The hypocrisy is staggering, even by Obama’s standards
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, 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 d v e r t i s e m e n t
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.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
The Reopen America Back to School Special is now live! Save up to 60% on our most popular items!