SCGNews: The Covert Origins Of ISIS

[jeffro97]

I found this from SCG News a few days ago. It's an interesting video explaining in detail how the group essentially came to be. a transcript with accompanying video's is posted below.

[video=youtube;oMjXbuj7BPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oMjXbuj7BPI[/video]

Evidence exposing who put ISIS in power, and how it was done.

The Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the so called Islamic State, is the stuff of nightmares.

They are ruthless, fanatical, killers, on a mission, and that mission is to wipe out anyone and everyone, from any religion or belief system and to impose Shari'ah law. The mass executions, beheadings and even crucifixions that they are committing as they work towards this goal are flaunted like badges of pride, video taped and uploaded for the whole world to see. This is the new face of evil.

Would it interest you to know who helped these psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you to know who armed them, funded them and trained them? Would it interest you to know why?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=f80eab4dcbf6" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Watch video here: [Link]

This story makes more sense if we start in the middle, so we'll begin with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The Libyan revolution was Obama's first major foreign intervention. It was portrayed as an extension of the Arab Spring, and NATO involvement was framed in humanitarian terms.

The fact that the CIA was actively working to help the Libyan rebels topple Gaddafi was no secret, nor were the airstrikes that Obama ordered against the Libyan government. However, little was said about the identity or the ideological leanings of these Libyan rebels. Not surprising, considering the fact that the leader of the Libyan rebels later admitted that his fighters included Al-Qaeda linked jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq.

These jihadist militants from Iraq were part of what national security analysts commonly referred to as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Remember Al-Qaeda in Iraq was ISIS before it was rebranded.

With the assistance of U.S. and NATO intelligence and air support, the Libyan rebels captured Gaddafi and summarily executed him in the street, all the while enthusiastically chanting "Allah Akbar". For many of those who had bought the official line about how these rebels were freedom fighters aiming to establish a liberal democracy in Libya, this was the beginning of the end of their illusions.

[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee6_1319234557[/video]

Prior to the U.S. and NATO backed intervention, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This according to the U.N.'s Human Development Index rankings for 2010. However in the years following the coup, the country descended into chaos, with extremism and violence running rampant. Libya is now widely regarded as failed state (of course those who were naive enough to buy into the propaganda leading up to the war get defensive when this is said).

Now after Gaddafi was overthrown, the Libyan armories were looted, and massive quantities of weapons were sent by the Libyan rebels to Syria. The weapons, which included anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were smuggled into Syria through Turkey, a NATO ally. The times of London reported on the arrival of the shipment on September 14th, 2012. (Secondary confirmation in this NYT article) This was just three days after Ambassador Chris
Stevens was killed by the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Chris Stevens had served as the U.S. government's liaison to the Libyan rebels since April of 2011.

While a great deal media attention has focused on the fact that the State Department did not provide adequate security at the consulate, and was slow to send assistance when the attack started, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article in April of 2014 which exposed a classified agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was referred to as a "rat line". The "rat line" was covert network used to channel weapons and ammunition from Libya, through southern turkey and across the Syrian border. Funding was provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

With Stevens dead any direct U.S. involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria.

It was at this time that jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into Syria as well. And not just low level militants. Many were experienced commanders who had fought in multiple theaters.

The U.S. and its allies were now fully focused on taking down Assad's government in Syria. As in Libya this regime change was to be framed in terms of human rights, and now overt support began to supplement the backdoor channels. The growing jihadist presence was swept under the rug and covered up.

However as the rebels gained strength, the reports of war crimes and atrocities that they were committing began to create a bit of a public relations problem for Washington. It then became standard policy to insist that U.S. support was only being given to what they referred to as "moderate" rebel forces.

This distinction, however, had no basis in reality.

In an interview given in April of 2014, FSA commander Jamal Maarouf admitted that his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is the official Al-Qa’ida branch in Syria. This statement is further validated by an interview given in June of 2013 by Colonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA's Northern Front. In this interview he openly discusses his ties with Al-Nusra, and expresses his desire to see Syria ruled by sharia law. (You can verify the identities of these two commanders here in this document from The Institute for the Study of War)

[video=youtube;HYIdmlk2gAU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HYIdmlk2gAU[/video]

Moderate rebels? Well it's complicated. Not that this should really come as any surprise. Reuters had reported in 2012 that the FSA's command was dominated by Islamic extremists, and the New York Times had reported that same year that the majority of the weapons that Washington were sending into Syria was ending up in the hands Jihadists. For two years the U.S. government knew that this was happening, but they kept doing it.

And the FSA's ties to Al-Nusra are just the beginning. In June of 2014 Al-Nusra merged with ISIS at the border between Iraq and Syria.

So to review, the FSA is working with Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra is working with ISIS, and the U.S. has been sending money and weapons to the FSA even though they've known since 2012 that most of these weapons were ending up in the hands of extremists. You do the math.

[UPDATE 9.03.14]: Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney admits: “We Helped Build ISIS”:
Note that the first version of this video I uploaded (here) was quickly taken down. To insure that this clip does not disappear we have provided a secondary download link here. So if the video below isn't playing then use that link and upload it elsewhere.

[video=youtube;_8kKCCnOm1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_8kKCCnOm1Y[/video]

Syria, we backed I believe, in some cases some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that's a little confusing to people. So I've always maintained, and go back quite some time that we were backing the wrong types. I think it's going to turn out maybe this weekend in a new special that Brett Baer is going to have Friday that's gonna show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS.

In that context, the sarin gas attacks of 2013 which turned out to have been committed by the Syrian rebels, makes a lot more sense doesn't it? If it wasn't enough that U.N. investigators, Russian investigators, and Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh all pinned that crime on Washington's proxies, the rebels themselves threatened the West that they would expose what really happened if they were not given more advanced weaponry within one month.

By the way, this also explains why Washington then decided to target Russia next.

This threat was made on June 10th, 2013. In what can only be described as an amazing coincidence, just nine days later, the rebels received their first official shipment of heavy weapons in Aleppo.

After the second sarin gas fiasco, which was also exposed and therefore failed to garner public support for airstrikes, the U.S. continued to increase its the training and support for the rebels.

[video]http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/JohnGrisham/John%20Grisham-%20A%20Painted%20House.pdf[/video]

In February of 2014, Haaretz reported that the U.S. and its allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, were in the process of helping the Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive attack in the south. According to Haaretz Israel had also provided direct assistance in military operations against Assad four months prior (you can access a free cached version of the page here).

Then in May of 2014 PBS ran a report in which they interviewed rebels who were trained by the U.S. in Qatar. According to those rebels they were being trained to finish off soldiers who survived attacks.

"They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as "Hussein." "They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."

This is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. It also runs contrary to conventional military strategy. In conventional military strategy soldiers are better off left wounded, because this ends up costing the enemy more resources. Executing captured enemy soldiers is the kind of tactic used when you want to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy. It also just happens to be standard operating procedure for ISIS.

One month after this report, in June of 2014, ISIS made its dramatic entry, crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching Baghdad. The internet was suddenly flooded with footage of drive by shootings, large scale death marches, and mass graves. And of course any Iraqi soldier that was captured was executed.

Massive quantities of American military equipment were seized during that operation. ISIS took entire truckloads of humvees, they took helicopters, tanks, and artillery. They photographed and video taped themselves and advertised what they were doing on social media, and yet for some reason Washington didn't even TRY to stop them.

U.S. military doctrine clearly calls for the destruction of military equipment and supplies when friendly forces cannot prevent them from falling into enemy hands, but that didn't happen here. ISIS was allowed to carry this equipment out of Iraq and into Syria unimpeded. The U.S. military had the means to strike these convoys, but they didn't lift a finger, even though they had been launching drone strikes in Pakistan that same week.

Why would they do that?

Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, and while pundits from the right have had a lot of fun with that image, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he prefers covert means. Not really surprising considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski was

[video=youtube;ASlETEx0T-I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ASlETEx0T-I[/video]

Those who know their history will remember that Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the funding and arming the Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets.

[video=youtube;kYvO3qAlyTg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kYvO3qAlyTg[/video]

By the way Osama bin Laden was one of these anti-Soviet "freedom fighters" the U.S. was funding and arming.


This operation is no secret at this point, nor are the unintended side effects.


[video=youtube;Dqn0bm4E9yw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Dqn0bm4E9yw[/video]

Officially the U.S. government's arming and funding of the Mujahideen was a response to the Soviet invasion in December of 1979, however in his memoir entitled "From the Shadows" Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert operation 6 months prior, with the express intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire. (You can preview the relevant text here on google books)


The strategy worked. The Soviets invaded, and the ten years of war that followed are considered by many historians as being one of the primary causes of the fall of the USSR.


This example doesn't just establish precedent, what we're seeing happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria right now is actually a continuation of a old story. Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and organizational decedents of these extremist elements that the U.S. government made use of thirty years ago.


The U.S. the went on to create a breeding ground for these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. Had it not been for the vacuum of power left by the removal and execution of Saddam, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, would not exist. And had it not been for Washington's attempt at toppling Assad by arming, funding and training shadowy militant groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would have been capable of storming into Iraq in June of 2014.


On every level, no matter how you cut it, ISIS is a product of U.S. government's twisted and decrepit foreign policy.


Now all of this may seem contradictory to you as you watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to beat louder and the air strikes against them are gradually widened http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/president-obama-considers-possible-...). Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization get established, only to attack them later?


Well why did the CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?, Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets?


There's a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.


Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]


Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that's when it's time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]


Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]


ISIS is extremely useful. They have essentially done Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In 2014, while the news cycle has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made major headway in Syria, and as of August they already controlled 35% of the country.


Since ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S. a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad's backyard, and when they do U.S. officials are already making it clear that both ISIS and the Syrian government will be targeted. That, after all, is the whole point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a bit more territory first, but the writing is on the wall, and has been for some time now.


The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that this will never lead to boots on the ground, however, the truth of the matter is that anyone who understands anything about military tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal their forces. ISIS isn't an established state power which can be destroyed by knocking out key government buildings and infrastructure. These are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in urban warfare.


To significantly weaken them, the war will have to involve ground troops, but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops could certainly route ISIS in street to street battles for some time, and they might even succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a number of years, but eventually they will have to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious what will come next.


The puppets that the U.S. government has installed in the various countries that they have brought down in recent years have without exception proven to be utterly incompetent and corrupt. No one that Washington places in power will be capable of maintaining stability in Syria. Period.


Right now, Assad is the last bastion of stability in the region. He is the last chance they have for a moderate non-sectarian government and he is the only hope of anything even remotely resembling democracy for the foreseeable future. If Assad falls, Islamic extremist will take the helm, they will impose shari'ah law, and they will do everything in their power to continue spreading their ideology as far and wide as they can.


If the world truly wants to stop ISIS, there is only one way to do it:


1. First and foremost, the U.S. government and its allies must be heavily pressured to cut all support to the rebels who are attempting to topple Assad. Even if these rebels that the U.S. is arming and funding were moderate, and they're not, the fact that they are forcing Assad to fight a war on multiple fronts, only strengthens ISIS. This is lunacy.


2. The Syrian government should be provided with financial support, equipment, training and intelligence to enable them to turn the tide against ISIS. This is their territory, they should be the ones to reclaim it.


Now obviously this support isn't going to come from the U.S. or any NATO country, but there are a number of nations who have a strategic interest in preventing another regime change and chaotic aftermath. If these countries respond promptly, as in right now, they could preempt a U.S. intervention, and as long this support does not include the presence of foreign troops, doing so will greatly reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation down the road.


3. The U.S. government and its allies should should be aggressively condemned for their failed regime change policies and the individuals behind these decisions should be charged for war crimes. This would have to be done on an nation by nation level since the U.N. has done nothing but enable NATO aggression. While this may not immediately result in these criminals being arrested, it would send a message. This can be done. Malaysia has already proven this by convicting the Bush administration of war crimes in abstentia.


Now you might be thinking: "This all sounds fine and good, but what does this have to do with me? I can't influence this situation."


That perspective is quite common, and for most people, it's paralyzing, but the truth of the matter is that we can influence this. We've done it before, and we can do it again.


I'll be honest with you though, this isn't going to be easy. To succeed we have to start thinking strategically. Like it or not, this is a chess game. If we really want to rock the boat, we have to start reaching out to people in positions of influence. This can mean talking to broadcasters at your local radio station, news paper, or t.v. station, or it can mean contacting influential bloggers, celebrities, business figures or government officials. Reaching out to current serving military and young people who may be considering joining up is also important. But even if it's just your neighbor, or your coworker, every single person we can reach brings us closer to critical mass. The most important step is to start trying.


Watch video via YouTube: [Link]

If you are confused about why this is all happening, watch this video we put out on September 11th, 2012

Watch video via YouTube: [Link]

If this message resonates with you then spread it. If you want to see the BIG picture, and trust me we've got some very interesting reports coming, subscribe to StormCloudsGathering on Youtube, and follow us on Facebook, twitter and Google plus.
BONUS ARTICLE (an interesting tangent): Were the Libyan rebels being led by a CIA plant?

 

[Muwahid]

Watched most of the video, sounds quite ill informed.

I think what's interesting is this idea (mainly held be conspiracists) that there was some kind of foreign intervention to start the Arab spring, as if to say Libyans were thrilled with their leadership, and then the US/CIA came in, provoked or funded extremists to start a revolution. This is really a baseless claim, and realizing the true intention of the Libyan people as well as others in the Arab spring, help paint a better picture of western intervention.

The US had long supported these dictators, but eventually that would backfire. Especially with the power of the internet, social media, where now the entire country can mobilize and learn about abuses of the government within minutes of it happening. This caused these massive protests, because believe me, the Arabs have never been content with these dictators, and have been living under martial law for decades, they saw an opportunity and seized it.

So why did the US intervene? Well thats obvious... even though they supported these dictators in order to protect US interests in the region, they also know they are disposable, so they wanted to facilitate the next inevitable leadership, so they would be at least somewhat loyal/grateful to the United States, and would therefore "play ball".

This similarly happened in Syria, and other countries, which is why weapons and money were allowed freely to flow into these now unstable regions.

The second issue is about the origins of ISIS... this goes back to the second Iraq war. Abu Musab al Zarqawi was the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but the amount of sunni factions fighting in Iraq under a non-unified front was staggering, AQ in Iraq formed the Mujahideen Shura councils which included dozens of these sunni militant groups, after Zarqawi this was later branded ISI - Islamic State in Iraq.

Aymen al Zawahiri has his own playbook, and it includes setting up Emirates in many countries, they exist in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, The Maghrib (west Africa) and I guess the idea is, keep strengthening them, until unification is a viable option.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi disagreed, and saw an amazing opportunity, to take a huge part of land, so he invaded Syria. Believe it or not, the capabilities of ISI were quite large, well before the Syrian civil war, they would run operations where they would have conveys going through the streets, stopping at military barracks, murder everyone in there, go to key "sahwa" figures houses, murder them, all in one night, then go home, and no one could really retaliate. So they had a lot of capabilities even before the invasion of Syria.

Thirdly... there's an insinuation that the FSA are allies with Al Qaeda/Jahbat/ISIS... which is blatantly false, I mean I can easily show videos of both groups executing eachother, they capture eachothers militants and commanders, sometimes, yes, they do have peace agreements, and do operations together as Bashar al Assad is seen as the greater evil, but ideologically they hate one another.

Even Jahbat and ISIS hate one another but not on ideological grounds, more political, as in Jahbat says they betrayed Zawahiri and had no right to declare a Khilaafa.

And FSA saying they want Shariah doesn't make them extreme. Shariah doesn't infer "extremism". All Arab countries enforce Shariah or have Shariah courts despite what you may think, it may not be full Shariah but its still mostly Shariah.

 

[presence]

Great read. Thanks!

 

[juleswin]

Libya just had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, free medical care, free post secondary education, highly subsidized mortgages. Its not like they were trilled about all of that. Only a moron would think so lowly of Libyans to think they will abandon all of that in exchange for a western supported extremist Wahhabist led revolution.



Also everyone knows that the CIA never up to stiring up shit around the world cos they left all that dirty dealing back in the 70s. If you don't know it, then you are some tin foil wearing, Alex Jones listening conspiracy theorist.

 

[Muwahid]

Libya just had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, free medical care, free post secondary education, highly subsidized mortgages. Its not like they were trilled about all of that. Only a moron would think so lowly of Libyans to think they will abandon all of that in exchange for a western supported extremist Wahhabist led revolution.

Also everyone knows that the CIA never up to stiring up shit around the world cos they left all that dirty dealing back in the 70s. If you don't know it, then you are some tin foil wearing, Alex Jones listening conspiracy theorist.

LMAO only on RPF will Libertarian-minded conspiracists turn socialists to prove a conspiracy!

 

[juleswin]

LMAO only on RPF will Libertarian-minded conspiracists turn socialists to prove a conspiracy!

They can afford their socialist paradise with their oil. Who am I to tell the Libyans how they should organize their lives. If stating a fact is socialist conspiracy? then I am guilty as charged. The idea that moderate secular Libyan Muslims will got for hardcore Wahhabi jihadist revolutionaries in place of what they had is very unlikely. The who revolution was started by Saudi mercs and the NGO helped sell it to the west by accusing black Libyans of being mercenaries plus other lies which can be seen in the documentary video I posted above.

I dunno where all you idiots trying to cover for the CIA/US govt came from, but whoever sent you should quit sending you morons because you are not convincing anyone. Maybe the 69.... dude, I think he has always been the very gullible one on this site.

 

[jmdrake]

Watched most of the video, sounds quite ill informed.

I think what's interesting is this idea (mainly held be conspiracists) that there was some kind of foreign intervention to start the Arab spring, as if to say Libyans were thrilled with their leadership, and then the US/CIA came in, provoked or funded extremists to start a revolution. This is really a baseless claim, and realizing the true intention of the Libyan people as well as others in the Arab spring, help paint a better picture of western intervention.

Strawman argument. Please point to the time in the video where the narrator stating anything to the effect that all Libyans were "thrilled" with Khadafi. Many Americans are not "thrilled" by Barack Obama and many were not "thrilled" with George W. Bush. But if information came out that the Chinese government was funding Operation Wall Street that would have, and should have, been a major scandal. It's a fact, not a "conspiracy theory", that Hillary Clinton's state department funded the "peaceful protests" in Syria from the beginning.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/20...-strategy-to-push-for-regime-change-in-syria/

In fact you can't point to a single fact in the video to dispute. So you just make up something to argue against. If you want to be taken seriously, point to any time in the video and say "What is said at time XX:XX is not true and my reference for this is http://++++". Otherwise I'll note that you're just trolling...again.

 

[jmdrake]

LMAO only on RPF will Libertarian-minded conspiracists turn socialists to prove a conspiracy!

Only a dishonest shrill will claim someone "turned socialist" when all that person did was point out why the Libyan people might have actually liked the free goodies they were getting. There are lots of Americans who like welfare in this country. That doesn't mean it's good for the country.

 

[dannno]

bump

 

[enhanced_deficit]

With the assistance of U.S. and NATO intelligence and air support, the Libyan rebels captured Gaddafi and summarily executed him in the street, all the while enthusiastically chanting "Allah Akbar". For many of those who had bought the official line about how these rebels were freedom fighters aiming to establish a liberal democracy in Libya, this was the beginning of the end of their illusions.

[h=1]France's Sarkozy arrested over corruption; Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman[/h]

 

[Muwahid]

Only a dishonest shrill will claim someone "turned socialist" when all that person did was point out why the Libyan people might have actually liked the free goodies they were getting. There are lots of Americans who like welfare in this country. That doesn't mean it's good for the country.

Do you know any actual Libyans? Again it's interesting, a socialist dictator, RPF members are speculating the Libyan people were very content with their situation. Have you read the freedom index reports for Libya? Or does that not interest you because it doesn't support that fantastical world view.

Source: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2010/libya#.VA9mCvldWyk

Civil liberties, and political freedom are ranked 7 (worse possible rating), overall status, Libya is not free. Some excerpts:

It is illegal for any political group to oppose the principles of the 1969 revolution, which are laid out in the Green Book, although in recent years market-based economic changes have diverged from the regime’s socialist ideals.

Political parties have been illegal for over 35 years, and the government strictly monitors political activity. Organizing or joining anything akin to a political party is punishable by very long prison terms and even the death sentence. Many Libyan opposition movements and figures operate outside the country.

Corruption is pervasive in both the private sector and the government in Libya, which ranked 126 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index.

There is no independent press. State-owned media largely operate as mouthpieces for the authorities, and journalists work in a climate of fear and self-censorship. Those who displease the regime face harassment or imprisonment on trumped-up charges.

In November 2008, government forces clashed with members of the Tabu tribe in Al-Kufra and other small towns in the southeastern corner of the country. Tabu tribesmen had expressed discontent since December 2007, when many of them were stripped of their citizenship, among other discriminatory measures, for their perceived support for neighboring Chad, Libya’s political rival

So Gaddafi is a socialist dictator, the media is not free, the government is corrupt, it's illegal to criticize the regime, and there's massive wealth distribution (which I guess you guys think is dandy), Gaddafi was not elected he was installed via a coup, and he crushes any dissent. Simple as that.

Keep living in your fantasy world where Libyans loved their government.

 

[Muwahid]

Strawman argument. Please point to the time in the video where the narrator stating anything to the effect that all Libyans were "thrilled" with Khadafi. Many Americans are not "thrilled" by Barack Obama and many were not "thrilled" with George W. Bush. But if information came out that the Chinese government was funding Operation Wall Street that would have, and should have, been a major scandal. It's a fact, not a "conspiracy theory", that Hillary Clinton's state department funded the "peaceful protests" in Syria from the beginning.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/20...-strategy-to-push-for-regime-change-in-syria/

In fact you can't point to a single fact in the video to dispute. So you just make up something to argue against. If you want to be taken seriously, point to any time in the video and say "What is said at time XX:XX is not true and my reference for this is http://++++". Otherwise I'll note that you're just trolling...again.

What a sad attempt at trying to point out a logical fallacy. Ironically you're misrepresenting my own argument, because I did not state the video claimed Libyans were thrilled, I was commenting on the overall theme (which you confirmed) that conspiracies opine the Arab people loved their dictators, and the only possible way a coup or revolution could occur is through CIA provocation.

Let me guess you think Syrians love their socialist allawi corrupt government too? I know many actual Syrians, don't know a single one who ever supported the regime, even before the civil war.

And I don't need someone like you to "take me seriously", you argue solely from an ideological position, never an intellectual one. If I ever engage you in a discussion it's not because I think you will ever become a rational person, but rather in the hope there are still other rational people who don't believe in irrational fantasies to suit their worldview of the NWO ILLUMINATI controlling literally every aspect of life.

 

[Danke]

Let me guess you think Syrians love their socialist allawi corrupt government too? I know many actual Syrians, don't know a single one who ever supported the regime, even before the civil war.

They may have no love of the Syrian government, but many have said it is preferable to the what the rebels are doing.

 

[Muwahid]

They may have no love of the Syrian government, but many have said it is preferable to the what the rebels are doing.

Syria was obviously a better place to live before the war, but I'm sure colonial America was too before the revolution. People are willing to sacrifice for their freedom.

There's also a lot of propaganda against the rebels. One thing I saw time and time again were graphic photos being passed around with the mere assumption it was IS or some other group slaughtering women or children, some of these images are traceable and actually go back to the Syrian regime fighters (for example one of a headless child, the caption claims IS beheaded a christian child, in reality its from an older video in which 'Shabiha' are blamed)

Most of the claims against them were unsubstantiated, even the Yazidi claim, I mean even the US government admitted it wasn't really a huge humanitarian disaster, and the justification was an Iraqi official making an unsubstantiated claim that 500 Yazidis were killed along with 40 children.

 

[Danke]

//

 

[juleswin]

They may have no love of the Syrian government, but many have said it is preferable to the what the rebels are doing.

The guy is an obvious govt troll. I have lived under a real dictatorship, this dictator was from a different tribe, religion and he stole virtually all the countries natural resources and if someone at the time would have suggested we support some western backed jihadist movement, that person would have gotten a beating of their life time. People understand that the situation may not be ideal, but they all knew that they had it good compared to the alternative (or the world when it came to Libyans). People hustled their asses off to get a job in Libya. This situation is Libya was heaven relative to the situations in the region and they knew it

I still have to ask how come out of all the arab/North African countries with a 7 score of the freedom scale, the only countries to experience violent revolutions supported by the west were the countries on US hit list? I have lived in Saudi Arabia for holidays, I know people whose parents worked in Libya, Oman, UAE, Kuwait etc etc. and they all vacationed there from time to time. I can tell you from the stories we have shared, Saudi Arabia was the worst of them all in terms of freedom. If there's going to be a revolution, let it start in that terrorist exporting shit hole of a country called Saudi Arabia

Also, Libyan paid virtually no taxes, the wealth that was redistributed was wealth from the country's natural resources. This is not some Scandinavia type socialist paradise where the state has to confiscate 60% of your labor to provide you with welfare. These people lived the high life, don't believe a word coming from this govt shill.

 

[juleswin]

There's also a lot of propaganda against the rebels. One thing I saw time and time again were graphic photos being passed around with the mere assumption it was IS or some other group slaughtering women or children, some of these images are traceable and actually go back to the Syrian regime fighters (for example one of a headless child, the caption claims IS beheaded a christian child, in reality its from an older video in which 'Shabiha' are blamed)

.

The same way the blamed the shabiha for bombing a bread factory



You cannot believe a word coming out of the mouths of these liars

 

[devil21]

definitely bump

Spread it around far and wide!

 

[jmdrake]

Do you know any actual Libyans?

No. Do you personally know every single Libyan? Are all of them happy now that Al Qaeda has ruined their country?

Again it's interesting, a socialist dictator, RPF members are speculating the Libyan people were very content with their situation. Have you read the freedom index reports for Libya? Or does that not interest you because it doesn't support that fantastical world view.

Are you purposefully being a dumbass? The "freedom index" report is not the same as a contentment index report. I know people who just LOVE Obamacare. You and I know it's socialist and will eventually bankrupt the country. That doesn't mean some people don't like it. That said there were quite a few black Africans who had "voted with their feet" and moved to Libya. They were raped and massacred by your believed Libyan "freedom fighters". Since you apparently personally know Libyans do you know the ones who carried out these crimes?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16051349

Source: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2010/libya#.VA9mCvldWyk

Civil liberties, and political freedom are ranked 7 (worse possible rating), overall status, Libya is not free. Some excerpts:

So what do they rank Libya now that it's under the rule of Al Qaeda? I guess now that the Al Qaeda rebels pillage, rape and behead Christians Libya is more free? Or maybe it's the fact that the Al Qaeda rebels created a central bank that makes Libya more free?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ibyan-rebels”-create-central-bank-oil-company

So Gaddafi is a socialist dictator, the media is not free, the government is corrupt, it's illegal to criticize the regime, and there's massive wealth distribution (which I guess you guys think is dandy), Gaddafi was not elected he was installed via a coup, and he crushes any dissent. Simple as that.

Keep living in your fantasy world where Libyans loved their government.

You support Al Qaeda. I get it now.

 

[jmdrake]

Syria was obviously a better place to live before the war, but I'm sure colonial America was too before the revolution. People are willing to sacrifice for their freedom.

There's also a lot of propaganda against the rebels. One thing I saw time and time again were graphic photos being passed around with the mere assumption it was IS or some other group slaughtering women or children, some of these images are traceable and actually go back to the Syrian regime fighters (for example one of a headless child, the caption claims IS beheaded a christian child, in reality its from an older video in which 'Shabiha' are blamed)

Most of the claims against them were unsubstantiated, even the Yazidi claim, I mean even the US government admitted it wasn't really a huge humanitarian disaster, and the justification was an Iraqi official making an unsubstantiated claim that 500 Yazidis were killed along with 40 children.

Wait a fucking minute! I thought you were claiming that the "moderate" FSA had nothing to do with ISIS. Now you're claiming that ISIS really isn't that bat after all and it's just all "propaganda"? Who's being the conspiracy theorist?