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.
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.