The spotting of al-Qaeda’s black flag flying atop the Benghazi courthouse a few days ago sparked much excitement on the Internet regarding the role being played by the Islamic terror organization in post-Qaddafi Libya. As I have pointed out, anti-Qaddafi forces had already been spotted flying the related “Islamic Caliphate” flag during the siege of Sirte: the decisive battle of the anti-Qaddafi rebellion.
But on Saturday — just one day after the publication of Sherif Elhelwa’s much-linked Vice article on the flag at the Benghazi courthouse — the New York Times published a story online accompanied by the below Reuters photo, which clearly shows protestors in Benghazi waving not one, but several al-Qaeda flags (including a novel black-on-white variant).
The accompanying caption, however, simply reads: “In Benghazi on Friday, several hundred men rallied to demand the application of Islamic law, or Shariah, in Libya. That could clear the way for polygamy.” There is no mention of the flag or its provenance.
This is to say, in effect, that one can wave the al-Qaeda flag in the noses of Western journalists in broad daylight in Libya, and they will either not recognize it, or if they do, not deign to inform their readers. The episode could serve as a parable for the virtual entirety of Western reporting on the Libyan war.
— John Rosenthal writes on European politics and transatlantic security issues. You can follow his work at www.trans-int.com or on Facebook.
"This could clear the way for polygamy."
Yes, it's clear that they're planning to set up a Mormon heritic state there *rolls eyes* How about "This could clear the way for stonings, beheadings, death of any non-muslim, and women being treated like objects." (Ok, the last could apply to the Kennedy Compound, but still...)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLiberals in the media and elsewhere create the reality they want and reject what's real, which is why the rest of us so often find ourselves sputtering about their blatant hypocrisy. They don't see what others see because they choose not to. They know it's hypocritcal to support the OWS protesters after criticizing those who supported the Tea Party movement, especially since they claim the two movements are similar, but they don't care. They just ignore the hypocrisy of their actions and words and reach for the advantage they believe is theirs. The liberal reality is that the Libyan revolt is a winner for President Obama, so there can be no suggestion - at least not until there is a political enemy to blame - that removing Qaddafi had consequences the rebels and their supporters didn't plan for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlternatively, maybe this IS the result that the rebels and their supporters planned for, but NOT the one that Obama and his liberal supporters planned for.
It IS the result that many of us conservatives predicted was entirely possible, since we didn't know squat about the rebels and their supporters. You may have been among the skeptical, I just cannot remember all the comments posted during the time we entered this conflict.
I'd be surprised if you were not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is ironic that a large group of men would demonstrate in favor of polygamy (if that is in fact what's happening). It's basically saying "please enact a law that will ensure 80% of us never get to have [prohibited word meaning reproductive type relationship with a member of the opposite gender] *or children!"
Then again, perhaps they're saying "please enact a law that will ensure 80% of us never have to pay alimony or get nagged about whether or not we are really listening."
*Ps. Your anti-spam filter is teh suxxor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh they'll get to have [the word you were looking for] - but not quite as you defined it - the relationship will not be reproductive and won't involve members of the opposite gender. And many of them will nevertheless have children - it's just that they'll be "having" them in a sense of the word other than the one you intended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAl Qaeda in Libya? Let's hope they don't do state sponsored terrorism and blow up planes full of American high school students, or European night clubs that our soldiers are at.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe original "black flag" (the Black Eagle) was Ayesha's blouse - you remember, the child bride?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone needs to get their eyes checked. Thats no AL KAYda flag.. its clearly not a moon under the arabic writing. Get it right or stop pushing nonsense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're thinking of the symbol of Islam. The jihadist flag, one of the flags used by al Qaeda, has a circle and the shahada, which is the writing above the circle, and is an expression of the Muslim faith. There are 5 black ones and 1 white one in this picture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The episode could serve as a parable for the virtual entirety of Western reporting on the Libyan war."
Does it not serve as a backdrop for the entire decline of the West, led by the snobs who are convinced they're smarter than everyone?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe mainstream press always backs the government when it comes to foreign policy. For example, it's been over 45 years now, but the fact that American troops were fighting Chinese troops on the ground during the Vietnam War (PLA troops were attired in NVA uniforms, and fought in all-Chinese PLA regiments; no mixing with NVA regiments) is still covered up. That is the reason North Vietnam never ran out of able-bodied males during the 10-year conflict. If the media can keep the true story of the Vietnam War a secret for 45 years, what else are we, the public, ill-informed about?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse