Our Taxes Are Supporting Terrorists, Literally

by lizard

Obama addressed the nation tonight in the blue room, where he directed America to gaze out the window behind him at the Washington Monument, and after some lofty e pluribus unum rheotric, he proudly declared that the deal reached will amount to (supposedly) the largest annual cut in spending ever, at 39 billion dollars. For those who would have been directly hurt by a shutdown, this is good news.

But this post isn’t about what cuts were agreed to tonight. It’s about what never gets cut: war spending.

“Today, we acted on behalf of our children’s future,”

said Obama. Maybe he was giving himself a little rhetorical pat on the back for fighting off the GOP’s latest assault on the womb. And while that’s a commendable achievement, the continued bipartisan consensus that war spending is sacred and not to be touched ensures my kids’ future will include more stupid imperial misadventures like Obama’s war in Libya.

Obama assured this country that we would be placing no “boots” on the ground in Libya in another speech thrown together after the million dollar Tomahawks were already incinerating Ghaddafi’s armed forces. When news broke that the CIA was operating on the ground, supporting the rag-tag rebels, one had to assume they were sporting tennis shoes. For those prone to quibble about the honesty of our president, it should be pointed out that “boots” is obviously a euphemism for military personnel. The CIA doesn’t count.

Then, in a news report released yesterday, came this:

The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

This statement directly undermines everything the President stated about his little humanitarian war in Libya. It was suppose to be just about saving civilians from the impending genocide of Hitler Ghaddafi. Why would this general openly consider putting American troops on the ground in Libya if regime change isn’t the goal? Because, you know, Obama said very clearly regime change is not the intention. Is he a liar?

After passing off command to NATO, things have not gone well for the rebels. What looks like a stalemate has been marred by friendly fire. The latest incident, where as many as a dozen rebels were killed, happened because NATO apparently didn’t know they had tanks. The previous incident is suspected to have occurred because those wily rebels like to shoot their guns in the air a lot. Whatever the reasons, US and NATO air-support keep screwing up and killing these rebels.

Speaking of these “rebels”, who the hell are they? That’s been an interesting question; one I’m sure the administration hopes mainstream media doesn’t dig too deeply to answer.

One faction fighting is The Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). Michael Chossudovsky, at Global Research, has this piece, which peels back a few layers to examine this group of “freedom fighters.”

Both the LIFG as an entity as well as its individual members are categorized by the UN Security Council as terrorists. According to the US Treasury: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group threatens global safety and stability through the use of violence and its ideological alliance with al Qaida and other brutal terrorist organizations” (Treasury Designates UK-Based Individuals, Entities Financing Al Qaida -Affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – US Fed News Service, February 8, 2006).

Concepts are turned upside down. Both Washington and NATO, which claim to be waging a “War on Terrorism”, are supporting a “pro-democracy movement” integrated by members of a terrorist organization.

In a cruel irony, Washington and the Atlantic Alliance are acting in defiance of their own anti-terrorist laws and regulations.

Moreover, support under “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) to opposition forces integrated by terrorists is implemented pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which is blatant violation of UNSC resolution 1267. The latter identifies the Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya, the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), as a terrorist organization.

In other words, the UN Security Council is in clear violation not only of the UN Charter but of its own resolutions.

So while Obama boasts of his domestic victory tonight in keeping the government from shutting down by making what he admits will be painful cuts, our tax money is going to help terrorists overthrow Ghaddafi half a world away.

Words fail.

  1. Funny how reports of Islamists within the Egyptian protests were totally untrustworthy, but these reports ought to be taken at face value. Moreover, it’s impossible that the classification of an anti-Gaddafi group as terrorists could have been at all influenced by the fact that post-Iraq war, he was our buddy, willing to supply us with oil. Certainly the credibility of the US and UK in defining anti-Gaddafi groups as terrorists couldn’t be undermined by releasing actual, convicted terrorists in an effort to get our hands on said oil.

    And certainly lizard couldn’t turn against a populist uprising because it had US support. But in all seriousness – If you’re interested in the topic, I found this article interesting.


    • lizard19

      Funny how reports of Islamists within the Egyptian protests were totally untrustworthy

      are you implying i have said this? show me where i’ve said that. i did say the initial reports of looting in Egypt were untrustworthy. and i was right.

      and i’m not saying to necessarily take the article i linked to at face value. but if you, wolf, think it’s untrustworthy, why don’t you tell me why.

      anyway, what do you think of Obama’s war? do you think it’s going good? do you support troops on the ground?

      • Sorry lizard, a comment consisting completely of sarcasm was uncalled for.

        But here’s you, informing me that the reports of Muslim radicals in the Egyptian protests were being over played –

        “corporate media will faithfully fall in line. the Muslim Brotherhood will receive the full propaganda treatment.”

        Of course after that comment, Craig used the word ‘homies’ and a very stupid conversation ensued. But you must certainly downplayed the fears of very well-informed people that the Egyptians were being manipulated by Islamists. You were right (thus far), and Henry Kissinger and Craig were wrong – the West was so reflexively afraid of Muslims that it saw terrorism anywhere Muslims were angry and not a afraid to show it.

        My fear is that now that Obama has definitively taken sides, you’re turning around and using that same discredited position against his decision primarily because you have a mistrust of the US government, which I don’t share but do understand.

        Now, what do I think of Sarkozy and the Security Council’s war? I think it is going rather well. Gaddafi has not, and in all likelihood will not, be able to take Benghazi. The Gulf of Sidra and the surrounding sea is safe for navigation by Western forces, and we control Libyan airspace. The inherent weakness of the rebels means they are not in any position to threaten urban combat in Gaddafi strongholds. This makes it far easier for the UK, France, and the US to stick to the resolution because it makes it far less likely that the rebels will commit retributive atrocities. Oil is starting to flow again from rebel-held areas. In the event of a cease-fire, the ability of the rebels to sell their oil and the inability of Gaddafi to do so will increase their relative strength and prosperity.

        Now, I do think we’ve made some serious mistakes, besides bombing rebel forces (and a note – Muslims really need to break their habit of firing into the air. It’s one thing with a regular rifle, but with automatic weapons it only causes trouble). They stem from our insistence that Gaddafi must leave – the man has no reason to. He knows air power can’t oust him and he doesn’t mind losing half his country if he still gets to keep the other half. Using boots on the ground to change this would be most unwise.

        A ceasefire with his forces would be ideal. An extensive evacuation of Misrata would allow for a reasonable border to be drawn. Western air power could supervise the cease-fire from Italy while the rebels trained their forces and bought some heavier weapons to form a real deterrent. Allow those who want to live under the rebels to do so, and those who want to live under Gaddafi, give the same opportunity. It’s not a permanent solution, but it would stop the bloodshed for now and could be negotiated in the future.

        • lizard19

          when i made that statement, i was anticipating how western news sources might try to depict the peaceful protests as scary muslim radicals. i had very good reason to suspect that, considering the hyped reports of looting that were later debunked.

          but Egypt is not Libya. Libya is experiencing a civil war, and unlike Egypt, our government is willing to put American lives at risk and spend our deficit dollars to support one side against the other (Egypt is still a dangerous place for protestors, but don’t expect any condemnation from the prez)

          you may think things are going well, but this whole thing is going to be very bad for Obama. Republicans were going to smear him no matter what he did, but opening a new war front while austerity is imposed at home is going to be disastrous for his reelection prospects.

          • “you may think things are going well, but this whole thing is going to be very bad for Obama. Republicans were going to smear him no matter what he did, but opening a new war front while austerity is imposed at home is going to be disastrous for his reelection prospects.”

            To be honest I don’t really care how things go for Obama. I think the rebels need to accept the deal they’ve been given rather that try to pressure the west into getting rid of Gaddafi for them. But if they will do that, the whole mission will have been a success, like the similar UN-mandated French intervention in Cote d’Iviore.

            What I care about is the much larger precedent it sets – states will learn from these two events that even if their people happen to be a bit darker than Europeans, their claims to ‘sovereignty’ are inferior to the rights of their people not to be murdered.

  2. A lot of cloak ‘n dagger – spy vs spy vs spy- the old MAD Magazine early form of SNL in the excellent article by Michael Chossudovsky last week … i’m sure Lzrd would attest that this exercise in Libya is just an exercise of exploiting whatever the Capitalists can… it’s not clear yet but i’d follow the money – it’ll lead to ? OIL?. Arms shipments – clearly the fed funds for private war machinery is reason enuff.
    It’s just the tip of the proverbial ice berg the dab of taxpayer funding for this Libyan project, while the rest of the berg, this obscenely monstrous militarydod/dhs/NSA-CIA/ budgets. This is the elephant in the Dirty House that the punk Obama can SEE but it’s money&power of the obscene monster, in his pocket/living room to play like a slot machine for election time.
    i’m glad the Gov is still running – there are a lot of dedicated, in fact most are conscientious concerned Public Employees of the Federal Gov’t who deserve a stable govt..
    We have to be most compassionate with Government workers because as we move to Democratic Socialism the importance of Integrity in the Government will be the basis of its success.

  3. CharleyCarp

    Intervene in someone else’s civil war, and you can’t be too picky about who is on which side of the thing. Surely we ought to all understand that by now.

    (This goes for the ‘cold’ anti-Q war of the 80s and 90s as well as for the hot war of 2011. And, I suppose, of the war on terror of 2001-2007.)

  4. ladybug

    Corporate globalism needs continuous events like those taking place in N. Africa to thrive. What some call “creative destruction” or “disaster capitalizm” is well documented. If Cato and Heritage object, you’re possibly onto something important. Patience, we will get our turn. How we emerge could well shape our future for generations. Prepare.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,673,036 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • April 2011
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar   May »
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: