open ended effort by the United States.”

There is no fig leaf there about handing it off to NATO, which is a joke anyway, since we've been continually mounting manned bombing raids at least until June 18th, which you also know. The idea that the "promise" was that we'd hide behind the skirts of NATO soon after the assault started is pure bullshit, since the term was used in more than one missive, and here, quite clearly by a spokesperson for the President to specifically state that our involvement would be short and not open-ended.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-is-the-united-states-doing-in-libya/

By the tenor of your post, one simply shouldn't be taken aback at being accused of dishonesty. A world where that's an operating assumption is not a civilized one. I'd hate to hear what you'd consider an insult.

[joshcryer]

45. The LIFG-led al-Nidaa Brigade has now been raided and arrests are underway.

Do you now think that there's an element of islamist activity or that, indeed, the TNC and the government are in fact doing what they can to rid their ranks of such barbarity?

[joshcryer]

13. At the bare minimum, "Jalil tried to give them cover" is patently false given the denouncement.

You don't give cover to people you're out to arrest.

[LooseWilly]

14. How very simple your premise is...

[Duende azul]

15. Weren`t you the self proclaimed DU expert on the matter from the beginning? Found no links?

Hope this helps:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/29/libyan-rebels-rift-death-younis

The president of the National Transition Council (NTC), Abdul Mustafa Jalil, announced on Thursday night that Younis had been assassinated by pro-Gaddafi agents. But the lack of detail, and the fact that earlier that day Younis had been arrested on the orders of Jalil, have raised questions about the circumstances of his death.

Jalil said that rebels had arrested the head of the group behind the attack but the bodies of Younis, Muammar Gaddafi's former interior minister, and two colonels also killed in the alleged ambush have not been found.

The rebels said earlier on Thursday that Younis had been arrested on suspicion that his family might still have ties to the Gaddafi regime. Rumours swirled that he was involved in unauthorised contact with the administration he dramatically abandoned in February or had even helped to supply Gaddafi troops with weapons.

So maybe you should consider a little restraint in throwing around words like "dishonest".

[joshcryer]

18. Well, coming from the OP it certainly merited questioning.

And yes, I like to consider myself an expert. If you follow the revolution thread you'll see that the correction was made in a days time. I suspect Jalil didn't actually know what was going on.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

35. "Well, coming from the OP it certainly merited questioning." - uh, WTF??

:wtf:

[inna]

36. utterly despicable personal attack, typically of the attacker

[joshcryer]

38. What? I'm accustomed to unsourced claims and odd speculation and merely ask for it.

[inna]

39. you merely slander and constantly falsely accuse your opponents of dishonesty

[joshcryer]

40. Yes, because the OP is so heavily sourced with reliable information and not speculation.

:eyes:

[Starry Messenger]

29. +1

[pampango]

16. Juan Cole: Libya not a War for Oil (American oil companies lobbied on behalf of Qaddafi)

http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/libya-not-a-war-for-oil.html

The allegation out there in the blogosphere that the United Nations-authorized intervention in Libya was driven by Western oil companies is a non-starter. The argument is that Muammar Qaddafi was considered unreliable by American petroleum concerns, so they pushed to get rid of him. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bloomberg details the big lobbying push by American oil companies on behalf of Qaddafi, to exempt him from civil claims in the US.

The United States in any case did not spearhead the UN intervention. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, along with the Pentagon brass, considered the outbreak of the Libya war very unfortunate and clearly were only dragged into it kicking and screaming by Saudi Arabia, France and Britain. The Western country with the biggest oil stake in Libya, Italy, was very reluctant to join the war. Silvio Berlusconi says that he almost resigned when the war broke out, given his close relationship to Qaddafi. As for the UK, Tony Blair brought the BP CEO to Tripoli in 2007, and BP had struck deals for Libya oil worth billions, which this war can only delay.

Not only is there no reason to think that petroleum companies urged war, the whole argument about UN and NATO motivations is irrelevant and sordid. By now it is clear that Qaddafi planned to crush political dissidents in a massive and brutal way, and some estimates already suggest over 10,000 dead. If UN-authorized intervention could stop that looming massacre, then why does it matter so much what drove David Cameron to authorize it?

An argument you sometimes here is that the new Transitional National Council in Benghazi will be pliant toward Western interests. But Qaddafi himself had come back in from the cold and all sorts of deals were being struck with him by Western powers. Those who more or less support Qaddafi and wanted to let him roll tanks on civilian protesters has weaved itself into a pretzel with all these conspiracy theories, while conveniently managing to leave out of the account ordinary Libyans, so many of whom are willing to risk their lives to bring about the end of Qaddafi’s murderous and mercurial regime.

[EFerrari]

21. Every time I read this piece by Cole I find it more embarrassing. n/t

[inna]

30. I know, poor Dr. Cole. "Embarrassing" is right. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Lobbying for him in 2008 doesn't mean they were against the war in 2011

The reduction of France's "Total" deal in 2009 pissed off a lot of people: upon threat of nationalization, they were forced to agree to only get 27% of what they pumped instead of 50%, as it had been. At the point where a local leader threatens nationalization and uses this as leverage to radically reduce the profitability, he's in trouble.

The title of your post leads one to believe that the oil companies were trying to keep the US Government from going to war this last winter, not three years ago. I don't think this is deliberate obfuscation, but remember: corporations change their minds based on new developments, too...

[joshcryer]

34. Can you name a Total CEO or hell, investor, "pissed" about the deal they made with Gaddafi?

Because every indication I have found suggests that they were pleased with the deal since they had already invested the sunk costs and that ultimately they got more than anyone else.

[malaise]

17. Watched BBC International news a while ago and

the jackass was saying that Gadaffi was using this murder for political capital.
I shook my head and said Duh!! This from folks who were blaming Gadaffi for this.

[Bosonic]

19. Islamist militia 'shot Libya rebel Abdel Fattah Younes'

An Islamist militia was behind the killing of Libyan rebel commander Gen Abdel Fattah Younes, who was shot dead on Thursday, a rebel minister has said.

Ali Tarhouni said Gen Younes was killed by members of the Obaida Ibn Jarrah Brigade, a group linked to the rebels.

Gen Younes defected to the rebels in February after serving in the Libyan leadership since the 1969 coup which brought Col Muammar Gaddafi to power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14352662

[EFerrari]

22. After the mountain of bullshit these people have inflicted on us

I have my reservations about this latest claim.

[Distant Observer]

23. Now we know what happens to anyone suspected of dissent among the "freedom fighters"

[Amonester]

25. Or "double agent" ...

Hey, the French chopped off a lot of "guilty" heads too.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Yes, I'm sure the Committee for Public Safety will have a few more blades to grind

It shows many things: the fractious nature of the rebels, the ruthlessness with which at least some of them will enforce ideological purity, the UNDENIABLE POWER AND PRESENCE OF ISLAMISTS AND THE LIFG WHO HAVE THEOCRACY ON THEIR MINDS AND VENGEANCE IN THEIR HEARTS and the tarnishing of Jalil as a straight-shooter by his obvious telling of a lie and the weakening of some of the resolve. The latter point springs from a certain amount of speculation, but I don't see how he could seriously think Qaddafi Loyalists had killed Younes when under the custody of rebels taking him in for questioning; this kind of incompetent deceit is actually rather disconcerting: incompetents with the arrogance to sell any poppycock they please are dangerous.

Any student of history will know that revolutions tend to evolve, and many of the end products are rather bad. I don't know who is responsible for this original quote, but here it is paraphrased: "revolutions often have rather bad third acts." When spurred on by idealistic emotion and nothing else, much reality can get lost in the fog of war.

The LIFG is a nasty bunch, and they're hungry for revenge at Qaddafi's crushing of their rebellion in 1995-6. I'd also like to see anyone defend this bunch of jihadists, even in a direct comparison with Qaddafi and all of his failings. Women should be scared. Christians should be scared. Secularists should be scared. Darker-skinned Africans should be scared.

This is a very complex situation in every way: the allied coalition's varied motives, the powers on the ground in Libya and the civilians caught in the middle, yet so very many people insist it's all above-board and oh-so-very-simple.

[joshcryer]

33. I don't believe it is very simple at all.

By the same token, I don't trot out every single pathetic bit of bad news as if it's some sort of signifier of the events in their totality. If anyone should be accused of simplification it should be those people.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Ridiculous. You skew everything to the mythical "innocents" of the revolution

For all my faults, I continually make qualifications of Qaddafi's actions, but you, with the ego-based NEED to be on the right, dismiss anything that could cast the rebels in a bad light, including their flagrant racist bleats to the western allies to stop the non-existent "mercenaries"--who just happen to be darker than them--and the dismissal of oil-based opportunism that belie their inherent deception. The greed of resource exploitation is somehow justified.

To your credit, early on you tried to put the brakes on the "rape" allegations, stating that all wars engender this. Still, as you've fought the OBVIOUS restrictions of the UN Participation Act and the War Powers Resolution, you've been less than less than less than even slightly honorable as you've continually decried me as dishonest.

Do I need to quote these threads? Do you still not know what "pursuant" means? Do you still claim that the UN Charter gives the President the right to deploy troops without Congressional authorization, even though US law is VERY CLEAR on this point? Do you need to see the text--again--that states that, under the War Powers Resolution (which is the law of the land and the judicial expression of what is "Constitutional") the President may NEVER send "armed forces" into "hostilities" or where they're imminent on his own UNLESS WE'RE ATTACKED? It's VERY obvious, yet you still claim that he has some 60 or 90 day free trial run. He doesn't. From the very beginning, this was illegal. It's well past illegal now, and then you claim that it's Congress' fault for not adhering to your made-up responsibility to form committees on the issue. Nothing of the sort exists. It's the President's obligation to get permission. Asking for it isn't enough; he must GET IT.

There was a great epithet in the Bay Area in the early eighties: "virtuecrat". The term applies to people who are so filled with self-justification that they are above recrimination or even mere justification; these people can take the self-proclaimed moral high-ground and sneer at anyone not adhering to their party line. You have dismissed Constitutional law, quibbled with standing interpretations, ridiculed and hurled accusations of "dishonesty" with aplomb. My particular annoyance is not the most important point; the most important point is your self-proclaimed "correctness" that allows you to ratfuck anyone who doesn't cleave to your particular point of view.

This whole "revolution" is a lie.

[Distant Observer]

43. Dear Purity, you are so informed and cogent. it is hard for me to add anything. Thank you.

[joshcryer]

46. You claimed at one point that Gaddafi was just going to restore order and there would be peace...

...in weeks had not NATO intervened. You made no comments on the IOMs migration projections, you made no comments on the siege of Misrata that went on for a month before NATO got involved (and another month still after that point), you made no comments on the undoubted purge of Zawiya (both of these are western towns btw). Instead you focused on eastern rivalries, you focused on an "islamist" element that is hardly relevant (and at this very moment is being met with by force from the more moderate rebels), you focused on killings that in fact are a norm. The blank Africans are a good example, since you like to invoke it so much (you didn't in this post), I think it's atrocious when they are killed by either side if they're innocent and not fighting (you would never credit me for this position), but I don't write entire OPs about how black Africans are murdered by the rebels while ignoring that similar migrants were loaded onto boats at gunpoint by Gaddafi's people. In fact, I pretty much stay to one thread unless I get an urge to reply to what I consider dishonest portrayals. "It seems like we're supporting Al-Queada." "There's an obvious element of islamist activity," etc.

Meanwhile you play right in to the hands of the ridiculous GOP congress that is to this day holding the country hostage (notice the other OPs?). First they completely ignore congressional priority procedures, then, laughably, they vote to not authorize and then they vote again not to not authorize!

[inna]

28. k&r - btw, the islamist connection and direct al qaeda links of the "rebels" have never been

a secret; and neither should they be surprising... very historically consistent M.O. here.


wrt mainstream links confirming the al Qaeda connection... i could post dozens of links if i was on my home computer, here's just a couple:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

[EFerrari]

41. I was aware of the connections but in this instance I was wondering

if the "rebels" claiming al Qaida did it couldn't also be political cover aimed at the West.