The hypocrisy is staggering, even by Obama’s standards
From: Infowars
Paul Joseph Watson
September 30, 2011
September 30, 2011
President Barack Obama has triumphantly hailed the death
of Anwar al-Awlaki as a crushing blow to Al-Qaeda’s hopes of acquiring a
safe haven, even as the US-backed NATO bombardment of Libya provides
terrorists with a safe haven in North Africa. Responding to the news that Al-Awlaki, who received an
upgrade in his role after death to “chief of external operations” for al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, had been killed, Obama labeled it
“another significant milestone” in the war on terror, adding, “This is
further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will have no safe haven
anywhere in the world.”
Aside from the fact that Al-Awlaki was a confirmed double agent, having dined at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11
despite being declared the spiritual leader of the hijackers, and going
on to become chief patsy handler for intelligence agency entrapment
operations, the hypocrisy here is staggering even by Obama’s standards. If Obama was so concerned about not providing safe
havens to terrorists, then why has he just helped hand an entire country
over to them in Libya?
As we have previously highlighted, shortly after the
start of the conflict in March, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the
anti-Gaddafi rebel army, admitted that the rebel ranks include Al-Qaeda terrorists who have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. These terrorists are part of the Libyan Islamic Fighting
Group (LIFG), led by Abd Al-Hakim Belhadj, designated as a terrorist
organization by the US State Department, yet now being hailed by the establishment media as liberators even as they round up, imprison, and slaughter innocent black people en masse.
A 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report
noted how the LIFG provided more fighters per capita to combat US
troops in Iraq than any other nation, or in other words was primarily
responsible for killing American soldiers. Leaders of the LIFG have now seized key strongholds in Tripoli and other areas, refusing to hand over control to the western-backed National Transitional Council.
Going back on Obama’s promise that no U.S. ground forces
would be sent to Libya, the administration has justified its decision
to send troops into the country by citing the missing shoulder-launched
missile weapons that were looted by NATO-backed rebel forces. White House spokesman Jay Carney announced earlier this week
that the United States is preparing to deploy additional forces on the
ground in Libya to “secure conventional arms storage sites” as well as
to try to track down missing surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
On March 18, Obama vowed
that “The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into
Libya.” Aside from the fact that western special forces were on the
ground advising the rebel fighters from the very beginning and were later involved in the siege on Tripoli, earlier this month it was officially announced that U.S. service members would be dispatched to rebuild the U.S. Embassy. The Obama administration’s support for the NATO
intervention has provided the US government with the very pretext
necessary to now go in and occupy the country in the name of protecting
against terrorists gaining a safe haven, the very terrorists armed,
trained and funded by the US and NATO in the first place.
