Tag Archives: Gaddafi

New Leader Says Libya to Have Sharia Law

The fruit of Arab Spring

When news came last Thursday that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi had bee killed, Obama quickly touted the news as the beginning of a new time for Libyans and as vindication of his administration’s backing and participation in the NATO military intervention war in Libya which began on March 19, 2011. The official name for the U.S. campaign is the optimistic Operation Odyssey Dawn.
In the name of the protection and securing of “human rights,” the legal basis for NATO’s “military intervention” is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was adopted on 17 March 201 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. [Read the full text of the Resolution here.]
Now that the “military intervention” presumably has ended with Gaddafi’s death, Obama welcomed the declaration of liberation by Libya’s new leaders yesterday (Oct. 23) and urged the transition government to respect human rights and work toward democracy.
That same day, Libya’s transitional leader declared the newly liberated country to be an Islamic state where Sharia law will rule.
The Associated Press reports, Oct. 23, 2011, that in a keynote speech at the declaration of liberation ceremony in the eastern city of Benghazi, the birthplace of the 8-month uprising against Gaddafi, Libya’s transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil laid out a vision for the future with an Islamist tint.
Abdul-Jalil first declared that “This revolution was looked after by God to achieve victory.” Henceforth, Islamic Sharia law would be the “basic source” of legislation. Existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.
Abdul-Jalil outlined several changes to align with Islamic law:

  • New banks would be set up to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest as a practice deemed usury. For the time being, interest would be canceled from any personal loans already taken out and less than 10,000 Libyan dinars (about $7,500).
  • An existing family law that limits the number of wives Libyan can take will be annulled because it contradicts the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that allows men up to four wives.
  • Libyans are urged to hand back money or property taken during the civil war.

In a gesture that showed his own piety, Abdul-Jalil urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant “Allahu Akbar,” or God is Great. He then stepped aside from the podium and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.
The transitional leadership has said it would declare a new interim government within a month of liberation and elections for a constitutional assembly within eight months, to be followed by votes for a parliament and president within a year.
For his part, Obama congratulated Libyans on their declaration of liberation: “After four decades of brutal dictatorship and eight months of deadly conflict, the Libyan people can now celebrate their freedom and the beginning of a new era of promise.”
Using Sharia as the main source of legislation is also stipulated in the constitution of neighboring Egypt.
So much for the much-heralded Arab Spring that began with mass protests nearly a year ago.

Please follow and like us:

Flashback 2008 – Qaddafi Campaigned for Obama

Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Libyan Leader Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi marking the anniversary of the U.S. air raid on Libya. The address aired on Al-Jazeera TV on June 11, 2008.

Please follow and like us:

3 Facts You Should Know About Obama's War

Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor — Iraq and Afghanistan. But he can’t blame Bush for the war he initiated more than a week ago against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. That’s Obama’s War, even if he obfuscates by calling it a “Kinetic Military Action” — an Orwellian euphemistic New Speak that no one in the MSM has the elemental courage to point out. A war by whatever name smells just as foul.
Obama couldn’t be bothered to consult Congress — the institution that alone has the Constitutional authority to declare wars. From his junket in South America, as Commander In Chief, he gave the “go” signal to our military to fly those F-15 jets and fire those Tomahawk cruise missiles on Libya. He rattled on at length about his March Madness basketball picks, but nothing about his kinetic war.
On Monday night, His Wordiness finally deigned to give the American people an accounting — a justification — for his war with a speech containing 3,362 words. To save you time (April 15th is only 17 days away!), Fellowship of the Minds cut through his verbiage. Here are THREE things you really need to know about Obama’s War:

Fact No. 1:

On March 28, 2011, Obama’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States HAS NO VITAL INTERESTS in Libya.

Fact No. 2:

On March 28, 2011, the Pentagon said that the cost to US taxpayers of Obama’s “kinetic military action” war in Libya was $600 MILLION for the first week:

  • U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles to the tune of $268.8 million.
  • U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.
  • A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.
  • Operation of the war craft, guzzling ever-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week.

Fact No. 3:

On March 29, 2011, at approxmately 7pm, west coast time:

  • The U.S. national debt is OVER 14 TRILLION DOLLARS: $14,262,703,284,888.
  • US gross domestic product is $14,639, 682,230,000 (which means our national debt is almost the equivalent of our GDP!)
  • Debt per citizen is $45,949.
  • Debt per taxpayer is $128,383.

Put simply:

  1. America is broke.
  2. Obama’s War serves no national interest.
  3. We can’t afford Obama’s war.

Got it?

Please follow and like us:

US F-15E Fighter Jet Crash Lands in Libya; Pilots OK


Exclusive Telegraph picture shows locals inspecting an American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet that crashed in a field
Exclusive Telegraph picture shows locals inspecting an American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet that crashed in a field 
American jets have been flying over Libya as part of a coalition enforcing a no-fly zone over the country
American jets have been flying over Libya as part of a coalition enforcing a no-fly zone over the country 
A man inspects part of the American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet
 A man inspects part of the American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet 

Libya: US fighter jet crash lands in field near Benghazi

A US warplane has crash landed in a Libyan field in the area around Benghazi, The Telegraph can disclose.

By Rob Crilly, James Kirkup and Rob Winnett – The Telegraph – march 22, 2011
The two crew members on the F-15E fighter jet both ejected and are said to have minor injuries. One has already been recovered by US forces, who say they are in the process of rescuing the other. [UPDATE: both pilots ejected and are reported to be safe.]
It is understood that at least one of the crew members was initially rescued by rebel Libyan soldiers after ejecting from the aircraft. The crashed plane was discovered by a Telegraph journalist reporting in and around Benghazi, the rebel-held city. It is thought the F-15E fighter jet came to ground after suffering a mechanical failure.

The US military confirmed that one of its jets had crash landed but said that it had not been shot down. Vince Crawley, a spokesman for the US military’s Africa Command, said that one crewman had been recovered and one was “in process of recovery”. Both crew members suffered minor injuries. Crawley said the crash occurred “overnight.” He declined to give the location of the incident and also would not say how the rescued crewman was picked up.
This is the first coalition aircraft to have crash landed during the Libyan conflict following the third night of air strikes.
[Meanwhile, Obama’s undeclared war on Libya is becoming a keystone cops operation as no one seems to know what exactly is the purpose of the  “Coalition’s” and the U.S.’s attacks on Libya. ~Eowyn]
The developments comes after British ministers yesterday contradicted senior military commanders by suggesting that coalition forces in action over Libya can legitimately target Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards, flatly insisted that seeking to hit the Libyan dictator was not allowed under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. But after Defence Secretary Liam Fox suggested over the weekend that Col Gaddafi could be a “legitimate target”, No 10 sources insisted it was legal to target anyone killing Libyan civilians….
At a Ministry of Defence briefing, Gen Richards’ spokesman, Major Gen John Lorimer, stressed that the international military intervention was in support of the UN no-fly zone. “It is very clear that, in support of the United Nations Security Council, we are there to implement and enforce the no-fly zone,” he said. “The targets we are attacking are command and control facilities and the integrated air defence system. They are legitimate military targets.”
Earlier however, Foreign Secretary William Hague refused to rule out an attack on the Libyan leader. “I’m not going to speculate on the targets,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “That depends on the circumstances at the time.”
James Arbuthnot, the Tory chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said Mr Cameron had agreed in the House that the aim of protecting Libya’s civilians could not be achieved without the removal of Col Gaddafi. “We accept that the aim of the resolution is to protect civilians and not to change the regime,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One. “Nevertheless we won’t be able to protect the civilians in my opinion – and obviously the Prime Minister’s and that of most leaders of the countries in the region – while Gaddafi remains in place.”
In a statement, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “We are not going to go into operational details on military targets. “Our clear aim is to implement UNSCR 1973 – that means saving lives and protecting the civilian population of Libya.”
The talk of targeting Col Gaddafi also appeared to alarm the Americans, with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warning that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone. “If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,” he said. “I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.”
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said Dr Fox’s comment was “irresponsible in many ways” and could harm efforts to harness Arab opinion in favour of the military effort. “I support the Government’s decision on Libya but I think Liam Fox’s comments are irresponsible in many ways,” he wrote on his blog. “His view that the aim of our military effort is to bring about regime change is outside what is a very broad UN resolution. It is wrong but also counterproductive at a time when we are trying to maintain a broad coalition, including Arab opinion, to talk in such a way. I agree with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said, ‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem’. Gaddafi is a tyrant, but it is up to the people of Libya to decide what happens next in their country and not for any single foreign government. Our government needs to have one clear policy on this.” He confirmed that he was the Labour figure who told a Sky News reporter that Dr Fox should be “put back in his box”….
Meanwhile, Downing Street published a note on the legal advice given by Attorney General Dominic Grieve which concluded there was “a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution’s objectives”….
~Eowyn & Steve
Please follow and like us: