NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Tuesday the alliance will send an expert mission to Libya at short notice to assess needs as the country faces a flow of insurgents from Mali, APA reports quoting Associated Press.
Security experts worry that the al-Qaida-linked militants — pushed out of Mali after French military intervention — may be trying to establish a safe haven in southern Libya.
The mission “will go as soon as possible and, together with the Libyans, identify the areas in which the Libyans think they need advice and areas where we do believe we can add value,” Rasmussen said ahead of the opening session of a meeting of NATO defense ministers.
He insisted it will not mean putting boots on the ground in the North African nation.
“This is not about deploying troops to Libya. If we are to engage in training activities, such activities could take place outside Libya,” he said.
U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander, told reporters Tuesday that officials have been considering the training mission for a couple weeks and that the U.S. would be part of the effort.
U.S. defense officials have said NATO’s experience training Afghan and Iraqi security forces provides the expertise to do something similar with Libya.
Rasmussen said NATO is planning to coordinate with other national and international efforts and he expects a report from the expert group by the end of June, before more definite plans are made.
Libyan leaders have requested help from NATO, the U.S. and other nations. U.S. President Obama broadly indicated that he would support efforts by NATO to aid the Libyans.
French officials believe some jihadists may have fled Mali along traditional drug and other contraband trafficking routes through Niger and into Libya.
The vast, mostly barren southern two-thirds of Libya has largely gone its own way since the rebellion that overthrew longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, but now there are concerns that in addition to local tensions, the area might be drawn into larger regional conflicts involving al-Qaida.
French troops drove al-Qaida forces out of nearby Mali, and there are concerns that the militants might try to regroup in southern Libya.
Last edited by Jedi_Mindset; 06-05-2013 at 12:21 PM.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
Who isnt? Only the ignorants will still believe it bro. A brother of me which i have contact with via the internet told me once during the time he went on umrah het met some arabian people, he asked them about al-qaeda only to be rebuttled, it got said to him that there is no al-qeada infact he got other names unknown here in the west, unknown resistance groups, and no one from these resistance groups is called 'Al-qeada'.
Last edited by Jedi_Mindset; 06-05-2013 at 12:55 PM.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
Who isnt? Only the ignorants will still believe it bro.
It's repeated over and over again by the mainstream media and governments. This sounds like brainwashing but now it is repeated so much that is borderline annoying.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
It's repeated over and over again by the mainstream media and governments. This sounds like brainwashing but now it is repeated so much that is borderline annoying.
Read my post further, have added something.
http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground. - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)
It's repeated over and over again by the mainstream media and governments. This sounds like brainwashing but now it is repeated so much that is borderline annoying.
Just to get this clear. You don't think the Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb exists as an organization or movement?
Maybe you could clarify a bit what is and what isn't true according to you? I guess you accept that there are militants active in the region? And that their leader Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud exists? I guess you also accept that the supposed 'Al-Qaeda' head Ayman al-Zawahiri exists also, but you simply don't accept they are responsible for any of the acts attributed to them?
Maybe you could clarify a bit what is and what isn't true according to you? I guess you accept that there are militants active in the region? And that their leader Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud exists? I guess you also accept that the supposed 'Al-Qaeda' head Ayman al-Zawahiri exists also, but you simply don't accept they are responsible for any of the acts attributed to them?
I'm not going to accept wikipedia as evidence.
I think these movements exist, but I doubt they all fall into the same group as Al-Qaeda. I think there are different militant groups with different motives and to paint them with the same brush is misleading.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
Maybe you could clarify a bit what is and what isn't true according to you? I guess you accept that there are militants active in the region? And that their leader Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud exists? I guess you also accept that the supposed 'Al-Qaeda' head Ayman al-Zawahiri exists also, but you simply don't accept they are responsible for any of the acts attributed to them?
I think these movements exist, but I doubt they all fall into the same group as Al-Qaeda. I think there are different militant groups with different motives and to paint them with the same brush is misleading.
Um, Al Qaeda is actually part of their name - AQIM stands for Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb. So I think the association is hardly unreasonable. See this link for a bit of nomenclature history that will bore you quickly:
It's long been assumed that Al Qaeda is more accurately described as a loose affiliation more than a strict organisation. Sort of a franchise operation. In fact, there is a slightly comical letter from Al Qaeda to Belmokhtar (leader of the Algerian gas plant attack) which treats him almost as a disobedient, unsatisfactory employee getting a reprimand from his boss.
let's say out of humoring them such a group exists, so what? shouldn't people rebel when the govt. doesn't represent them? What is the difference between the CIA, black water and 'Al Qaeda' is it that the U.S classified them as 'terrorists'?
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
i was more than a little surprised to see your Robin Cook reference. It seems a highly improbable thing for him to have said...and in fact, that's because he didn't say it. He is supposed to have made the statement to the House of Commons. However, everything that is said in the House is recorded verbatim in Hansard magazine and this statement does not exist, anyone can check it. See this link for details:
The dude is dead, anyone can claim anything, it isn't like he's gonna magically spring to life to assert or refute it!
either way it is irrelevant whether he said it or not!
best,
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Um, Al Qaeda is actually part of their name - AQIM stands for Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb. So I think the association is hardly unreasonable. See this link for a bit of nomenclature history that will bore you quickly:
It's long been assumed that Al Qaeda is more accurately described as a loose affiliation more than a strict organisation. Sort of a franchise operation. In fact, there is a slightly comical letter from Al Qaeda to Belmokhtar (leader of the Algerian gas plant attack) which treats him almost as a disobedient, unsatisfactory employee getting a reprimand from his boss.
You misunderstood me. I'm aware there are groups that claim themselves to be Al Qaeda (the one that is mentioned on this topic). However, the US administration tends to brush all Muslim militant groups in the region as part of Al Qaeda as though they all have the same goals which is not true. There are many different militant groups with different motives.
Besides there are more dangerous groups which do not receive more attention by the government/media such as powerful far right groups in Europe and America. This obsession with Al Qaeda is boring and annoying. =)
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
the US administration tends to brush all Muslim militant groups in the region as part of Al Qaeda as though they all have the same goals which is not true
I agree local motives are more important. In fact, you could argue that Al Qaeda's biggest success is simply great branding. Both the US government, and many of the groups, find it useful to take the name.
format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow
Besides there are more dangerous groups which do not receive more attention by the government/media such as powerful far right groups in Europe and America.
One that immediately comes to mind is the PKK. Then there is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
The far right groups in Europe and America are very dangerous IMO. It's a mixture of neo-conservatives, nationalist groups and Christians. They are all inter-linked. The reason I find them dangerous because not much is known about them. Anders Breivik was influenced by these groups.
I mean I do not want to label them as terrorists but they can cause instability.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
That is good, because I never said you should . The point is that Wikipedia more or less represents the dominant position on groups like AQIM. I am simply trying to figure out which part you think is 'brainwashing' and which part you accept.
I think these movements exist, but I doubt they all fall into the same group as Al-Qaeda. I think there are different militant groups with different motives and to paint them with the same brush is misleading.
I agree. They are not the same organization, but they share a common ideology and are fighting the same struggle. The reason why they are refered to as "Al-Qaeda" is not simply because of mainstream media "brainwashing", but also because apparently they have deliberately claimed the name for themselves. For some movements it is of course a badge of honor also. The Al-Qaeda 'branding' means something, both in the West as among militant groups.
I mean, I assume you accept Al-Zawahiri is real? It has been reported widely that he has called the cooperation a "blessed union". It has also been widely reported that the Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) had renamed itself to Al-Qaeda in the Maghrib (AQIM). Is that something you accept?
If your view is simply that Al-Qaeda (inc. AQIM) is not somekind of hierarchical military organization, then I completely agree with you. I think the dominant view (also in the West) is that it is more of a loose association of different groups. So you are not saying anything extraordinary there.
You misunderstood me. I'm aware there are groups that claim themselves to be Al Qaeda (the one that is mentioned on this topic). However, the US administration tends to brush all Muslim militant groups in the region as part of Al Qaeda as though they all have the same goals which is not true. There are many different militant groups with different motives.
With that I can agree. Here is what the US government officially says about it:
In the aftermath of Bin Ladin’s death, al-Qa‘ida leaders moved quickly to name al-Zawahiri as his successor. Since this announcement, regional affiliates have publicly sworn allegiance and pledged support to him. Al-Qa‘ida remains a cohesive organization and al-Qa‘ida core’s leadership continues to be important to the global movement. http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/al_qaida.html
So the official US story is that it is a "cohesive organisation" with "regional affiliates". I am not sure how "cohesive" it is anymore, but it certainly has "regional affiliates", I think that is something we can all agree on.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Born_Believer liked this post
let's say out of humoring them such a group exists, so what? shouldn't people rebel when the govt. doesn't represent them? What is the difference between the CIA, black water and 'Al Qaeda' is it that the U.S classified them as 'terrorists'?
. The point is that Wikipedia more or less represents the dominant position on groups like AQIM. I am simply trying to figure out which part you think is 'brainwashing' and which part you accept.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks