No. But then you have Jordan.Originally Posted by Viking
Before they started getting funded by nato? No. When you arm islamists you best believe they’re gonna run with it forever. In Libya everyone and their dog knew who's boss as soon as it happened - Islamists, taking over your neighborhood and telling you its time to atone for the country's sins.Not a sham, but the militias had most of the brute force power; not any government institution, including the military.
Islamists were the most organized armed groups, they were trained in turkey, and had the support of nato and its lackeys. Denying that this is a failed NATO operation is laughable at this point.That's certainly not the case, but even a milder version of this statement is likely to be inaccurate, at best.
NATO in general. they wanted Gaddafi out:Then blame these countries for the arming, not NATO in general. One would have to ask how much of a difference these weapons made, anyway, considering that the rebels got control over military bases right from the start and could loot equiptment from these; including heavy artillery and tanks.
1. Saudi Arabia always had a personal grudge, he hurt their pride. This was a dictator that was a huge threat to Iran, so for Saudi to cater to Iranian interest is a sign of imprudence and nato exploited this utter lack of political pragmatism by funding wahhabi islamists that al saud perpetuates. Here's an eerily foreshadowing verbal example of said grudge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYY_ws6axKo
2. You forget no-fly zones, BOMBING a sovereign state, publicly advocating for the removal of a sovereign, and arming of local insurgents and/or creating a situation where your weapons would fall into insurgent hands. NATO was at war with a regime and had a tactical alliance with islamist insurgents. Bashar Al Assad opposed this intervention might i add, despite his Iranian allies he recognized the aggressiveness of Turkey and Saudi, who have been constantly empowering Islamism in the region.
3. Those weapons made a huge difference just like the airstrikes made a huge difference. What also made a huge difference was the decision to internationally condemn qaddafi without highlighting the impending Islamist threat that oozed from this “revolution.” A sovereign was betrayed and on what basis that concerns any nato member or any other arab country?
Uniting Libyans? I don’t see any of this happening. You have to understand that Libya is a different animal.Yes, they have smaller presences there. Imagine if Gaddafi's offensive failed to regain all territory, and the original war in Libya kept going on in parallel to IS' growth in Syria. IS could have united a lot of disillusioned Libyan rebels under their wealthy banner; now IS doesn't have much to offer in Libya in comparison.
Even if western media would still fail by showing these Islamists as freedom fighters it wouldn’t be a complete state of emergency with the regime being targeted domestically and internationally. When the president comes out and says “you have to go,” the political implications of that are dangerous as hell and you’ll find your neighbors start clowning on you/kicking you while your down until you fall. The west empowered these movements you're overestimating their influence prior to that.Even if Gaddafi did manage to retake all lost cities (cities which, again, he didn't have to lose in the first place), cities could still be lost again with rebels regrouping (the more Gaddafi reconquered, the more his forces would be spread thin), perhaps with support from foreign jihadists and/or islamists Or, yeah, maybe even with some sophisticated weaponry received from Gulf states. In many scenarios, the war would go on; even with zero Western military intervention.
Nonsense.
Bookmarks