starting this thread, which i hope will be short-lived, to keep the board up to date with latest reports gleaned from the net

hmmm
ok

Arab World | 24.03.2011
Libyan Islamists stand to gain with or without Gadhafi

Gronsicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Prisoners from the banned Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were released after renouncing violence An alleged dual British-Libyan jihadist has been paraded in front of the international media to support the regime's claim that the revolt against Gadhafi's 41-year rule was being directed by al-Qaeda.

Libya has put the spotlight on the fact that it may be one of the Middle Eastern and North African countries where militant Islamists emerge strengthened from the Arab struggle to throw off the yoke of authoritarian rule.

Salah Mohammed Ali Abu Obah, a 43-year old Manchester resident, said he was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an al-Qaeda affiliate founded by Libyan fighters in Afghanistan. He said he had been detained earlier this month by Libyan security forces in the town of Zawiya, west of the capital Tripoli. Abu Obah described himself as a low-level LIFG fundraiser.

Abu Obah's statements did little to substantiate Gadhafi's claim but fuelled Western concerns that jihadists and militant Islamists were playing a key role in the Libyan revolt unlike elsewhere in the world where they have largely been relegated to the sidelines. Abu Obah noted that the LIFG had broken its ties to al-Qaeda in 2007 around the time that its imprisoned leaders engaged in serious dialogue with the regime as part of the government's rehabilitation program.

"The part of the LIFG that I am with does not belong to al-Qaeda," Abu Obah said.

The LIFG alongside dissident elements of the Libyan armed forces are the only two groups within the Libyan opposition with battle experience. The Libyan jihadists fought a bitter insurgency in eastern Libya in the 1990s.

Many of the Islamist fighters who are facing off against Gadhafi's forces were released from prison last year as part of the government rehabilitation program that was overseen by Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam, in which they repented their ways, but did not fully renounce violence.

Analysts said the jihadists' role in the struggle to topple Gadhafi would strengthen their position irrespective of what the outcome is of the battle for Libya. They said the fighters' attitudes once the battle is over would constitute a litmus test for government rehabilitation programs in several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Mauritania. The Saudi program has so far had an 80 percent success rate.
Bildunterschrift: Gronsicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Jihadists stand to gain from the Libyan uprising
Old ways

Western fears that many of the rehabilitated and escapees may revert to their old ways were reinforced by the recent refusal of Sheikh Ali al-Salabi, the prominent Libyan cleric who oversaw the LIFG's ideological rehabilitation, to mediate an agreement between Gadafhi and the rebels. Al-Salabi's refusal was backed by prominent Saudi cleric Salman al-Auda, a reformed militant, and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Qaradawi, who both had earlier supported Gadhafi's rehabilitation effort.

"The real threat to US security is flying under the radar. The fate of once-jailed Islamist fighters who are now at large should be among Washington's top concerns. Islamists freed by Gadhafi and those who escaped from prison during the uprising are now able to operate in an environment of evaporating state control, abundant small arms caches, and under-guarded stocks of chemical warfare agents," Christopher Boucek, an analyst with the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for Peace, told Deutsche Welle.

Opposition leaders have stressed that their revolt is nationalist rather than Islamist in nature irrespective of the fact that LIFG fighters have joined their battle. "If there's one thing you should remember, it's that this is a people's revolution, a secular revolution," said Khaled Ben Ali, a spokesman for the 13-member rebel national council.

Analysts concede that the Islamists participation in the fight does not necessarily change the nature of the revolt, but cautioned that it remained to be seen whether they had truly broken with their jihadist past.

"They may no longer feel obliged to keep up their end of the bargain with a weakened government - a government many never accepted as legitimate in the first place. Violent Islamists have long sought to bring down the hated Gadhafi regime - just as they have looked to topple other 'apostate' governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen - and some may now see this as their best opportunity to overthrow the government," Boucek said.

Fertile ground

A weakened or partitioned Libya could become a breeding ground for jihadists engaged in a low-level insurgency against the remnants of the Gadhafi regime, officials and analysts said, noting that jihadists flourish mostly in failing rather than failed states.

"There is ... the risk of division within the country and the risk of seeing a failed state in the future that could be a breeding ground of extremism and terrorism, so obviously this is a matter of concern," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a recent meeting of NATO defense ministers.

Bildunterschrift: Gronsicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Al-Qaeda may be invigorated by the events across the Arab worldLibyans constitute the third-largest contingent of jihadists in Iraq after Iraqis and Saudis. Several Libyans also graduated to senior positions in al-Qaeda, including Abu Yahya al-Libi, the group's chief ideologue and a potential successor to Osama bin Laden. The LIFG, which attempted to assassinate Gadhafi on three different occasions, posed the greatest threat to the Libyan leader's regime prior to the popular revolt.

A US diplomat noted in a US embassy cable disclosed by Wikileaks in 2008 after a visit to the eastern Libyan city of Derna, home to many Libyan jihadists, that they were focused less on attacking Western targets than on undermining the Gadhafi regime.

The diplomat said the militants believed that the US and Europe were supporting Gadhafi after his 2003 renunciation of weapons of mass destruction. They saw participation in the Iraqi jihad against US forces as "a last act of defiance against the Gadhafi regime," the US diplomat wrote in the 2008 cable.

Noman Benotman, the London-based former LIFG leader who was one of the group's negotiators with Saif al-Islam, warns that eastern Libya hosts a younger, more radical group of Islamist militants who see jihad as a religious obligation.

Nonetheless, Benotman suggested that Gadhafi's pinning of the revolt against his regime on al-Qaeda meant that former LIFG fighters feared that they may be targeted by the Libyan leader's forces.

"The last time I was in contact with some members was when I was in Tripoli on the 16th or 17th of February," Benotman told Deutsche Welle." They themselves are afraid of their personal security, because they think they will be a target of the regime, and maybe assassinated or framed for some act of terrorism. So I think they are going to hide, because they start to believe they are a direct target for the regime's security forces."

Author: James M. Dorsey
Editor: Rob Mudge




http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&pq=libya+religion&xhr=t&q=gaddafi&cp=3&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7HPEB_en&wrapid=tlif130124790881210&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tHePTemNLoPBhAfxl-W7Dg&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1276&bih=595

.

yes, but no! .... i think it would be the lazy and potential disastrous option in this instance to sit around and do nothing .... few things in life are certain, and sometimes one has an obligation to act in a certain way according to the balance of probability as presented at the time

no it's not a "convenience" but (almost) common sense tells me that those who wish to destabilise will assuredly make the most of the opportunities arising in the whole m/e region

a bit too complicated for my limited brain! ..... in this instance, had the "majority" not recommended action, then it would have been very difficult if not impossible to justify it ..... i have a very simple view on things - it's easily muddled or even muddied or confused by frightfully clever philosophical argument (i'ld rather leave that to the talmudic scholars) - but "unfair" as it might seem to the idealist, for the world to live in comparative peace, which is surely no bad thing, then those who hold the wherewithal sometimes have to apply it, "it" being the least of all perceived and arguably subjective evils ..... and no, there is not and cannot be any certainty as to what the ultimate outcome will be

N,
I agree with your sentiment, but differ slightly as well. (As you might expect.)

I am dubious about the underlying motivation of many interventions into other countrys affairs.

Generally, the driving force is for the financial gain of the external parties.

However, I think that if you see to warring parties and one or more parties are preparing to commit murder of the non-participating population it may be advantageous to do so, even if it necessitates the use of force.

Again, the hoped for and expected results of the actions would be that the overall cost in life would be less than not doing so.

It means drawing them to a table and evaluating and mediating in the problem. Far from easy.

It happened in Northern Island, which I watched develop as a problem from late 1950s (the likes of Paisley and Devlin) and until the recent time. (The underlying injustices were there from time seeming immemorial.)

I think Callaghan sending in the troops there was a necessary and probably reduced the carnage and bloodshed, although at times the presence of Peace Keepers did not seem to be doing what was intended of them.

But, there was bloody mindedness on the part of the Irish Catholics, the Irish Protestants and the British.

The emotions were similar to the ME now, but the weapons are smaller and the carnage less.

The results after a long time have been a relatively peaceful NI although there are still a minority of idiots (political and criminal) who are prepared to reopen violent confrontation.
=============

In Libya, I am not sure whether there is outside interference, but wouldnt be surprised and that may account for some of the improving organisation of the Rebels.

I would prefer a secular state to occur, but that has to be at the will of the indigenous population. However, I think, that if external intervention leads to a representative democratically elected government, with less blood occurs due to the present military intervention, that it is a good thing.

But, I would like to see a more powerful United Nations able to deal with problems of this nature and able to make humanitarian interventions.
================

Cynic,

You do ramble on.

hahaha! ..... 50/75% less words than thee .... have read your "ifs" but what is your recommendation for the here and now - we all know hindsight is infallible!?

.

good luck all - short update....

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Central & South Asia Europe Middle East



Europe

NATO to take over Libya operations

Alliance announces it will assume overall responsibility for enforcing UN-mandated mission.
Last Modified: 27 Mar 2011 20:15
Email ArticlePrint ArticleShare ArticleSend Feedback

NATO will take overall responsibility for carrying out the UN-mandated mission in Libya [Reuters]

NATO is to assume full command of operations in Libya from the US-led force that has been conducting air attacks against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's leader.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary general, announced the agreement on Sunday following a meeting in Brussels.

"We have directed NATO's top operational commander to begin executing this operation with immediate effect," he said in a statement.

"Our goal is to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat from the Gaddafi regime.

"NATO will implement all aspects of the UN resolution. Nothing more, nothing less," he said, referring to the UN Security Council resolution that authorised military action over Libya.

Paul Brennan, Al Jazeera's correspondent, reporting from Brussels said: "NATO was already involved in enforcing the no-fly zone and the arms embargo.

"Now they are going to take overall command which means they will [also] take responsibility for protecting Libyan civilians on the ground. It's a big step forward."

Week of debate

The operations will be led by Canadian General Charles Bouchard, NATO said.

In a statement released in Naples after NATO took over enforcement of the no-fly zone, Bouchard said the alliance "will do everything it can to deny any use of air power and it will do so with care and precision to avoid harming the people of Libya".

Experts said that a full transition to NATO command would take about 48 hours.

The agreement, reached after just two hours of talks, ends a week of heated debate, much of it between NATO members France and Turkey, over the Libya mission's command structure.

After eight days of strikes on Libyan targets, Washington is eager to quickly hand responsibility for air strikes to the military alliance.

The air raids have already tipped the balance away from Gaddafi's regular military to the lightly armed rebels, although the two sides remain at a stalemate in key cities.


Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

M .... i have pretty much answered your first and main issue already .... as for you, i'm afraid you're great at being full of rhetoric and general soapbox codswallop, while (not very) skilfully avoiding nailing any colours to the mast whatsoever ..... hardly commendable

M

Why not just state what you think the Coalition should have done about the Libyan situation?

I am quite clear on this issue; I am sick of the slaughter that elected or unelected governments inflict on their own people, or the tacit approval of such by doing nothing to stop the atrocities. The collateral damage (which inevitably accompanies kinetic action) is of course hugely regrettable, but I suspect if MG wins this conflict, you aint seen nuthin yet.

I agree entirely that the UN is a useless organisation.

Here is an example of an outside influence on Libya.

"Gaza medics await the approval of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces which has been handed power in Egypt for a humanitarian aid mission to enter Libya following the departure of most of the country's medical staff.

Sixteen names were chosen out of 100 paramedics who wanted to participate in the mission. They have coordinated with the Arab doctors federation and will gain momentum with more doctors and medical supplies while transiting Egypt should authorities allow their entry, according to secretary of the Gaza paramedics union Yousef Fahjan.

We have most felt the pain of the Libyans, considering that we ourselves are subjected to continous daily aggression. This feeling is the greatest motivation for our aiding the Libyans alongside our humanitarian and professional duty, especially after most of the paramedics have left from there and we learned about the shortage of paramedics.

This is the least we can do to reciprocate the Libyans, who have stood by our sides during the war on Gaza. Most of those who contacted us to lift our morale during the war were Libyans, Fahjan said.

Libya had also sponsored five aid convoys to the Gaza Strip dubbed the Quds convoy and donated five million dollars to reconstruct Gaza following the last Israeli war."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12876696

gla

Wow, a few medics.

Just can't help yourself can you? Don't you realise you need to seek your own medical assistance for this compulsion?

UN - it can certainly be a very frustrating and slow and at times, totally ineffectual ..... this is always the problem when trying to reach decisions by effectively unanimous consensus - one veto often derails the whole ..... however, overall it is a force for good (corrupt? .... if at all, then minimal even compared to IOC or FIFA!) and, i think, a necessary device to rein in at least some unilateral excesses.



peter - i assume from the tone of your post that you support the action so far being taken to support the libyan rebels ..... that being so, what do you think should be done next?

assuming you concur that we (UN+ AL etc) should not send in ground forces, do you think we should supply arms through one channel or another?

taking it that MG is removed by one means or another, should we help (whatever that may mean!) libya to be governed by democratic means or do we just walk away and leave them to their own devices, shambolic and violent as that may well be at least in the initial stages?

Rag tag rebel army have no chance of taking capital without more help from UN forces.

perhaps, though i am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a valid judgement on that ..... mind you, if increasing numbers of the populace and army defect from GM, then all bets change anyway

but tell me bernard, are you suggesting that UN would need to send in ground forces or that the rebels would need to be sent (even more) arms from outside?

would you support the concept of UN ground forces being used, and if so, as front line troops or pretty much just as bystanders to any military action?

Make it an even fight give the rebels more arms.

ok, but then how high a risk that those arms will ultimately fall into the "wrong hands" - e.g. al qaeda - and is that a risk worth taking?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12874014
Libya: No arms for rebels, UK's Liam Fox says

Coalition countries attacking targets in Libya will not supply arms to anti-Gaddafi rebels, UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox has told the BBC.

There are reports in the Sunday Times claiming plans to supply weapons to rebels are being drawn up.

But Dr Fox said there was a UN arms embargo across the entire country, adding "we have to accept that".

unless such arms were routed through AL or similar!

God help the rebels, and their family if Gadaffe stays and overpowers the them.