Skip to comments.30,000 Libyans protest against militias
Posted on 09/21/2012 1:15:37 PM PDT by TigersEye
Around 30,000 Libyans participated in an unprecedented protest against militias in Benghazi on Friday, according to the Associated Press.
The rally comes after last week's attack on the US consulate in Benghazi left the US ambassador and three other Americans dead. At least one militia is suspected of taking part in the attack, which has caused Libyans to speak out against the armed factions in Libya.
Bloomberg noted that the country's stability is threatened by the powerful militias, which the country's previous government under the National Transitional Council was unable to disarm. The recently elected General National Congress has not had an easier time with them.
(excerpted; read more at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpost.com ...
Perspective. It’s all about perspective. We have to keep our eyes on the ball, and not let the Marxist driven few dictate what Middle-Eastern policy will be.
I’m glad to see this. It’s been my take for over thirty years that the average Arab on the street would be perfectly comfortable with normalized relations with the West.
We MUST NOT deny them that access. For our own sake we must not.
I’ll bet folks would be shocked by a well balanced blind poll of West Bank and Gaza residents too.
Particularly in Libya. For all the evil things Gaddafi did he westernized Libya in major ways.
It's been working so well so far.
How did they estimate the crowd size?
This is where a true Arab Spring would come from.
By protesting against 0bama's allies on the ground in his war on Gaddafi?
What’s more representative of Libya?
125 excessively well armed people carrying out a well-laid plan autonomously, or 30,000 unarmed citizens of Libya participating in a peaceful protest autonomously?
I’m convinced you’ve got a grasp of it. I sure wish others did.
I understand your point, and I think you’re right.
Gaddafi was a pariah, but he got Reagan’s message loud and clear. F with us, and we’ll F with you, directly.
He understood GW Bush’s message too and started dumping his WMDs like hot potatoes. Not to mention that his son was being courted in DC and the capitals of Europe right up until a week or two before 0baNATO started pulverizing their cities.
Due to the lay of the field before us, and the armed factions increasing each day (being radical), along with the choice or not of choosing to arm those in those countries who support us and perhaps creating a true Arab Spring where those who support us are given their chance, does anyone think it can be achieved without arming people such as the 30,000? What do we do if the 30,000 are a ruse, we arm them, and they return the favor by handing their weapons over to the radicals. I truly don't know where I would turn if I had to make this decision.
I agree with your emphasis. Exactly right.
That’s true, he did. Bush deserves credit for it too.
And that worked so well, that Obama (and even Bush) avoided doing it with regard to Iran.
Sometimes you have to shake your head and wonder, what the hell?
most Libyans were happy with Khaddafi, especially the things he did for women which was unheard of in the Middle East.
Relatively speaking, yes, I think they were. They knew the choice they had. Gaddafi or jihadi.
Well, that is the quandary isn’t it.
Was helping the Al Qaeda leaning rebels in Libya and Egypt a good thing?
Why wasn’t it a good thing to back the folks in Iran, when they were demonstrating a desire for a change away from an Islamic state status? That would have cut a lot of ties to the rebels across the region, not to mention Syria, an Iranian puppet state for all intents and purposes. It would have cut the supply line to Hezbollah, Hamas, and probably Al Qaeda too.
Ghadaffi and Mubarak weren’t perfect. Mubarak had been a reasoned ally of ours for decades. We sold him out in minutes.
What does that say to others contemplating being our ally?
I don’t think the new governments in Egypt or Libya have absolute control of militias within their borders. Militia activity in the Sinai may have been a real concern to Egypt recently.
These are very complex issues. I don’t honestly have an answer to all the problems that resulted from the destabilization of the Arab Spring. I’m not convinced we or Egypt or Libya are better off today. In fact, I’m certain we are all a lot less safe.
We had enemies before. Those enemies were out in the open, and for the most part moderating their actions. Now we have a multitude of unknowns. Who is the good guy? Who is the bad guy?
How do we arm some and not others. Who knows? This is why I was not a big fan of the Arab Spring.
Well, we’re stuck with it now, and it will probably be decades before we come anywhere near the regional norm we saw dissolve this year and last.
A tremendously bigger effect for good than helping Libya ... wouldn't it have been?
Of course. It would have moderated the tone across the region.
The West Bank and the Gaza strip alone would have seen it’s major supplier and supporter of violence, defunded. For once there would be a major reason to come to a reasoned peace.
Now..., not only not so much. It’s not on your life...
There is a consistency in 0bungle’s foreign policy if you look for it. Israel loses, Islamists win.
No doubt about it. That’s why I find it laughable that he calls himself a friend of Israel. If you knew nothing more than his treatment of Israeli leaders, you could pick up on this in no uncertain terms.
“most Libyans were happy with Khaddafi...”
No, they were not. They were horrified when Kaddhafi turned lose his southern mercenaries to kill Libyans. Women were crying in the streets, seeing their husbands, fathers and sons shot down by African mercenaries. That single act caused his downfall. The majority of the Libyan army deserted and joined the provincial militias. They designed a battle plan and the rest is Libyan history.
“Perspective. Its all about perspective.”
Your anaylsis is a good one and on target. I hired out as a freelance contractor during the Libyan civil war to an Israeli business company and was offered the Israeli view of the situation.
First, the militias involved in the consulate attack are not powerful. After the interim government was established, the council brought in Osama al-Juwali, the most respected militia leader in Libya who commanded the largest militia, and the government named him defense minister.
He organized the local militias and brought them into the new Libyan army.
It’s a fact that there are other militias who refused to lay down their arms. These are mostly small jihadist groups who want to establish a Muslim government.
After Kaddhafi fell, a pack of hothead jihadists started to cause trouble in Tripoli. These were mostly 16 to 17 year-old 30 IQ punks who were looking for free stuff. Think of them as equivalent to our big city street thugs who think like Obuma if he had sons. al-Juwali sent in the Libyan army to clear up that mess. He also sent out his army to beat back jihadists who tried to take over an airport near Tripoli.
From my perspective, I think we have a pro-western government in Libya that needs to be supported and nurtured. Our surveys in Tripoli of the citizenry, post-Kaddahfi, show that most people are pro-free enterprise in the classical and ancient Arabic sense. They want Tripoli to rival Dubai, the “Gold City.”
I’m out of the loop now, so my view only covers the immediate post-Kaddhafi situation.
Take care, FRiend.
Happy or not, they’re up against armed thugs.
Thanks SergeantDave. That makes sense. All that we know to this point fits well into the model you’ve just laid out there.
Even if a government military member or even a few, were complicit in the events on that night, it wouldn’t mean that the government was thrilled with it.
As I’ve said to others we’ll see how this plays out.
I have ranged from saying this might be an United States of Iran we’re seeing develop here, all the way to hoping we were seeing signs of a pro-Western movement.
I have leaned the US of Iran, bit I’d sure love to be proven wrong.
I tend to agree. Probably anywhere from 30 to 50% of Muslims in the mideast are sane, ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives. The problem is that the most violent, radical groups (Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood) usually control things in those countries and take the more moderate Muslims along with them. It's like Germany during Hitler's rule. A very large percentage of Germans probably either hated Hitler or just mouthed the words. But the Nazis took everyone down with them. Ditto for the Islamist radicals in the mideast. They're going to take all the moderates down with them.
Great dynamic you’re addressing there. I agree with your take on it, and I think you use good examples to explain it.
All were good to great points and questions. Yes, too many unknowns, and we are stuck, yet most of all because of zer0 and his crowd, we own the mess. I too was against our involvement in the arab spring, for like you, I knew it was the prelude to fog and winter. Now, the outlook is more than grim. I want to Thank You for your time.
Thank you for the nice response. Let me direct you to an exchange I had with another person on the forum.
I’ll link you to my comments, and you can use the “To:” link to see the original post I’m responding to.
I found it somewhat educational. I think you may also.
We offer up our thoughts here, but in truth none of us knows exactly how this will play out.
Yet another deception.
A) If evil leaders take over the government of the nation you live in, the citizenry has to get rid of leaders who will attack other nations.
B) If the leadership is not removed and attacks other nations, the other nation(s) they attacked are justified in attacking back and wreaking havoc.
C) If the citizenry is unhappy about “the consulate attack”, that does not change the fundamental idea that islam, according to it’s writings, leadership and 1400 years of history, seeks world domination in the form of conversion, dhimmitude or death for all non-muslims. I don’t hear any Libyans acknowledging the right of the nation of Israel to exist or the right of non-muslims to remain non-muslims, etc.
If muslims disagree with those fundamentals they should abandon islam, which some do. Once everyone has abandoned islam, the mosks are are all closed and it is entirely shut down, it will no longer be a threat to non-muslims.
Until then non-muslims delude themselves if they think they can “get along” and allow muslims to live in non-muslim countries. Until it ceases, non-muslim nations should deport all muslims back to muslim homelands; this will provide the only real security in non-muslim nations.
The most ruthless will prevail....and pay those around him in gold, guns, ammo, food and women.
yep ... taught from the time they speak.
The Libyans are not our enemy. Obama is our enemy.
And the media. Long after Obama is gone, we’ll still have the subversive media to deal with.
What does that say to others contemplating being our ally?
Nothing new. Betraying our allies goes all the way back to how we treated Chiang Kai Shek.
I haven’t been thrilled with our treatment of Taiwan either.
I will say, that once Communist China had gained control, and there was no way of going back, it was somewhat reasoned to recognize Communist China. As long as we bought off on Nationalist China and recognized it as a separate nation, I was pretty much okay with it.
Then we walked that back too. That was flat our wrong IMO.
You may have a better perspective on this, but I’m not sure what you do other than this, unless you support all out war over it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.