When a civilian flight is shot down...

No I don't believe that the President would hold any responsibility. That would be like blaming the police for the death of a fugitive because he was being pursued in a high speed chase and he lost control of his vehicle and died. His death is totally on his own head as the shooting down of a commercial airline would be on the shooters head as well as anyone who helped him.

 

Yup - it is a HUGE politically motivated stretch to try and implicate the president

A more likely reason? Financial gain.

 

BTW, Qaddafi was using airstrikes against the rebels back in March.

So then it was also wrong for libs to implicate Bush 1/Rumsfeld/Cheney in the fact that Afghan rebels in the 80's got stinger missiles?

I think Targus is pointing out that if this were to occur he hopes that liberals will hold Obama somewhat responsible just as they blame Bush 1 for "arming" Saddam Hussein and the Afghan rebels in the 80's.

In Qadafi's case, the linkage to Obama is weaker in that we didn't supply weapons, rather the weapons were plundered.

Sure, sell them to Al Qaeda and other terrorists who will use them on Western aircraft. Same end result.

 

Rush would be proud!:thumbs:

 

No, Rush would say (after the fact), "You just know that if this were a Democrat that allowed terrorists to get weapons, there would be scarcely a word said about it."

However, Targus is pre-empting the whole argument. I think it bears watching. I think Targus has a point. Let's see what happens.

 

Which administration sold them the missiles?

Since we're not actively engaged in this conflict (left it to other UN/NATO countries) how is this the current Presidents fault?

 

I believe the only reason Targus posted this was an effort to blame President Obama for something he is not responsible for.

Although there are many legitimate reasons to criticize the President, this is stretching the limit. Thus my comparison of Targus to Rush.

 

Actually the U.S. has been using Islamic terrorists as part of it's "foreign policy" for decades. It should come as no surprise that the U.S. is supporting "Al Qaeda" terrorists in Libya. There's plenty of proof including the admissions of the U.S. State Dept. and the terrorists themselves.

What would happen if an airliner was shot down with one of the weapons taken from Libya? Well, what always seems to happen during a "national crisis"? Our politicians would wrap themselves in the flag make long emotional speeches and call for more wars abroad and less freedom at home while the corporate media covers up any complicity or wrong doing on our government's part. Like they always do. (you never want a serious crisis to go to waste)

And the people would rally around that flag and Obama no matter how much his actions were responsible for the death of innocent (Americans) people like we always do. The banks and corporations would make out like the bandits they are and we'd lose even more of our dwindling wealth and freedoms. Like always.

Assuming of course the past can be used to look into the future. What does history tell us about our support for these radical groups like the LIFG?

In each instance, whether it is in Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iran, or Pakistan, immense efforts have been made by these governments to destroy entirely these organizations. In each case, the US purposely arms, trains, and shelters these organizations, with troupes of dissent leaders populating London, Washington, and Langley, Virginia, creating a "rouge's UN" of sorts. Careful observers who check the backgrounds of "experts" brought onto the duplicitous BBC, CNN, or Al Jazeera networks for interviews can see sometimes 2-3 of these exiled extremist leaders at a time being given airtime and dressed up as "freedom fighters." The threat of militant extremism is one the United States government and its allies have been purposefully perpetuating as a pretext for expanding military and economic power into sovereign nation-states disinterested in their Wall Street and London centric "globalization." SOURCE


West Point Terror Center Confirms Al Qaeda in Libya. Then apologizes for them.

The 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report [1] examining the demographics of foreign fighters caught in Iraq fighting US troops has been cited by alarmed analysts as proof that the current NATO-backed rebellion in Libya is literally handing an entire nation over to Al Qaeda linked terrorists, namely those of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed by both the US State Department and UK Home Office as a foreign terrorist organization.

The report indicated that by far, the eastern region of Libya, in particular the cities of Darnah and Benghazi now serving as the epicenter of the NATO-backed rebellion, provided more fighters per capita to combat US troops in Iraq than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. In the report, it is noted that most of these Libyan fighters were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who were involved in an increasingly cooperative relationship with Al Qaeda. This relationship culminated in November 3, 2007, when the CTC report claims that LIFG officially joined Al Qaeda. The report than goes on to elaborately depict just how close together LIFG has been working with Al Qaeda, including the mention of LIFG member Abu Yahya, who is noted as second only to Ayman al-Zawahiri within Al Qaeda - al-Zawahiri at the time was Al Qaeda's #2 under "Osama Bin Laden."