The fruit of our “compassionate support” for the “oppressed” Islamic peoples of the world is now starting to show. In the past two weeks, both the United States and France have reached out to the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) and predictably, the NTC turned it’s back on those very same nations that came to their rescue.
The US State Department reached out to our “new friends” in Libya, hoping to retrieve Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the mastermind behind the 1988 Lockerbie airline bombing and the NTC said no. The no was neither tentative nor was it contingent on some prerequisite understanding or action. They said no with emphasis. The NTC spokesman said; ” [We] will not give any Libyan citizen to the West…”. So much for thanks, the spirit of cooperation, any understanding of right and wrong or any semblance of a common understanding of human rights, just; no.
Days later, the NTC dismissed a report that they, presumably, had promised 35% of it’s oil production to France. One would have to assume that since France was under the opinion they had a deal; they then, had a deal. While political conditions in Libya probably won’t gel into it’s final form for months, if not years, there are rightful expectations by members of NATO and others who supported this “Arab Spring” version of an election, for at least a spirit of cooperation; and fair play.
For those who choose to immediately dismiss these as the “growing pains” of a new regime protecting it’s interests, let me say that this continued naïveté toward the Islamic mind and their collective vision of the west and all non-compliant nations, is delusional! These are not the actions of righteous people whose vision includes a belief that all men are created equal. These are the actions of a people who deem all men are either submitted to Allah or they are not; and there are consequences for non compliance.
Naïve or not, the United States and our NATO friends, embarked on a mission to help secure freedom for the Libyan people, as though freedom is a universally understood concept. The US Constitution generally defines freedom as every individual’s God given inalienable right to self determination. The Bible describes freedom as freedom from the bondage of sin. What the Koran teaches is anathema to any constructive understanding of personal freedom. Rather it teaches submission and it’s adherents, to propagate, by the sword if necessary.
hopeless, dimwitted and ignorant, antisocial politicians. Smile America you useless douche bag “pre” and all of the politicos gave away billions of American dollars that could have gone for jobs. OH! Recall for a moment that BP oil arranged for the release of al Megrahi for future drills and oil reserves in Libya…How quickly can you all forget…God left out a few brain cells today? When will you people learn how to remember and read history vs. the last number on your cell phone. America..get a grip on the toilet rip..you are being flushed.
Ever read Surah 9 in the Koran?
It deals with the making and breaking of treaties with unbelievers.
In context, it is condoned for Muslims to break treaties with unbelievers if it is to their advantage to do so, unless those unbelievers have been completely faithful in the discharge of their treaty obligations.
But, even then, after the terms of the treaty are met (the forbidden months are past), Muslims are commanded to make war.
The historical context is that in ancient times, both in Arabia and elsewhere, treaties were most often made for specific periods of time. During that time period, both parties were expected to be completely faithful in the discharge of their obligations under the terms of the treaty. After the treaty term had ended, all bets were off.
Groups that had been allies for a period of time might then turn on each other in the most vicious manner after the treaty time ended, without any loss of honor for either side.
The Koran tells Muslims that pagan or unbelieving groups with whom they do not currently have a treaty are open to the prosecution of offensive war.
The particular treaty that lies at the heart of this passage was merely temporary, lasting four months, and was interpreted by later Islamic scholars as nullifying any other treaties between Muslims and unbelievers – which would essentially mean that NO treaties are now to be considered binding.
This is the Islamic notion of hudna; all treaties are merely temporary.
Muslims do not feel themselves bound to respect any pact which they might sign with non-Muslims, and will break such agreements as soon as they feel it is to their advantage to do so.
So, is it any surprise that the US was denied Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi?
Any surprise that France’s agreement with the rebels will now be ignored by those rebels?
These guys in the rebel alliance in Libya are consistent with Koranic teachings.
How stupid and ill-informed are our leaders to not know the rulebook?
Didn’t they just elect an allegedly former al-qaeda supporter to be in charge?
Obama belted out the Libyan opera with perfect pitch. He hasn’t done many things as well as he could have (and should have), but he totally nailed this one. Egypt, too.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runswim:
Lawdy. And the left has the nerve to call us unthinking zombies….
Freedom means that they aren’t required to automatically do as we wish.
Whether or not Abdel Basset al-Megrahi should be deported at this point is open to debate. I wouldn’t want him turned over to the United States. What would we do? Conduct a trial to determine if we should unplug his taxpayer-funded life support? The time when a trial would have made sense has passed. Besides, he already had one. If you’ve got issues, take them up with Scotland.
And what were we freeing? People, or a cheap supply of oil? The oil belongs to Libya. They’ll sell it as they wish. It’s up to France and Libya to work out some mutually beneficial arrangement.
@Larry W, speaking of opera warbling, you’ve sung that aria here in various places before, so you aren’t imparting anything new. While you’re certainly free to hold steadfast to your opinion, repeating that opinion certainly doesn’t make it fact. And I doubt you’ll find many here, sitting in the o’bleachers, following your cheerleading.
Of course not, Greg. Thus the beauty that the Arab League… who detested Gaddafi.. managed to get NATO, France and the US to do their dirty work on our dime. They’ve got to be laughing their tuckus’s off at the gullible West.
It’s quite obvious that any ally in intel of the US is stabbed in the back by this POTUS, so any new regime has no incentive to be friendly to the traitors of the West. Because the only ones that are organized enough to seize government control, post a rebellion are organizations like the MB, we have no reason to expect that any new Egyptian or Libyan leadership will opt to be friends to either the West, or to Israel. Nor that they will support any sense of religious tolerance or freedom.
But, according to some, aiding in the leadership demise of fragile quasi-allies in intel, located in the ME, is a perfect pitched aria. Hilarious when you think of it. Good thing this POTUS has two left feet, and one still intact to shoot off.
@Greg:
Can I quote you on that when doctors and nurses are being required to do what ObamaCare demands?
Or, are doctors and nurses choosing slavery by picking those professions?
Rand Paul was a board certified ophthalmologist.
He said this:
See it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HVyoT2PgM&feature=player_embedded
Ummm greg, since when was gadaffi duck our puppet who did whatever we wanted? You’ve cornered the market on straw.