What in the hell are we doing being involved in Libya? This doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t pass the smell or see test. Finally a few people are asking the questions I have been asking since the beginning of the year about the unrest and the open rebellion in the Middle East.
Only Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have raised questions about the fighters in Libya. Are they part of Al Qaeda? Do they have ties to Iran? Is this part of the bigger picture in Iran’s, Al Qaeda, and The Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt, Libya, and Yemen and turn them back into Shariah Law?
This is all part of the Islamic Caliphate?
Now The Heritage Foundation has raised similar questions. Please read the following synopsis from the Heritage Foundation
Yesterday the United Nations Security Council voted 10–0, with five abstentions, to authorize military action in Libya. Specifically, the resolution “authorizes member states … to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” Celebrations erupted across Benghazi after news of the vote reached rebels. A 17-year-old rebel told The Wall Street Journal: “I give Qadhafi a maximum of two days.” If only.
In reality the U.N. resolution is nothing more than a “feel-good” palliative measure that is not likely to decisively affect the fighting on the ground in Libya. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified last week: “Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that’s the way it starts.” But is that what the Obama Administration is planning? Even if the Administration has a plan on Libya, it certainly has not communicated it to the American people. Here are just some of the fundamental questions the Administration has failed to answer as our military stands on the brink of a new and costly commitment:
- So far, the only firm commitments are a naval blockade, AWACS for air traffic control, and signal-jamming aircraft. U.S. officials said that it would probably take several days for a full operation to be undertaken and that President Obama had not yet approved the use of U.S. military assets. Will he? Will the U.S. be using military force against Libya?
- If establishing a no-fly zone in Libya is so vital to U.S. national security, why did the Administration waste a week getting approval from the U.N.?
- Imposing a no-fly zone entails substantial costs for U.S. armed forces and risks diverting scarce U.S. military and intelligence assets. Will the vital missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa suffer?
- Are the rebels free of terrorist elements, and what precautions will we require them to take to ensure that weapons we supply are not sold or diverted to other groups?
- Will we rule out supplying arms (“Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles, for example) that could pose a potent threat to U.S. forces if they end up in the hands of terrorists?
Until these questions are answered, it is impossible to endorse proposals for the use of force based solely on a U.N. resolution. Circumstances could change. The use of military force in Libya could be justified. But what is of great concern here is the fog of confusion the Obama Administration is emitting on Libya. After the U.N. resolution passed, France said that military strikes could come “within hours.” They haven’t. What did come was the heavy bombardment of the rebel held town of Mistrata by loyalist forces. President Obama should be working hard to identify a legitimate opposition to Qaddafi that is not Islamist and can be given U.S. and European support with conditions that protect against the transfer of weapons to terrorists.
Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of Islamic Caliphate- this is taken from Wikipedia. The term caliphate “dominion of a caliph (‘successor,’),” (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Halife ) refers to the first system of government established in Islam, and represented the political unity of the Muslim Ummah (nation). In theory, it is a constitutional republic (see Constitution of Medina), which means that the head of state, the Caliph, and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to an existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens.
It was initially led by Muhammad‘s disciples as a continuation of the political system the prophet established, known as the ‘rashidun caliphates’. It represented the political unity, not the theological unity of Muslims as theology was a personal matter. A “caliphate” is also a state which implements such a governmental system.
Sunni Islam dictates that the head of state, the caliph, should be selected by Shura – elected by Muslims or their representatives. Followers of Shia Islam believe the caliph should be an imam descended in a line from the Ahl al-Bayt. After the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first dynasty was the Umayyad. This was followed by the Abbasid, the Fatimid, and finally the Ottoman Dynasty.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate etablished after the passing of the community’s founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is the re-establishment of the Rashdin Caliphate, as prophesized by Muhammad. The current successor to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is Khalifatul Masih V, Mirza Masroor Ahmad residing in London, England.
This little voice inside of me keeps stating the upheaval in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen are all part of well planned and orchestrated take over of these countries to bring them back into the fold.
If you doubt me read the Bible.
In particular read Ezekiel 38 and 39, Daniel, and Genesis.