Islamic State bombers kill dozens in Libyan suicide attacks

[Lite Beer]

Islamic State bombers kill dozens in Libyan suicide attacks
ESAM MOHAMED, Associated Press
MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Islamic State militants unleashed suicide bombings Friday in eastern Libya, killing at least 40 people in what the group said was retaliation for Egyptian airstrikes against the extremists' aggressive new branch in North Africa.

The bombings in the town of Qubba, which is controlled by Libya's internationally recognized government, solidified concerns the extremist group has spread beyond the battlefields of Iraq and Syria and established a foothold less than 500 miles from the southern tip of Italy.

The militants have taken over at least two Libyan coastal cities on the Mediterranean — Sirte and Darna, which is about 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Qubba. They released a video Sunday that showed the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians who were abducted in Sirte, and Egypt responded Monday with airstrikes on Darna.

The Islamic State group has established its presence in Libya by exploiting the country's breakdown since dictator Moammar Gadhafi was ousted and killed in 2011. Hundreds of militias have taken power since then, and some of them have militant ideologies. A militia coalition known as Libya Dawn has taken over Tripoli, where Islamists set up their own parliament and government. Islamic extremist militias controlled the second-largest city of Benghazi until late last year, when army troops began battling them for control.

The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for Friday's suicide bombings in Qubba, but said there were only two attacks, while the government said there were three.

Army spokesman Mohammed Hegazi said one attacker rammed an explosives-packed ambulance into a gas station where motorists were lined up.

"Imagine a car packed with a large amount of explosives striking a gas station; the explosion was huge and many of the injured are in very bad shape while the victims' bodies were torn into pieces," Hegazi said.

Two other bombers detonated vehicles next to the house of the parliament speaker and the nearby security headquarters, he said.

Government spokesman Mohammed Bazaza put the death toll at 40, with at least 70 injured, some seriously. The number of dead was expected to rise. Two security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity becase they were not authorized to talk to the media said at least 45 were killed.

Among the dead were six Egyptians working at a cafe next to the gas station.

Video broadcast from the scene showed dozens of cars wrecked and ablaze, with pools of blood on the asphalt, along with body parts, shoes and shattered glass. Bodies covered in sheets were lined up nearby. The government and parliament announced a week of mourning.

"This terrorist, cowardly and desperate attack only increases our determination to uproot terrorism in Libya and in the region," Bazaza said, adding that Libyan air force jets conducted several airstrikes, without specifying where.

Witnesses in the city of Sirte said it was hit by multiple Libyan airstrikes Friday, targeting a convention center that is used as a headquarters by the Islamic State group.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Washington condemned the attacks in Qubba.

In addition to launching airstrikes on Darna earlier this week, Egypt joined Libya's elected government in pressing for a U.N. Security Council resolution to lift a U.N. arms embargo on Libya and pave the way for international intervention — similar to the U.S.-led campaign in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State group.

But Security Council members U.S. and Britain rejected the call, saying Thursday that Libya needs a national unity government first.

Bazaza repeated an appeal for lifting the arms embargo.

Libya is split between two rival parliaments and governments. The elected and internationally recognized parliament has been forced to relocate to the eastern city of Tobruk near the Egyptian border because Tripoli has been overrun by the Islamic and tribal militias. Meanwhile, an older pre-election parliament, supported by the militias, has remained in Tripoli and declared itself legitimate.

As violence has escalated dramatically across the country since summer, hundreds of thousands of Libyans have been displaced and entire cities and towns have been left in ruins. Islamic militias, including extremists from the Islamic State, are battling government forces for control of Benghazi in eastern Libya.

The Tripoli-based government, which is partially supported by Islamist factions and militias from the western city of Misrata, continued to deny the presence of an Islamic State affiliate in Libya. In a speech Thursday, Omar al-Hassi, the chosen prime minister of the Tripoli government, blamed the recent violence on Gadhafi loyalists and said the beheading video was "fabricated."

However al-Hassi also urged Egyptians to leave the country, saying that authorities can't ensure their safety.

___

Michael reported from Cairo.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-21

[krisb]

Vile pigs.

[bangkokheat]

its a disease thats spreading, kill it off now if its at all possible

[boomerangutang]

We grew up to think lemmings were weird for jumping off cliffs. Then we heard about Kamikaze pilots at the end of WWII. The current craziness is a bit more like Kamikaze: they know they're all losers, so they want to go out in a ball of fire and take as many others with them. They'd prefer the 'others' be westerners (who they're insanely jealous about), but lacking enough westerners to kill, they'll settle for any folks nearby. Women, children, innocent, ...doesn't much matter, as long as they can get maximum 'wow factor.'

Ironically, if all the baddies were offered free Green Cards to become American citizens, they'd drop their AK's and bomb belts in a Tripoli minute, and charge to get the cards with giant grins.

[Kerryd]

Wow, Libya didn't need to have a "national unity government" the last time the West decided to bomb it into the dark ages. All they had that time was a stable, secular and, by some reckoning, progressive government (though somewhat oppressive and not very democratic) and a self-appointed, unelected group of untrained, poorly educated rebels (that the West decided should be recognized as the "legitimate" government).

I was not the least bit surprised to find out that the "rebels" didn't in fact represent the majority of the country (though they wanted to rule it). I was not surprised to see them split into various factions fighting for power (that was after all what they all wanted, power, for themselves). The only thing that really surprised me was the incredibly biased reporting of the whole campaign (where it seems the only atrocities committed were by Qaddafi's troops and the "rebels" were all pristine and proper, which was a load of absolute horseshit).

Those same rebels are the ones causing all the problems ever since Qaddafi was overthrown. This article is just the most recent in a long string of violence and barbarism that has gone on there over the last few years. Typical of their way of thinking (which should be telling in itself) is how they retaliate against the bombings, that were done in retaliation for the murders they committed, by bombing and murdering more innocent people.

<3 page rant deleted - ugh - the longer I went the more I could come up with. Went from a 2 paragraph comment to a 3 page essay that was threatening to become a doctoral thesis on the current state of affairs in the Middle East (and North Africa) ! >

[marko kok prong]

The dire situation in Libya is a direct result of Obama/Cameron and Sarkozy's adventuring,strange that we have hardly heard a word from them about this fiasco since.

[Thaiready]

Bomb the Islamic Rats into extinction.

[nahkit]

The dire situation in Libya is a direct result of Obama/Cameron and Sarkozy's adventuring,strange that we have hardly heard a word from them about this fiasco since.

No, its the direct result of the Libyan people splitting into tribal factions and turning on each other instead of taking the opportunity to build a new country.

[Jingthing]

Vile pigs.

That's too nice for them.

Pigs are innocent.

[JingerBen]

Wow, Libya didn't need to have a "national unity government" the last time the West decided to bomb it into the dark ages. All they had that time was a stable, secular and, by some reckoning, progressive government (though somewhat oppressive and not very democratic) and a self-appointed, unelected group of untrained, poorly educated rebels (that the West decided should be recognized as the "legitimate" government).

I was not the least bit surprised to find out that the "rebels" didn't in fact represent the majority of the country (though they wanted to rule it). I was not surprised to see them split into various factions fighting for power (that was after all what they all wanted, power, for themselves). The only thing that really surprised me was the incredibly biased reporting of the whole campaign (where it seems the only atrocities committed were by Qaddafi's troops and the "rebels" were all pristine and proper, which was a load of absolute horseshit).

Those same rebels are the ones causing all the problems ever since Qaddafi was overthrown. This article is just the most recent in a long string of violence and barbarism that has gone on there over the last few years. Typical of their way of thinking (which should be telling in itself) is how they retaliate against the bombings, that were done in retaliation for the murders they committed, by bombing and murdering more innocent people.

<3 page rant deleted - ugh - the longer I went the more I could come up with. Went from a 2 paragraph comment to a 3 page essay that was threatening to become a doctoral thesis on the current state of affairs in the Middle East (and North Africa) ! >

Excellent post.

What makes so many people think that American military force has even the slightest chance of improving things in the Middle East?

It has been nothing but multiple disasters since 9/11.

What reason is there to believe that ever more bombing and destruction will work out any better than it has before?

[cookee68]

And Italy want to be careful, that many of the boat people they are bringing into there country, are not ISIS people pretending to be refugees, then spreading through Italy

[Seastallion]

The dire situation in Libya is a direct result of Obama/Cameron and Sarkozy's adventuring,strange that we have hardly heard a word from them about this fiasco since.

It was NATO, if I remember correctly, that was the foreign force assisting the rebels, and Obama was quite reticent in involving the US.

[JockPieandBeans]

Vile pigs.

That's too nice for them.

Pigs are innocent.

I agree JT.

I love pigs.

Bacon rolls.

Roast Pork.

Honey glaze hams, the list is endless.

As an aside and to keep it ( relatively ) on topic. The IA had no compulsions whatsoever about ramming pork down their starving throats in 91.

[boomerangutang]

The dire situation in Libya is a direct result of Obama/Cameron and Sarkozy's adventuring,strange that we have hardly heard a word from them about this fiasco since.

There's always a few who try to pin such troubles on western leaders. The reality is: The Muslim countries have traditionally had either bad or terrible leaders. Western leaders could do nothing as, for example, China does, and simply hope that leaders like Gadafi, S.Hussein, Assad, or Taliban don't go from very bad to terrible. More often than not, western leaders do get involved, and it's a thankless job. 'Dammed if you do, and damned if you don't'.

Western leaders could do what China does: focus only on natural resources, and not care about human rights abuses. If humans were advanced in their mental development, they would be concerned about environment. However that's a moot issue, since natural environments (plants, animals, habitat) in those regions were destroyed several thousands of years ago, so the focus becomes people-issues and oil.

[nahkit]

Wow, Libya didn't need to have a "national unity government" the last time the West decided to bomb it into the dark ages. All they had that time was a stable, secular and, by some reckoning, progressive government (though somewhat oppressive and not very democratic) and a self-appointed, unelected group of untrained, poorly educated rebels (that the West decided should be recognized as the "legitimate" government).

I was not the least bit surprised to find out that the "rebels" didn't in fact represent the majority of the country (though they wanted to rule it). I was not surprised to see them split into various factions fighting for power (that was after all what they all wanted, power, for themselves). The only thing that really surprised me was the incredibly biased reporting of the whole campaign (where it seems the only atrocities committed were by Qaddafi's troops and the "rebels" were all pristine and proper, which was a load of absolute horseshit).

Those same rebels are the ones causing all the problems ever since Qaddafi was overthrown. This article is just the most recent in a long string of violence and barbarism that has gone on there over the last few years. Typical of their way of thinking (which should be telling in itself) is how they retaliate against the bombings, that were done in retaliation for the murders they committed, by bombing and murdering more innocent people.

<3 page rant deleted - ugh - the longer I went the more I could come up with. Went from a 2 paragraph comment to a 3 page essay that was threatening to become a doctoral thesis on the current state of affairs in the Middle East (and North Africa) ! >

"Wow, Libya didn't need to have a "national unity government" the last time the West decided to bomb it into the dark ages"

Where do you get the idea from that the West bombed Libya into the dark ages? Have you actually been there?

When I returned to Libya after the 2011 war life there was pretty much as it had been prior to 2011, there was electricity, roads, schools, hospitals, shops, the airport operated normally and people went about their life pretty much as before. The only real difference was people didn't go out much after dark due to frequent robberies and car-jackings.

Soon after I returned, I was having a conversation with two Libyan ladies in our department, I asked them how they felt about the Nato bombing (I had actually wondered if there would be some resentment on their part). Their response was completely the opposite and one of them said that she welcomed it because each time she heard a bomb explode she felt it took Libya one step closer to removing Gadhafi.

Edited February 22, 2015 by nahkit

[Morch]

The dire situation in Libya is a direct result of Obama/Cameron and Sarkozy's adventuring,strange that we have hardly heard a word from them about this fiasco since.

There's always a few who try to pin such troubles on western leaders. The reality is: The Muslim countries have traditionally had either bad or terrible leaders. Western leaders could do nothing as, for example, China does, and simply hope that leaders like Gadafi, S.Hussein, Assad, or Taliban don't go from very bad to terrible. More often than not, western leaders do get involved, and it's a thankless job. 'Dammed if you do, and damned if you don't'.

Western leaders could do what China does: focus only on natural resources, and not care about human rights abuses. If humans were advanced in their mental development, they would be concerned about environment. However that's a moot issue, since natural environments (plants, animals, habitat) in those regions were destroyed several thousands of years ago, so the focus becomes people-issues and oil.

Many modern Muslim countries were created by the West. That is not to say that if they were left to their own devices the result would have been a host of enlightened nations, but surely some of the issues concerning current difficulties could be traced back to times where lines were drawn on maps.

[boomerangutang]

The dire situation in Libya is a direct result of Obama/Cameron and Sarkozy's adventuring,strange that we have hardly heard a word from them about this fiasco since.

There's always a few who try to pin such troubles on western leaders. The reality is: The Muslim countries have traditionally had either bad or terrible leaders. Western leaders could do nothing as, for example, China does, and simply hope that leaders like Gadafi, S.Hussein, Assad, or Taliban don't go from very bad to terrible. More often than not, western leaders do get involved, and it's a thankless job. 'Dammed if you do, and damned if you don't'.

Western leaders could do what China does: focus only on natural resources, and not care about human rights abuses. If humans were advanced in their mental development, they would be concerned about environment. However that's a moot issue, since natural environments (plants, animals, habitat) in those regions were destroyed several thousands of years ago, so the focus becomes people-issues and oil.

Many modern Muslim countries were created by the West. That is not to say that if they were left to their own devices the result would have been a host of enlightened nations, but surely some of the issues concerning current difficulties could be traced back to times where lines were drawn on maps.

Possibly yes, particularly when boundary lines are drawn, which cut across ethnic or language enclaves. However, that's been a basic tenet of the history of mankind nearly everywhere. Even the English island has had boundaries cut through it, giving Wales and Scotland - sometimes allies, sometimes adversaries. But people have to go on and try to make things as good as reasonably possible. They don't go and blame the Vikings or the Normans ad infinitum. They go on.

Unfortunately, there is little or no progression in the Middle Eastern countries. When they're not busy blaming westerners on their problems, they're busy fighting each other. Granted, Europeans have also fought internecine battles, but then, when the smoke clears, they go about being neighbors. In contrast, Middle eastern countries have continuing flare-ups, and hold deep grunges for scores of generations.

[Scott]

Had the region been left to it's own without colonization and empires, I don't know if the concept of nation-states would have developed. There are a lot of warring tribal factions and the lines of control between them may have been shifting like the desert sands. On the other hand it might have ended up under the control of a couple of large empires (Iran being one, I would think).

It is a most unpredictable region and any attempt to apply logic seems to fail.

[Morch]

The dire situation in Libya is a direct result of Obama/Cameron and Sarkozy's adventuring,strange that we have hardly heard a word from them about this fiasco since.

There's always a few who try to pin such troubles on western leaders. The reality is: The Muslim countries have traditionally had either bad or terrible leaders. Western leaders could do nothing as, for example, China does, and simply hope that leaders like Gadafi, S.Hussein, Assad, or Taliban don't go from very bad to terrible. More often than not, western leaders do get involved, and it's a thankless job. 'Dammed if you do, and damned if you don't'.

Western leaders could do what China does: focus only on natural resources, and not care about human rights abuses. If humans were advanced in their mental development, they would be concerned about environment. However that's a moot issue, since natural environments (plants, animals, habitat) in those regions were destroyed several thousands of years ago, so the focus becomes people-issues and oil.

Many modern Muslim countries were created by the West. That is not to say that if they were left to their own devices the result would have been a host of enlightened nations, but surely some of the issues concerning current difficulties could be traced back to times where lines were drawn on maps.

Possibly yes, particularly when boundary lines are drawn, which cut across ethnic or language enclaves. However, that's been a basic tenet of the history of mankind nearly everywhere. Even the English island has had boundaries cut through it, giving Wales and Scotland - sometimes allies, sometimes adversaries. But people have to go on and try to make things as good as reasonably possible. They don't go and blame the Vikings or the Normans ad infinitum. They go on.

Unfortunately, there is little or no progression in the Middle Eastern countries. When they're not busy blaming westerners on their problems, they're busy fighting each other. Granted, Europeans have also fought internecine battles, but then, when the smoke clears, they go about being neighbors. In contrast, Middle eastern countries have continuing flare-ups, and hold deep grunges for scores of generations.

The lines in question were drawn not that long ago, really (as far as history goes), so certain grievances still being an issue is to be expected. Wouldn't Scotland and Wales be (generally speaking) the anti-thesis of the above, with reference to cultural, ethnic and linguistic divisions more or less matching lines on the map?

The little progression (not even sure how is this defined) evident in Middle Eastern countries could be attributed to the concept of nationalism not necessarily being an integral component of of regional thinking (as described in Scott's post).

[boomerangutang]

Possibly yes, particularly when boundary lines are drawn, which cut across ethnic or language enclaves. However, that's been a basic tenet of the history of mankind nearly everywhere. Even the English island has had boundaries cut through it, giving Wales and Scotland - sometimes allies, sometimes adversaries. But people have to go on and try to make things as good as reasonably possible. They don't go and blame the Vikings or the Normans ad infinitum. They go on.

Unfortunately, there is little or no progression in the Middle Eastern countries. When they're not busy blaming westerners on their problems, they're busy fighting each other. Granted, Europeans have also fought internecine battles, but then, when the smoke clears, they go about being neighbors. In contrast, Middle eastern countries have continuing flare-ups, and hold deep grunges for scores of generations.

The lines in question were drawn not that long ago, really (as far as history goes), so certain grievances still being an issue is to be expected. Wouldn't Scotland and Wales be (generally speaking) the anti-thesis of the above, with reference to cultural, ethnic and linguistic divisions more or less matching lines on the map?

The little progression (not even sure how is this defined) evident in Middle Eastern countries could be attributed to the concept of nationalism not necessarily being an integral component of of regional thinking (as described in Scott's post).

If you spoke with groups of Scotsmen and Welshmen, they may not all agree on the historic boundary details, but it's doubtful they would compel 14 year old girls to strap on bomb belts to detonate in crowded markets. Similarly, they wouldn't be ceaselessly bellyaching about who drew the lines. Nearly every country in the world has had issues with boundary lines being contested, but sometimes the issues become overwhelming, and much harm ensues. Other examples of countries with ill-defined boundaries: China, Russia.

Most people go on with their lives, despite the efforts of terrorists or hyper-nationalistic politicians to create problems.

[JockPieandBeans]

And now they have abducted 90 Christians in NE Syria.

Islamic State (IS) has abducted dozens of Assyrian Christians from villages in north-eastern Syria, activists say.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that at least 90 men, women and children were seized in a series of dawn raids near the town of Tal Tamr.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31601451

I wonder when the mass demonstrations against this latest atrocity will begin ?

[JockPieandBeans]

And in the City of Raaqa

A jihadist group in Syria has demanded that Christians in the northern city of Raqqa pay a levy in gold and accept curbs on their faith, or face death.

The directive from ISIS, citing the Islamic concept of "dhimma", requires Christians in the city to pay tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety.

The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices - they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS' conditions, or reject their control and risk being killed

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26366197

Of course. Its nothing to do with Islam !

[daveAustin]

Vile pigs.

That's too nice for them.

Pigs are innocent.

I agree. It's a virus.