News24

US fears al-Qaeda in Libya

2011-03-03 08:55

Washington - The United States on Wednesday signalled growing caution about military intervention in Libya while it raised fears that al-Qaeda could gain a foothold if the North African nation descends into chaos.

In testimony to the US Senate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that any US intervention to help opponents of Muammar Gaddafi would be "controversial" both within Libya and the broader Arab community.

She has said that Washington understands the Libyan opposition wants to "be seen as doing this by themselves" as they seek ways to dislodge Gaddafi and his forces from the capital Tripoli and other areas they hold.

In a speech on Wednesday, Gaddafi warned that "thousands" would die if the West intervened to support the more than two-week old uprising against him.

The 22-member Arab League adopted a resolution on Wednesday appearing to oppose all foreign intervention in Libya before announcing later it would consider backing a no-fly zone over the fellow Arab country.

In her Senate testimony, Clinton underlined remarks from US defence leaders who said on Tuesday that imposing a no-fly zone would be "extraordinarily" complex and that Nato has yet to agree on any military intervention there.

"There is a great deal of caution that is being exercised with respect to any actions that we might take other than in support of humanitarian missions," the chief US diplomat said when asked about military options for Libya.

She recalled how the former administration of president Bill Clinton, her husband, faced a similar dilemma in the Balkans in the 1990s before eventually deciding a no-fly zone there would advance peace and stability.

No-fly zone

Referring to Libya, Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "I think we are a long way from making that decision."

Despite US caution, she added: "We are taking no option off the table, so long as the Libyan government continues to turn its guns on its own people."

If the United States and Nato imposed a no-fly zone, US and allied military aircraft would ensure that Gaddafi's warplanes and helicopters were grounded so they cannot attack the Libyan opposition.

The US Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed a symbolic resolution urging the world to consider imposing a no-fly zone over Libya while John Kerry, the Senate committee's Democratic chairperson, voiced support for it on Wednesday.

"A no fly-zone is not a long-term proposition and we should be ready to implement it as necessary," Kerry said in a statement.

Two US warships, the USS Kearsage and the USS Ponce, steamed on Wednesday into the Mediterranean en route to Libya, the Suez Canal Authority said.

The Kearsage amphibious ready group, with about 800 marines, a fleet of helicopters and medical facilities, could support humanitarian efforts as well as military operations.

However, US aircraft carriers transporting warplanes rather than helicopters were used to enforce a no-fly zone in southern Iraq in the 1990s.

Reaching out to opposition

In reply to questions about what the Obama administration was doing to fight al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Africa, Clinton said "one of our biggest concerns is Libya descending into a chaos and becoming a giant Somalia.

"It's right now not something we see in the offing, but many of the al-Qaeda activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya and came from eastern Libya which is now the so-called free area of Libya," she said.

Clinton later told the Senate Appropriations Committee the United States is "actively reaching out" to the Libyan opposition.

"We are actively reaching out to Libyans... We are working to understand who is legitimate, who is not, but it is premature in our opinion to recognize one group or another," Clinton said.

"We have to focus at this point on helping the Libyan people," she said.

"It's important to recognise that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the motives, the opportunism, if you will of people who are claiming to be leaders right now," she added.

"I think we have to be focusing on the humanitarian mission and then gathering information as we can," said the top US diplomat.

Comments
  • Gorilla - 2011-03-03 09:03

    This is getting interesting. the US and Al Qaeda are allies fighting Gadaffi. who'd have guessed?

      rammstein.f4n - 2011-03-03 10:05

      They were allies before against the Russians if I remember my history correctly... ;)

      alessandroz067 - 2011-03-03 10:11

      They were alwyas allies as the U.S created "Al Qaeda" and still run it.

  • Badger - 2011-03-03 09:28

    The one wants oil and the other another base.

  • Kevin Rack - 2011-03-03 09:43

    Fear, the American way. USA has lost all support it could of gained if it supported poeples fight for freedom but they do not care about freedom but more about oil and thats why these USA backed dictators stay around for so long. (Gadaffi not). What message does this send to Iranain and chinese democratci activists? Will we see another Sudan or Iraq as America and EU carve up countries for their own need. Its sad to see a country talk about freedom but practice it very little when it comes to foreign policy. As the Indains said: The white man speaks with fork tongue.

      nobodyneedstoknowme - 2011-03-03 10:33

      They don't even practice freedom in their own country how can we expect them to promote it in others?

      amos - 2011-03-03 11:14

      The same old story 'weapons of mass destruction" now it "saviours of the Libyan people" against killer Gadafi. Whilst Gadafi's tally may be around a thousand or two the American tally is OVER two million in Iraq & Afghanistan and is mounting. Why not stop that first, because Libya has OIL WAITING FOR THE AMERICAN AXIS OF LOOTERS>

  • jgillow7 - 2011-03-03 09:50

    everything is al qaeda....news flash why not change your foreign policies U.S.A? Most of AL-QAEDA members were ex CIA.They were trained by the CIA back in the day when Russia wanted to invade Afganistan.I will go as far as saying when many men came back from afganistan and the war there,they were arested and placed in jails because they were seen as a threat.The same government which are being over thrown by there people today.The fighters then become very unhappy and wanted reform but they were executed or exiled from there countries. America agreed with these governments.The same governments like mubarak and Gadaffi.today the people of these countries are rising and america still wants to dictate

  • Tantrum - 2011-03-03 09:53

    Looks as if the US is looking for a reason to invade another oil rich country and to bleed them dry with their food for oil program like they in Iraq. These Americans think the whole world is as ignorant as they are.

  • Kaliel - 2011-03-03 10:11

    These are all lies. There is no Al Qaueda plot. There are only the greedy power hungry world bankers who own the US and who want Libyas oil and the profits of war that go along with an invasion. It is that simple. They way they get it and have always got is through propagating fear of terrorism to mobilise public acceptance for their master plan - same story in Iraq and Afganistan. Why do they leave Zim and Ivory Coast to rot yet show such a keen interest in Iraq and Libya? Even Obama and Clinton are pawns in the hands of these truly evil men who will stop at nothing in their quest for world dominion. We are all powerless against these men because we all owe them interest on the money they lend us.

      amos - 2011-03-03 12:38

      I agree with you [kaliel]. Can the public guess who are the "power hungry world bankers" ? sorry no prize offered

  • tommy 2 - 2011-03-03 10:14

    SO GADAFFI,IS CORRECT WHEN HE SAYS THAT AL QAEDA,IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHAOS IN HIS COUNTRY.

  • Paul - 2011-03-03 10:18

    Hilarious Clinton and co are just after the oil.

  • WillowI - 2011-03-03 10:20

    Some of your comments astound me - your memories are so short : World War II - USA to the rescue. Then 1. First Sadam (another dictator)invades Iran 2. Kills many Kurds and his own people and invades Kuwait 3. USA forces him out of Kuwait 4. 9/11 happens (anyone remember Osama Bin Laden ????) 5. War against Terrorism (which btw still exists today) 6. USA invades Iraq again and new government elected. 7. His own people in Iraq find him guilty of crimes against humanity and hang him (Sadam). And all some of you can say: It was about the OIL !!!!! Next: 1.Simple communication (landline telephone) 2.Dictators all over Africa and middle east. 3.Better communication and coverage (TV) 4.Even better comms (internet) 5.New social networks (Facebook) 6.Collective consciousness by the people driven by Internet 7.Toppling of dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. 8.Libya And again all you can think of: It is about the OIL !!!!!!! It is not about oil - it is the Internet that is causing a complete transformation on this planet - and this is just the beginning. Think about it. And btw I am not a US citizen. However so far I agree with most they have done. Also remember after the condemnation of Bush the Americans voted the Republicans out themselves. They DO LISTEN to world opinion after all!!

      Tantrum - 2011-03-03 10:35

      You must be joking right - looks like your memory is short. World War II - USA turns into a world power because of the billions it made out of the war. The US had no intention to enter into the war but was forced too by the Pearl Harbour incident. As for Iran - can't you remember the blockade that the US organised and forced Iran to give them oil in exchange for food? The people were starving and the US was so kind to exchange food for oil? Nice bunch aren’t they? The US is power hungry, money driven, artificial, ignorant bunch of clowns. Because of them and their god-like attitude the whole world was dumped into a financial crisis - did you forget about that one?

      tony_w - 2011-03-03 10:49

      I agree, but this time the US won't invade. And linking Al Qaeda to the opposition may just be an excuse. Al Qaeda is as I understands a ultra fundamentalist movement - not really fitting in with these specific "liberal" up-risings. Sure, they may see an opportunity in the chaos. The real reason is that Barack Obama is to Ghadaffi what the ANC is to Ghadaffi. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267361 "As pressure mounts on the White House to intervene to stop Moammar Gadhafi's bloody crackdown in Libya, many commentators have been wondering why Barack Obama has been cautious in his criticism of the dictator after the U.S. president so fervently supported the removal from office of U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual adviser for more than 23 years. The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group. ........ "

      Zee - 2011-03-03 10:54

      @Willowl 1) Hiroshima, Nagasaki 2) Iraq, Afghanistan 3) Economic Crisis 4) Healthcare reform 5) George Bush 6) Support for future dictators 7) Training/aiding insurgents who the US tosses aside once they don't need them anymore 8) Unwaivering support of Israel in spite of it's human rights abuses. 9) 10 million American Indians slaughtered to make way for your great country America looks after itself only, even if the rest of the globe has to suffer. It's all about oil and the money. You watch too much Fox News.

      tommy 2 - 2011-03-03 11:08

      @WILLOWL lETs LOOK at the then: 1-SADDAM WAS TRAINED BY THE US AND FUNDED BY THEM INTO POWER. 2-The KURDS WANTED THEIR OWN STATE (ITS LIKE THE KUKLUX KLAN WANTING THEIR OWN STATE IN AMERICA) THE SAUDIS AND KUWAIT HAVE BEEN IN BED WITH THE US FOR DECADES,(THEY SAY IF THE SAUDIS PULL THEIR MONEY OUT OF THE US ECONOMY,IT WILL CRASH.) 3-USA will always run to protect the SAUDIS &KUWAIT because of (oil). 4-OSAMA BIN LADEN: TRAINED BY THE US GOVERMENT DURING THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN.(OSAMA BECAME A PROBLEM FOR THE SAUDI KING,WHEN HE QUESTIONED THE KINGS ASSOCIATION WITH THE WEST.) THE US NEEDED,AN EXCUSE TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN & IRAQ.(BIN LADDEN FAMILY MEMBERS ARE FRIENDS WITH BOTH PRESIDENT BUSHES.) 5-THIS WAR ON TERRORISM WAS CREATED BY YOUR BELOVED AMERICANS,BY THEM MEDDLING IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR GAIN. 6-IRAQ,IS WORSE OFF,THAN BEFORE THE INVASSION,PUPPET GOVERMENT PUT IN PLACE THAT WILL BOW DOWN TO THE WEST.THE COUNTRY IS IN RUINS.(SADDAM,IN POWER,COMPLETELY OPPOSITE,THAN CURRENT SITUATION.) 7-IF YOU POINT OUT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: Why dont you look at the SAUDI KING,(DONT THEY BEHEAD PEOPLE,DONT THEY CHOP LIMBS OFF,DONT THEY STONE PEOPLE AND ONE WONDER5S WHY YOUR USA DID NOT INVADE THIS COUNTRY AND ITS DICTATOR.) WHY DID THE US NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ESTIMATED 5 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED IN THE DRC IN THE LAST DECADE.(NOTHING TO GAIN BUT THEY ARE SELLIN ARMS TO THE OPPOSSITION) CHARLES TAYLOR MADE A SCAPE GOAT,HE WAS PUT IN POWER BY THE US. ITS ABOUT OIL.

      amos - 2011-03-03 11:57

      If you [Willowl] as so bloody stupid or so brain washed that you are blind to the truth. The brain washed & stupid [like you]Americans in fact VOTED the moron George Bush for a SECOND TERM after his 'weapons of mass destruction' debacle. Perhaps you are also ignorant - the world over knows the link between OIL & the BUSH family.

      alessandroz067 - 2011-03-03 12:19

      you believe everything you read and see in the news chap. Free thinking iondividuals is what the world needs.

      Ingwe - 2011-03-03 12:47

      Tommy2 why are you shouting can't you get your point across with shouting

      WillowI - 2011-03-03 12:56

      @Tantrum - and what about the great depression of the 1930's ? Also caused by the US I suppose. No, it is a natural cycle - growth cannot be achieved indefinitely. It will happen again I promise you - but the next time it happens I predict it will originate in China (mark my words).

      WillowI - 2011-03-03 13:02

      @Allesandro - I do believe that Most Western News publications are written and produced by exactly that - 'Free thinking individuals'. Do you know any journalists ? I do - they are just like you and me - really.

      buka001 - 2011-03-03 13:19

      @ Zee - 1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Well had these two cities not been bombed by an atomic bomb WW2 would have gone on for a few more years with more destruction to other cities and loss of life. Japan were given an ultimatum after the Hiroshima they were told they would be bombed again. They still refused to surrender. Even after Nagasaki they were reluctant to surrender. @ tommy2, what history book are you reading? Saddam was never trained by the US. His government had funding from the US during the Iran/Iraq war. His government was also funded by other arab nations. They funded Iraq, because Iran was on the verge of winning the war and taking over Iraq. Saddam rose to power by becoming the leader of the Ba'ath, which rose to power through a coup. Saddam was never trained and funded to rise to power. If the US only agenda was oil surely they would have invaded already? Surely they would be pursuing various agendas. Instead they are saying that they don't wish to intervene because its up to Libya to decide who they want to lead.

      Zee - 2011-03-03 14:14

      @Buka001 - I'm not disputing that Japan never surrendered. I'm making the point that for the same nation that claims to be the world policeman on who is fit to have nuclear capability and who is not, they are also the ONLY nation to actually use not one, but two nukes on a CIVILIAN population. Also do you know the U.S. has conducted over 300 nuclear blast tests worldwide, causing irreparable damage to the atmosphere? The US is a nation of hypocrites and will change its stance on anything as long as it's suited to the US.

      tommy 2 - 2011-03-03 14:30

      @buka001 Definately not the history book wriiten by western historians,that will say, what a bad man "SADDAM" was. Now as you have stated,there was funding by the US to the his party.(which SADDAM SAW AS A CASH COW).This funding was not just about the war between IRQA & IRAN but AMERICA, wanting to put a leader in power that they can control.(now as usual when this leader does not want to be dictated to by the US,he is now a criminal,who commited crimes against humanity etc...) Why was the US happy with Saddam for so many years,until the guy went to Kuwait and the Saudis ran to big brother. The US made sure Saddam got into power.(funding,training,....) Now you keep reading you HISTORY book and try to fill in the blanks,as there is alot that has been left out.

      Ingwe - 2011-03-03 14:58

      Zee how many nuclear weapons have the Russian's tested, it is around 700. So according to your stats the Russian's have caused more damage to the atmosphere than the American's. Makes you think doesn't.

      Zee - 2011-03-03 15:27

      @Ingwe - yes, I never insinuated that anyone else testing nukes are any better, was just keeping it within the context of the article. Either way, anyone doing it is making our planet less healthy :)

      buka001 - 2011-03-04 07:08

      Tommy, Saddam was in power long before the Iran/Iraq war. America only gave funding to Iraq during this war. So again how did America traina nd fund Saddam to allow him to rise to power in Iraq?

      tommy 2 - 2011-03-04 09:25

      @Buka001 In 1959,qasim was ruler of IRAQ,and there was a failed assasination attempt on his life,which was orchestrated by the CIA.The CIA,has always operated this way & in 1963 the coup,was successfull for the baarth party to be in power.(SADDAM)This is one one of the reason why when sadaam was in power he had doubles,as he was very aware of the CIA OPERATIONS.Let me make it easy for you,Google"How the CIA PUT SADDAM IN POWER" & read the article written by Richard Saunders,about regime change and i am sure you will get the picture.(this is long before the gulf war 1957-1963). NOW I HAVE TOLD YOU STOP READING THOSE HISTORY BOOKS,AS THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT.(This is no conspiracy theory)

      amos - 2011-04-03 14:55

      willow does not have a short memory but has a "blinkered" memory. His American Saviours of Iraq have thousands of percent more Iraqi people than Saddam. The American "saviours" also used depleted uranium bombs in Iraq. These depleted uranium bombs will go on killing Iraqi people decades & decades to come.These Bombs are killing the American soldiers [and their progeny] that delivered these bombs.Think of what these are doing to those to whom they were delivered? Wake up 'willowl' you cannot be that stupid.

  • Yakoob - 2011-03-03 11:00

    ..

  • steve - 2011-03-03 11:11

    I agree better communication throughout the world has enlightened people,it helps them understand you don't have to live under a dictator who's only ambition is to fill his foreign bank account,the internet is more powerful than you think,one day world elections will be done through through it and there will be accountabilty in a new world order.

      amos - 2011-03-03 11:32

      I doubt Gadafi has enriched him self like the American puppets in Egypt, Kuwait, Arabia, Oman ++++... am i wrong ? As a school boy I admired Gadafi for riding around in a WV BEETLE when others were riding Rolls, Mercs etc.

      steve - 2011-03-03 12:19

      Well if you have been keeping up with international news the US has frozen several of their bank accounts amounting to over $30bn +, the UK has done the same over $5bn+, his children are arrogant and spoilt who look down on the ordinary civilians and have their champagne parties with top performers singing Beyonce,Lionel Richie I'm amazed you don't know this.

      WillowI - 2011-03-03 12:31

      Ahh Steve - the only one that seems to get the point of what i was trying to get across. I think most of our other suspects watch too many Hollywood films. In fact 'Conspiracy theory' is mostly an American trait. Seems our other friends Amos and Tantrum, etc. are the ones having been brainwashed. And you also probably saw that I said I agree with 'most' - I never said 'all' they have done. In fact they can sit back a bit now and let the world take it's new course with the instruments that they (yes the bad old USA) have provided namely the Internet and Facebook, etc. (More American inventions being used by the very people that like to shoot them down). Just one more question for the USA haters. Name one of these countries that they have been involved in that is not run by it's own self elected government since WW2. And Zee I seriously doubt that there were 10million American Indians in the 17hundreds (however if you say so?). Amos - George Bush's 2nd term started just after 9/11 - it was to be expected.At least their leaders can only do a max of 2 terms. And please don't tell me the CIA was involved in a plot to down the Twin Towers - PLEASE !!! (yet another conspiracy theory - some even say it never happened).

      Zee - 2011-03-03 14:26

      @Willowl It's certainly not far off - while impossible to predict the exact number, predictions vary from 6 to 112 million. " Estimates: Two studies have been conducted that attempt to number the natives killed by the United States. The first of these was sponsored by the United States government, and while official does not stand up to scrutiny and is therefore discounted (generally); this estimate shows between 1 million to 4 million killed. The second study was not sponsored by the US Government but was done from independent researchers. This study estimated populations and population reductions using later census data. Two figures are given, both low and high, at: between 10 million and 114 million indians as a direct result of US actions. Please note that Nazi Holocaust estimates are between 6 and 11 million; thereby making the Nazi Holocaust the 2nd largest mass murder of a class of people in history. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Native_Americans_were_killed_by_the_US_government#ixzz1FXQl2M00" You have the internet (produced by the great US as you so aptly put) - use it :) Also regarding your point about facebook etc - did you know the arabs invented the first modern medicines, they were the first to study science and numeracy (along with China). Would we have facebook without these-probably not. Many cultures have given us many things over the centuries. I disagree with the US government's policies, it doesn't mean I hate America, or its people.

      Ingwe - 2011-03-03 15:14

      Zee thank you for the interesting facts on the American Red Indians, do you perhaps know how many were killed before 1775 and how many after. The US as we know it today only got independence in 1775 so therefore in my opinion it is unfair to blame any killings prior to 1775 on the current country we know as America

      WillowI - 2011-03-03 15:17

      @Zee - I read the link - but still query the figures. My basis: Similar to the Zulu in Natal - how many do you think there were when the Voortrekkers arrived - I doubt more than 2million. We know at Bloodriver 64 Voortrekkers (men and women) with single shot frontloaders defeated Dingaan's impi's. If there were more Zulu's it would have been impossible. Similarly (and btw the good old USA of those days were still under British rule) if the North American Indians numbered in total 10million or more and half of those were men and half of those were able bodied warriors that gives you 2.5million fighters. Against widely spread European colonials. The battle figures then would have been much different. Note your link says only 136 Indians killed at Little bighorn. So the numbers don't add up to me - I am sorry. It needs to make sense. You can also calculate by looking at population growth and working it backwards. I did not anywhere query or discount other inventions made by other cultures. My original post only stated that this entire Middle Eastern situation was caused by the latest modern invention namely social interactive technology - and not by OIL!!! And believe me it is also going to change the USA and the entire Western world. Not just Egypt Tunisia and Libya. These are the signs of the times. I predicted it 15 years ago.But I also say it will make the world a better place.

      Zee - 2011-03-03 15:34

      @Willowl From the article: "Two studies have been conducted that attempt to number the natives killed by the United States." ie. those figures are not including natural deaths etc, only death caused directly by the US. I wasn't even a thought back then, so I guess we'll never know the true figure, but according to the aforementioned studies that were conducted, both by the US and independently, the figures are pretty huge in either case, and I'd rather go with those estimates than just take a shot in the dark. I've really not much knowledge on the Zulu situation you mentioned, although the US is a far bigger country (both in land size and population) than SA is. This situation may make the world a better place for some, but a whole lot worse for others.

      Zee - 2011-03-03 15:39

      @Ingwe - my pleasure, if you read the link I posted it appears that these estimates were for the period 1776 - 1973. Although I'm not 100% certain about that admittedly.

      WillowI - 2011-03-03 15:44

      @Zee and lastly (sorry this is off the topic) I live in a town of 10 000 inhabitants that stretches over 20km by 20km at least.Now we know the American Indians were nomads - and lets argue there were 10 tribes of 1million total per tribe. Lets assume the Apache numbered 1million - that is equal to 20 soccer stadiums filled to the brim. Now I would like to see you pack up that lot every year lock stock and barrel (remember they built no cities) and move to where the buffalo are grazing. No my friend I doubt the American Indian ever in total numbered more than say 4 million people (men women and children). They would obviously have been more today if the colonials had not arrived.

      Zee - 2011-03-03 15:47

      @Willowl - you are entitled to believe whatever you want mate, I'm simply going with those figures because in my opinion they are the closest thing to a proper estimate anyone has come up with. If you can find someone else with a different credible estimate then by all means, go with that.

      Ingwe - 2011-03-03 16:07

      Zee last question do you believe the US government of today are in any way responsible for the deaths of those Red Indians say between 1776 and 1899. If your answer is yes then is that not the same as saying the German government of today is responsible for what happen to the Jews under Hitler or even the ANC government of today is responsible for deaths in South Africa before 1994 going right back to the Boer War. Where do we stop? The world has moved on, a lot that went on in the past, in every country, would not be allowed to happen in 21st century. If you do not believe the US government of today is responsible for the deaths of those Red Indians why are you trying to use it as an argument on a thread about US fears Al-Qaeda in Libya.

      Zee - 2011-03-03 16:32

      @Ingwe - this whole thread started with someone claiming that we all have short memories because America has done so much good for the world. I'm simply pointing out that they have also done a lot of bad, so we're not the only ones with short memories! All countries have ups and downs, but honestly, I do think its a bit laughable to be the world's policeman when you yourself are not fit to do so. For example - the nuclear situation with Iran - America suspects them of making a bomb so they want to pull the plug on the nuclear programme. Yet America is the only one to have ever actually used them on a civilian population. (note im using this as an example - im no fan of Iran nor nuclear technology). I just think America does what it wants and when someone else tries to do the same they are labelled as bad guys. It's the absolute height of hypocrisy. As you said where do we draw the line? Muslims the world over are being labelled terrorists. Is it right to blanket blame Muslims for 9/11? No, but it happens!

      Ingwe - 2011-03-03 21:46

      Thanks Zee I see you could or did not want to answer my question. Let me ask you another question if it is not the US who is going to be the worlds policeman then who do you think should do it. Someone has to do the job and it is not a great job.

      Zee - 2011-03-04 12:46

      @Ingwe - I feel I've answered your question, maybe read my post again. Multi-national forces should be the world policeman (ie The UN), but again - everyone knows the UN simply panders to the needs of the US. I'm not sure what else you want me to say? Guess I'm done here. Enjoy the weekend.

      Ingwe - 2011-03-05 10:01

      Zee I do not think you have answered the questions so I will ask them again. Do you believe the US government of today are in any way responsible for the deaths of those Red Indians say between 1776 and 1899. If your answer is yes then is that not the same as saying the German government of today is responsible for what happen to the Jews under Hitler or even the ANC government of today is responsible for deaths in South Africa before 1994 going right back to the Boer War. If you do not believe the US government of today is responsible for the deaths of those Red Indians why are you trying to use it as an argument on a thread about US fears Al-Qaeda in Libya.

      amos - 2011-04-03 15:31

      Ingwe is trying to twist & distort facts. The genocide of the American Indians has nothing to do with the American Government per se. What we are discussing is the People and mainly the so called WHITE people they were the killers... even is South Africa the WHITE man that went around eradicating the indigenous Koi San people. Like the American Indian these South African people have been "eradicated" to virtual extinction. Surely you cannot hold the ANC govt responsible for the action of the forefathers of the present day white community?

  • Wedfew - 2011-03-03 13:47

    Al Qaeda UK and USA translation OIL...

  • raykhado - 2011-03-03 14:34

    America has brain washed the whole world,i thought the Democrates better

  • pages:
  • 1