Tuesday, March 13, 2012

467 Sabrosky interview on 9/11 & Israel. US troops in Tripoli; NATO warns Radical Islam could take over

Sabrosky interview on 9/11 & Israel. US troops in Tripoli; NATO warns
Radical Islam could take over

(1) 9/11 And Israel: Alan Sabrosky's Shocking Press Tv Interview
(2) Jewish Hollywood's Fatal Embrace (BroN On Video!)
(3) US Troops in Tripoli to ‘Secure Embassy’
(4) Libya could fall into hands of extremists, Nato warns
(5) Libya: The War for Radical Islam, and a Defeat for the United States
(6) Israel to use German unmanned aerial vehicles as missile-armed gunships

(1) 9/11 And Israel: Alan Sabrosky's Shocking Press Tv Interview

Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> 14 September 2011 20:22


A 24:12min video at:

Well worth watching.

(2) Jewish Hollywood's Fatal Embrace (BroN On Video!)

Brother Nathanael <bronathanael@yahoo.com> 14 September 2011 14:39

Jewish Hollywood's Fatal Embrace
Brother Nathanael On Video! @

(3) US Troops in Tripoli to ‘Secure Embassy’


US Troops in Libya to ‘Secure Embassy’

Stretched 'no boots on ground' pledge now broken?

by Jeremy Sapienza, September 12, 2011

Before American involvement in NATO’s attack on the Gadhafi regime
began, the administration insisted there would be “no US boots on the
ground” in Libya. That promise has been stretched under the presence of
CIA agents, but today the first publicly admitted uniformed American
soldiers are now in fact on the ground, boots and all.

Fox News reports four unidentified troops are in Tripoli to secure the
US Embassy, which may be booby-trapped, officials say. They are working
under the aegis of the State Dept., and are not part of any military
operation, said Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby. But they are armed.

It’s “no big deal,” former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton told Fox.
“You need this kind of expertise to make it safe for diplomats to
return.” In March, Bolton, a well-known neocon cheerleader for Bush’s
wars, thought that the president hadn’t attacked Libya fast or hard
enough, saying he’d unilaterally strike without anyone’s approval.

Shortly after the NATO attack began it was reported CIA agents had been
in that country for weeks; the agency has had a role throughout the war.
It’s not clear how long the latest troops will remain. For their part,
top rebels have rejected any kind of foreign military deployment in the

The Obama administration appears determined to redefine many aspects of
war as non-war. Heavily-armed soldiers in Iraq — who actively bomb and
shoot targets — are reclassified as “advise and assist” forces, the war
declared “over.” The war in Libya, Obama argued, was not a war at all
because of the US’ “limited” activities there. The president now seems
to be playing games with the definition of “troops” itself.

(4) Libya could fall into hands of extremists, Nato warns


Libya could fall into hands of extremists, Nato warns

The warning came in an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph as
Muammar Gaddafi's loyalist forces stepped up a fightback on three fronts.

By Thomas Harding, Ruth Sherlock in Bani Walid and Richard Spencer in

10:01PM BST 12 Sep 2011

Libya is in danger of falling into the hands of Islamic extremists if a
stable government is not rapidly established, Nato’s secretary-general
warned last night.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said
Islamic extremists would “try to exploit” any weaknesses created as the
country tried to rebuild after four decades of Col Muammar Gaddafi’s rule.

Mr Rasmussen was speaking amid growing evidence of splits in the rebel
leadership in Tripoli. His words will cast a damper over the euphoria
sweeping Tripoli in the wake of the revolution.

His warning came as the head of the National Transitional Council,
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, told cheering crowds in Tripoli that Islamic
shariah law would be the “main source” of legislation in the new Libya.

Mr Jalil, who only arrived in his new capital on Saturday, made his
first public speech in Martyrs’ Square - once Col Gaddafi’s “Green
Square” - last night.

“We are a Muslim people, for a moderate Islam, and we will stay on this
road,” he said. His formulation suggested that Libya would follow
neighbours such as Egypt in allowing room for secular freedoms.

But there are already signs that the rebel leadership is split over a
variety of issues including the future role of the Islamist militias
which played a significant part in the revolution.

Mahmoud Jibril, the interim Libyan prime minister, also arrived in
Tripoli at the end of last week after complaints that he had been too
busy travelling the world to lead his own revolution. On Sunday night he
was forced to announce that his first government reshuffle would take
place in seven to ten days.

Asked if Nato was worried that a delay in setting up a fully fledged new
government increased the risk of extremists taking control, Mr Rasmussen
said: “We cannot exclude the possibility that extremists will try to
exploit a situation and take advantage of a power vacuum.”

The rebel leadership faces threats on many fronts, including from Col
Gaddafi himself.

Last night, he issued a new message through a Syrian-based television
station, accusing the rebels of surrendering Libya to foreign influence
and pledging to press ahead with resistance.

“We will not hand Libya to colonialism, once again, as the traitors
want,” said the statement read on Syria’s Al-Rai TV.

Gaddafi was originally due to be televised, but the station said his
appearance was postponed due to “security reasons”.

Despite the flight of many of his lieutenants and all but two of his
children, he still controls part of the south of the country, and his
forces managed a raid on an oil refinery complex behind rebel lines that
killed 15 people.

Witnesses said a convoy drove out of the desert at 9am and attacked the
Ras Lanuf refinery west of Benghazi, on the road towards the Gaddafi
stronghold of Sirte which is still resisting rebel control.

Mr Rasmussen admitted things could “move very fast” if Gaddafi was
removed. “I think that he still inspires resistance in some pockets of
Gaddafi loyalists.

“I do believe we are in the very final phase of our operation. But
there’s still a threat to the civilian population and as long as that
exists we will continue our operation.”

On Monday night Mr Jalil called on Libyans build a state based on the
rule of law.

"No retribution, no taking matters into your own hands and no
oppression. I hope that the revolution will not stumble because of any
of these things," he said.

Nato staged a series of bombing raids at the weekend on both Sirte and
Bani Walid, which has been under rebel siege for a fortnight.

Bani Walid was on the brink of being taken by the rebels on Sunday
night. But amid a breakdown of communications and tactics between the
two brigades of rebel fighters leading the attack, Gaddafi forces
launched a counter-offensive and won back most of the town.

The Tripoli Brigade, which had led the attack, went further than they
had been ordered, and they complained that the Bani Walid brigade of
local fighters refused to back them up.

The bitter rivalry between the different rebel brigades, mostly
structured along city or regional lines, also reflects the widening
divisions across not just the military but political leadership of the
new Libya.

Mr Jibril is also attempting to enforce his authority over powerful
military commanders such as Abdulhakim Belhadj, the former Islamist
opposition leader who is now head of the Tripoli Military Council.

Mr Jibril, a former head of planning and the economy under Gaddafi, is
distrusted by many long-term regime opponents such as Mr Belhadj, who
spent years in a Libyan prison after being extradited with the help of
MI6 and the CIA.

Last night the US State Department confirmed that Gaddafi’s son Saddi
had fled to Niger on Sunday. Niger said it was keeping him under
surveillance and has not detained him.

(5) Libya: The War for Radical Islam, and a Defeat for the United States

by Guy Millière

September 12, 2011 at 4:45 am

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2412/libya-radical-islam Send

This is the first time in history that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim
Brotherhood welcome what is supposed to be a « victory » for Western forces.

It is the presence of members of Islamic-terrorist movements among
Libyan « rebels » --as well as the many atrocities committed by « rebel
» forces against black Africans -- that the mainstream media are now
largely ignoring.

Winning the war took five months – not exactly a demonstration of
strength and may instead appear as a demonstration of weakness: if the
U.S. military combined with the French and British armies needed five
months to defeat a Third World dictator who had agreed to disarm, how
can they possibly dissuade better equipped dictators?

Winning the peace looks like an impossible task, especially as nobody is
in charge of this mission. The commander of the Tripoli Military
Council, Adbelhakim Belhadj, is the former head of the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group, an al-Qaeda affiliate. The commander of the Benghazi
Military Council, Ismail Al Salabi, is a former high level member of the
same group.

Article 1 of the Draft Constitutional Charter for the Transitional Stage
says : « Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of
legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia). »

Those who have guns in Libya today are people who have a jihadist past,
and who, until recently, maintained close links with people against whom
the U.S. military is now battling in Afghanistan.

Some members of the provisional government, the National Transitional
Council (NTC), also belong to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. The
President of the NTC, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, was Minister of Justice under
Gaddafi until the war began. He was President of the Tripoli appeals
court when the Bulgarian nurses were sentenced to death, and he twice
upheld the death sentences. He was a zealous servant of the regime until
the last minute. When he was dispatched by Gaddafi to negotiate with the
« rebels » at the beginning of war, he defected.

At best, Libya will become a country where an appearance of democracy
will cover the reality of an authoritarian Islamic regime.

At worst, the country will slide into a prolonged civil war, and become
a rear base for radical Islam.

When the war to topple Saddam Hussein began in 2003, and many in France
were organizing protests, and chanting « no war for oil, » French
political leaders, almost unanimously, began denouncing a « unilateral
action » undertaken without the approval of the UN. Jacques Chirac and
Dominique de Villepin gave moral lessons and proclaimed that « no one
can use force to install democracy » -- as if the only systems that can
be installed by force are dictatorships.

At the time, France was a member of the so-called « peace camp, » along
with Germany and Russia ;and France had a good reason to support « peace
»: French oil companies and the French government had signed lucrative
contracts that, with the overthrow of Saddam, went up in smoke.

A few months later, although weapons of mass destruction could not be
found, « weapons of mass corruption » were ; and led to well-stocked
bank accounts, many of them French.

In mainstream European and American media, links between Saddam Hussein
and various Islamic terrorists movements were largely ignored, and
atrocities committed under Saddam Hussein were, too. When jihadi [holy
war] terrorists started to hit U.S. troops and the population, they were
described merely as « insurgents. »

Even though many mistakes were committed, at the end of 2008, Iraq was a
stable country : elections were held despite massive death threats to
voters; a free press existed, and newspapers proliferated. Winning the
war had taken three weeks. Winning the peace required five years, during
which many American soldiers and many innocent Iraqis died and were
added to the two million victims of the former regime who were found in
mass graves.


In 2011, a war was fought to overthrow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya,
and it is not over yet. No one has mobilized : officially, it was, and
still is, not a war but a « humanitarian operation » to « protect
civilians. » Nevertheless, it was, and still is, a war ; and the
protection of civilians was apparently a mere pretext. Nothing was done
to protect civilians from the « rebels » or from Gaddafi's forces. The
new Libyan authorities, who have no incentive to boost the numbers, talk
now of at least 50,000 dead.

If the war in Iraq was not a war for oil -- and is it necessary to
recall that U.S. oil companies have not been very well treated by the
new Iraqi authorities ? -- this time, in Libya, it is really a war for
oil: as revealed by a document recently released by the French daily,
Liberation, it is very specifically a war for French oil contracts.

No one has yet denounced « unilateral action. » Although the operations
were supposed to be carried out on behalf of a motion from the United
Nations Security Council, they have exceeded by far the text of that
motion, and have reduced it to a scrap of paper.

Further, this time there have been no organized demonstrations by people
with progressive leanings against the war in Libya, probably because the
war in Libya is a war in which Western powers helped people who are
basically similar to those whom they consider enemies of the West.

French leaders have denounced nothing because this time they were the
prime instigators. They cannot even complain : even though most of the
operations were conducted by the U.S. military, the U.S. government let
France step forward and present the « victory » over Gaddafi as a «
French victory. » What was denounced by French leaders as immoral in
Iraq suddenly became moral to them : the goal in Libya was to install «
democracy », and force had to be used.

France has good reasons for changing its moral standards and for being
in the « war camp » this time, but these reasons are not the result of a
change in policy: Sarkozy is not a « pro-American » President ; he
follows the old cynical rules of the « Arab policy of France » in the
new context resulting from the Arab revolts. The French Government has
agreements with the new power in Tripoli, and hopes they will pay off.

No one knows yet whether there are networks of corruption, but extremely
dangerous weapons, such as heat-seeking missiles, have left the arsenals
of the former Libyan regime and may have ended up in the hands of groups
linked to al-Qaeda in the Sinai, in Gaza, and in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Whatever his crimes were (and he committed horrible crimes), Muammar
Gaddafi no longer had links with terrorist groups: he had agreements
with American and European intelligence services, and, since 2003, when
he agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction programs, cooperated
with them in the fight against al Qaeda and international terrorism.

The fact that the war was won without ground troops, except special
forces, means that the « victors » will have no way to stop factional
fighting if it occurs ; and in a country as divided as Libya, the
outbreak of factional fighting is highly probable.

With respect to France, if the war in Libya was a war for oil, it could
also prove to have been a war for radical Islam.

August 21, Hamas praised the Libyan « rebels' » victory. August 23,
Hezbollah released an official statement hailing the « great victory for
the Libyan people. » The Muslim Brotherhood sent its congratulations one
day later, August 24.

Today, not only is Libya very far from being a stable country, but if it
stabilizes quickly, it will be a miracle.

In a recent article about Libya, the military historian Victor Davis
Hanson wrote that the only thing worse than starting a stupid war is
losing it. The war in Libya was an extremely stupid war, launched
against the will of the U.S. military and Defense Department. It ends
with a « victory » that could easily become a defeat for the West and
for the United States.

(6) Israel to use German unmanned aerial vehicles as missile-armed gunships


Israel seeks to boost UAV strike power
Published: Sept. 12, 2011 at 1:24 PM

TEL AVIV, Israel, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- The Israeli air force is expanding
its wing of unmanned aerial vehicles built by Israel Aerospace
Industries and Elbit Systems, some to be used as missile-armed gunships.

Meantime, The Jerusalem Post reports that state-run IAI, Israel's
leading defense contractor, is working with Rheinmetall Defense of
Germany to develop a new weapons system for aerial drones to cope with
proliferating threats facing the Jewish state.

The air force plans to form a new squadron of medium-altitude,
long-endurance UAVs consisting of Elbit's Hermes 900 and IAI's Heron 1
to enhance its drone capabilities.

The Israeli air force bought three Hermes 900s for evaluation in May
2010 and is waiting for final approval from the General Staff of the
Israeli armed forces to purchase new platforms under a five-year
procurement plan currently being finalized.

The 900 is based on the smaller Hermes 450, which has been in service
for several years. It has been widely used to carry out assassination
missions against Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
using missiles.

The 900 variant can carry double the equipment payload of the 450. These
include electro-optic cameras, laser designators, radar systems,
electronic intelligence and electronic warfare suites.

The Israeli military's moves to reinforce its UAV capabilities comes
amid new security threats in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula following deadly
clashes in early August in which Palestinian extremists killed eight

A senior military official disclosed Friday that the air force has
deployed a special UAV unit along Israel's porous 150-mile border with
Sinai north of the Gaza Strip.

Israel has had to bolster its forces on that frontier, which has been
dormant since the country's March 1979 peace treaty with Egypt.

Al-Qaida operatives have infiltrated into Sinai amid the unrest that
followed the downfall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Feb. 11. They
have apparently recruited disgruntled Bedouin tribesmen. More attacks
are expected.

The Israelis are also preparing for possible conflict with Iran, Syria,
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, as well as unrest
linked to the Palestinians' plans to declare statehood later this month.

All these fronts will require UAVs for surveillance, reconnaissance and
combat missions.

The IAI-Rheinmetall joint venture to develop a loitering weapons system
for UAVs would appear to fit into this conflict scenario.

The Post reported that the system is known as WABEP, the German acronym
for "weapons system for standoff engagement of individual and point

The newspaper's military correspondent, Yaakov Katz, said WABEP "is a
combination of Rheinmetall's KZO drone and IAI's Harop attack drone." It
is understood the Harop is already in service with Turkey and India.

The propeller-driven Harop, based on the earlier Harp craft, was
designed to suppress radar systems linked to surface-to- air missile
systems or similar high-value targets.

It "can fly to a designated loitering position where it searches for
electromagnetic signals from surface-to-air missile batteries and then
dives in to destroy them," Katz reported.

Such high-risk missions have in the past largely been carried out by
manned "Wild Weasel" F-4 or F-16 aircraft.

"Loitering weapons systems is considered a highly classified topic in
Israel, which is believed to have developed a number of systems over the
years capable of loitering over battlefields and engaging static and
mobile targets," Katz wrote.

"Such systems are believed to be critical ahead of a future conflict
with an enemy like Hezbollah, which has deployed tens of thousands of
missiles and launchers throughout Lebanon."

Harop was unveiled by IAI at the Paris Air Show in July 2009.

Jane's Missiles and Rockets monthly reported that it has an undernose
turret with optical systems that include a thermal imager and color CCD

"The vehicle can attack from any direction and from any angle between
the horizontal and the vertical," JMR noted. "It is armed with a
high-explosive fragmentation warhead."

No comments:

Post a Comment