Who Is Khalifa Hifter?

[Down1]

Interesting article.
And if you read the title as Hitler That's OK I did too.

Who is the American citizen leading one side of the civil war in Libya, and why did he spend 20 years in suburban Virginia, reportedly under the auspices of the CIA?
http://original.antiwar.com/Chris_Ernesto/2016/02/22/who-is-khalifa-hifter/

[Glass]

that story rings a bell with me. I'm wondering if I read stories about this guy, maybe by this guy just as he was heading there. It really sets of the ding ding ding. Will have to ponder it for a bt.

[Neuro]

Very interesting! He was the leader of the Libyan contingent vs Israel in the Yom Kipur war in 1973...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalifa_Haftar

[Neuro]

Nostradamus wrote about Hister, usually interpreted to be Hitler, but the old typeface it looked like Hifter...

http://newprophecy.weebly.com/nostradamus-and-the-new-prophecy-almanacs-blog-and-media-interactive1/westward-move-by-isis-and-confrontation-involving-hifter-following-nostradamus-script-perfectly

[Glass]

In old language F was used instead of S most of the time.

I find that funny in that Lisps are very common and during the 60's and 70's a lot of remedial speech work was done with people/children to eliminate the tendency to lisp OR actually pronounce things the way they originally were.

So in reality they were trying to fix something that didn't really need fixing, except everyone was mispronoucing things using "S" and it was decided that those that pronounced the correctly using "F" were doing it wrong.

I think around the late 1600s to 1700s there was some interchangability as the letter S started to appear more frequently in place of F.

Now days lisps are very common again and no effort is spent trying to correct the "impediment" which was possibly not an impediment at all. Of course some people are born with clefts which means they have no choice on pronounciation.

I actually think Nostro was refering to Hester or something similar, which I need to remind myself of who is.... but I'm pretty sure the Hitler reference is a misnomer, deliberate by some and thoughtlessly repeated adnauseum until it becomes mythological fact to others.

[Neuro]

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/150223_r26172-320.jpg (http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/150223_r26172-900.jpg)Khalifa Haftar’s army now controls much of the eastern half of the country.CREDITPHOTOGRAPH BY GABRIELE MICALIZZI / CESURA Early last year, General Khalifa Haftar left his home in northern Virginia—where he had spent most of the previous two decades, at least some of that time working with the Central Intelligence Agency—and returned to Tripoli to fight his latest war for control of Libya. Haftar, who is a mild-looking man in his early seventies, has fought with and against nearly every significant faction in the country’s conflicts, leading to a reputation for unrivalled military experience and for a highly flexible sense of personal allegiance. In the Green Mountains, the country’s traditional hideout for rebels and insurgents, he established a military headquarters, inside an old airbase surrounded by red-earth farmland and groves of hazelnut and olive trees. Haftar’s force, which he calls the Libyan National Army, has taken much of the eastern half of the country, in an offensive known as Operation Dignity. Most of the remainder, including the capital city of Tripoli, is held by Libya Dawn, a loose coalition of militias, many of them working in a tactical alliance with Islamist extremists. Much as General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has boasted of doing in Egypt, General Haftar proposes to destroy the Islamist forces and bring peace and stability—enforced by his own army.
When I visited Haftar’s base, earlier this winter, I passed a Russian-made helicopter gunship and was greeted by a group of fighters unloading ammo. The base was in a state of constant alert. Haftar is a top-priority assassination target for Libya Dawn’s militias. Last June, a suicide bomber exploded a Jeep outside his home near Benghazi, killing four guards but missing the primary target. Now there is heavy security around Haftar at all times. At his base, soldiers frisk visitors and confiscate weapons. A few months ago, someone reportedly attempted to kill him with an explosive device concealed in a phone, and so his men collect phones, too.







Haftar greeted me in a spotless office with a set of beige sofas and a matching carpet. Wearing an old-fashioned regimental mustache and a crisp khaki uniform, he looks more like a retired schoolteacher than like the American-backed tyrant his enemies describe. In a deliberate voice, he told me why he had gone back to war. After participating in the 2011 uprising against Muammar Qaddafi, he tried to find a place for himself in Libya’s new politics. When he didn’t succeed, he said, he went home to Virginia for a time, “to enjoy my grandchildren.” All the while, he watched as Libya floundered under a succession of weak governments, and the country’s militias grew more powerful. Last summer, Islamist extremists moved to seize Benghazi; in a merciless campaign aimed at the remains of civil society, assassins killed some two hundred and seventy lawyers, judges, activists, military officers, and policemen—including some of Haftar’s old friends and military colleagues. “There was no justice and no protection,” he said. “People no longer left their houses at night. All of this upset me greatly. We had no sooner left behind Qaddafi’s rule than we had this?”
Haftar reached out to contacts in what remained of Libya’s armed forces, in civil society, in tribal groups, and, finally, in Tripoli. “Everyone told me the same thing,” he said. “ ‘We are looking for a savior. Where are you?’ I told them, ‘If I have the approval of the people, I will act.’ After popular demonstrations took place all over Libya asking me to step in, I knew I was being pushed toward death, but I willingly accepted.”
Like many self-appointed saviors, Haftar spoke with a certain self-admiring fatalism. But his history is much more complex than he cares to acknowledge. As an Army cadet in 1969, he participated in Qaddafi’s coup against the Libyan monarchy, and eventually became one of his top officers. “He was my son,” Qaddafi once told an interviewer, “and I was like his spiritual father.”
In 1987, as Libya fought with Chad over a strategic strip of borderland, Qaddafi chose Haftar as his commanding officer. Haftar’s base was soon overrun in a Chadian attack—part of a conflict that became known as the Toyota War, for the Land Cruisers that Chad’s troops drove into battle. The Chadians killed thousands of Libyan troops, and took Haftar and four hundred of his men prisoner. When Qaddafi publicly disavowed the P.O.W.s, Haftar was enraged, and called for his men to join him in a coup. By 1988, he had aligned himself with the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, a Chad-based opposition group supported by the C.I.A. Soon afterward, he was released from prison.
Haftar’s work in Chad did not bring him glory. His enemies like to recall that Chad’s government accused the Libyan forces of employing napalm and poison gas during the war. Afterward, two of Haftar’s fellow-prisoners reported that those who refused to join his coup were left behind in their jail cells. As military commander of the Salvation Front, he plotted an invasion of Libya—but Qaddafi outflanked him, backing a disruptive coup in Chad. The C.I.A. had to airlift Haftar and three hundred and fifty of his men to Zaire and, eventually, to the United States. Haftar was given citizenship, and remained in the U.S. for the next twenty years.








For a time, Haftar stayed involved with the C.I.A., and with the Salvation Front’s abortive efforts to topple Qaddafi, including a plot in which a number of Haftar’s fellow-conspirators were captured and executed. According to Ashur Shamis, a former leader of the Salvation Front, Haftar lived well in Virginia, though no one knew how he made his money. But he did not return to Libya, fearing that he would be executed.
After the U.S. invaded Iraq, in 2003, Qaddafi, who had been among America’s most vitriolic enemies, suddenly agreed to give up his nuclear-weapons program and attempt a rapprochement. By then, the C.I.A. had evidently loosened its ties with Haftar, and, when he returned to Libya, in March, 2011, he was on his own. Nevertheless, Haftar’s enemies accuse him of being a C.I.A. plant, a traitor, and a vicious killer, and of seeking to install himself as a latter-day Qaddafi.
There is no overstating the chaos of post-Qaddafi Libya. Two competing governments claim legitimacy. Armed militias roam the streets. The electricity is frequently out of service, and most business is at a standstill; revenues from oil, the country’s greatest asset, have dwindled by more than ninety per cent. Some three thousand people have been killed by fighting in the past year, and nearly a third of the country’s population has fled across the border to Tunisia. What has followed the downfall of a tyrant—a downfall encouraged by NATO air strikes—is the tyranny of a dangerous and pervasive instability.
For Haftar, the east was the obvious place to begin his offensive. “Benghazi was the main stronghold of terrorism in Libya, so we started there,” he said. An old Libyan maxim holds that everything of importance happens in Benghazi. In 1937, Benito Mussolini came there to solidify his colonial power. In 1951, the newly crowned King Idris I broadcast a radio address from the city to proclaim Libya independent. When Qaddafi launched his military coup against the monarchy, he was a young officer based in Benghazi. In February, 2011, the uprising against his rule erupted there, and the following month the West intervened there to prevent him from massacring the city’s revolutionaries and its civilian population.
The intervention that helped decide the Libyan conflict began tentatively. As Qaddafi moved harshly to put down the rebellion, vowing to “cleanse Libya house by house,” President Obama was reluctant to get involved, and his aides argued about the wisdom of forcing Qaddafi from power. But America’s allies in Europe, particularly the British and the French, were already convinced. In March, 2011, the well-connected French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy arrived in the city and took it upon himself to make sure that the rebels got aid. In Paris recently, I asked Lévy why he’d adopted the Libyan cause. “Why? I don’t know!” he said. “Of course, it was human rights, for a massacre to be prevented, and blah blah blah—but I also wanted them to see a Jew defending the liberators against a dictatorship, to show fraternity. I wanted the Muslims to see that a Frenchman—a Westerner and a Jew—could be on their side.”
Lévy said that he returned to Paris and told President Nicolas Sarkozy that humanitarian intervention wasn’t enough. “The real objective had to be to topple Qaddafi,” he told me. Sarkozy agreed, and Lévy became his emissary. Lévy accompanied a Libyan opposition leader to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to lobby for U.S. involvement.* (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling#editorsnote) “It was hard to convince the Americans,” he said. “Robert Gates was totally opposed. Obama as usual was hesitating. But Hillary got it.”
Late that month, as Qaddafi dispatched a convoy to attack the rebels in Benghazi, French warplanes began bombing. The U.K. and the U.S. followed, in an arm’s-length operation that the Obama Administration described as “leading from behind.” From warships in the Mediterranean, they launched a withering strike of a hundred and twelve Tomahawk missiles, but within days Gates had announced that the French and the British would take the lead. The coalition kept fighting for seven months, with American forces in a lower-profile role. In the end, Lévy was pleased with the intervention. “The NATO mission, as far as I am concerned, was as it had to be.”

more http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling

[Joshua01]

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/150223_r26172-320.jpg (http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/150223_r26172-900.jpg)Khalifa Haftar’s army now controls much of the eastern half of the country.CREDITPHOTOGRAPH BY GABRIELE MICALIZZI / CESURA Early last year, General Khalifa Haftar left his home in northern Virginia—where he had spent most of the previous two decades, at least some of that time working with the Central Intelligence Agency—and returned to Tripoli to fight his latest war for control of Libya. Haftar, who is a mild-looking man in his early seventies, has fought with and against nearly every significant faction in the country’s conflicts, leading to a reputation for unrivalled military experience and for a highly flexible sense of personal allegiance. In the Green Mountains, the country’s traditional hideout for rebels and insurgents, he established a military headquarters, inside an old airbase surrounded by red-earth farmland and groves of hazelnut and olive trees. Haftar’s force, which he calls the Libyan National Army, has taken much of the eastern half of the country, in an offensive known as Operation Dignity. Most of the remainder, including the capital city of Tripoli, is held by Libya Dawn, a loose coalition of militias, many of them working in a tactical alliance with Islamist extremists. Much as General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has boasted of doing in Egypt, General Haftar proposes to destroy the Islamist forces and bring peace and stability—enforced by his own army.
When I visited Haftar’s base, earlier this winter, I passed a Russian-made helicopter gunship and was greeted by a group of fighters unloading ammo. The base was in a state of constant alert. Haftar is a top-priority assassination target for Libya Dawn’s militias. Last June, a suicide bomber exploded a Jeep outside his home near Benghazi, killing four guards but missing the primary target. Now there is heavy security around Haftar at all times. At his base, soldiers frisk visitors and confiscate weapons. A few months ago, someone reportedly attempted to kill him with an explosive device concealed in a phone, and so his men collect phones, too.







Haftar greeted me in a spotless office with a set of beige sofas and a matching carpet. Wearing an old-fashioned regimental mustache and a crisp khaki uniform, he looks more like a retired schoolteacher than like the American-backed tyrant his enemies describe. In a deliberate voice, he told me why he had gone back to war. After participating in the 2011 uprising against Muammar Qaddafi, he tried to find a place for himself in Libya’s new politics. When he didn’t succeed, he said, he went home to Virginia for a time, “to enjoy my grandchildren.” All the while, he watched as Libya floundered under a succession of weak governments, and the country’s militias grew more powerful. Last summer, Islamist extremists moved to seize Benghazi; in a merciless campaign aimed at the remains of civil society, assassins killed some two hundred and seventy lawyers, judges, activists, military officers, and policemen—including some of Haftar’s old friends and military colleagues. “There was no justice and no protection,” he said. “People no longer left their houses at night. All of this upset me greatly. We had no sooner left behind Qaddafi’s rule than we had this?”
Haftar reached out to contacts in what remained of Libya’s armed forces, in civil society, in tribal groups, and, finally, in Tripoli. “Everyone told me the same thing,” he said. “ ‘We are looking for a savior. Where are you?’ I told them, ‘If I have the approval of the people, I will act.’ After popular demonstrations took place all over Libya asking me to step in, I knew I was being pushed toward death, but I willingly accepted.”
Like many self-appointed saviors, Haftar spoke with a certain self-admiring fatalism. But his history is much more complex than he cares to acknowledge. As an Army cadet in 1969, he participated in Qaddafi’s coup against the Libyan monarchy, and eventually became one of his top officers. “He was my son,” Qaddafi once told an interviewer, “and I was like his spiritual father.”
In 1987, as Libya fought with Chad over a strategic strip of borderland, Qaddafi chose Haftar as his commanding officer. Haftar’s base was soon overrun in a Chadian attack—part of a conflict that became known as the Toyota War, for the Land Cruisers that Chad’s troops drove into battle. The Chadians killed thousands of Libyan troops, and took Haftar and four hundred of his men prisoner. When Qaddafi publicly disavowed the P.O.W.s, Haftar was enraged, and called for his men to join him in a coup. By 1988, he had aligned himself with the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, a Chad-based opposition group supported by the C.I.A. Soon afterward, he was released from prison.
Haftar’s work in Chad did not bring him glory. His enemies like to recall that Chad’s government accused the Libyan forces of employing napalm and poison gas during the war. Afterward, two of Haftar’s fellow-prisoners reported that those who refused to join his coup were left behind in their jail cells. As military commander of the Salvation Front, he plotted an invasion of Libya—but Qaddafi outflanked him, backing a disruptive coup in Chad. The C.I.A. had to airlift Haftar and three hundred and fifty of his men to Zaire and, eventually, to the United States. Haftar was given citizenship, and remained in the U.S. for the next twenty years.








For a time, Haftar stayed involved with the C.I.A., and with the Salvation Front’s abortive efforts to topple Qaddafi, including a plot in which a number of Haftar’s fellow-conspirators were captured and executed. According to Ashur Shamis, a former leader of the Salvation Front, Haftar lived well in Virginia, though no one knew how he made his money. But he did not return to Libya, fearing that he would be executed.
After the U.S. invaded Iraq, in 2003, Qaddafi, who had been among America’s most vitriolic enemies, suddenly agreed to give up his nuclear-weapons program and attempt a rapprochement. By then, the C.I.A. had evidently loosened its ties with Haftar, and, when he returned to Libya, in March, 2011, he was on his own. Nevertheless, Haftar’s enemies accuse him of being a C.I.A. plant, a traitor, and a vicious killer, and of seeking to install himself as a latter-day Qaddafi.
There is no overstating the chaos of post-Qaddafi Libya. Two competing governments claim legitimacy. Armed militias roam the streets. The electricity is frequently out of service, and most business is at a standstill; revenues from oil, the country’s greatest asset, have dwindled by more than ninety per cent. Some three thousand people have been killed by fighting in the past year, and nearly a third of the country’s population has fled across the border to Tunisia. What has followed the downfall of a tyrant—a downfall encouraged by NATO air strikes—is the tyranny of a dangerous and pervasive instability.
For Haftar, the east was the obvious place to begin his offensive. “Benghazi was the main stronghold of terrorism in Libya, so we started there,” he said. An old Libyan maxim holds that everything of importance happens in Benghazi. In 1937, Benito Mussolini came there to solidify his colonial power. In 1951, the newly crowned King Idris I broadcast a radio address from the city to proclaim Libya independent. When Qaddafi launched his military coup against the monarchy, he was a young officer based in Benghazi. In February, 2011, the uprising against his rule erupted there, and the following month the West intervened there to prevent him from massacring the city’s revolutionaries and its civilian population.
The intervention that helped decide the Libyan conflict began tentatively. As Qaddafi moved harshly to put down the rebellion, vowing to “cleanse Libya house by house,” President Obama was reluctant to get involved, and his aides argued about the wisdom of forcing Qaddafi from power. But America’s allies in Europe, particularly the British and the French, were already convinced. In March, 2011, the well-connected French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy arrived in the city and took it upon himself to make sure that the rebels got aid. In Paris recently, I asked Lévy why he’d adopted the Libyan cause. “Why? I don’t know!” he said. “Of course, it was human rights, for a massacre to be prevented, and blah blah blah—but I also wanted them to see a Jew defending the liberators against a dictatorship, to show fraternity. I wanted the Muslims to see that a Frenchman—a Westerner and a Jew—could be on their side.”
Lévy said that he returned to Paris and told President Nicolas Sarkozy that humanitarian intervention wasn’t enough. “The real objective had to be to topple Qaddafi,” he told me. Sarkozy agreed, and Lévy became his emissary. Lévy accompanied a Libyan opposition leader to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to lobby for U.S. involvement.* (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling#editorsnote) “It was hard to convince the Americans,” he said. “Robert Gates was totally opposed. Obama as usual was hesitating. But Hillary got it.”
Late that month, as Qaddafi dispatched a convoy to attack the rebels in Benghazi, French warplanes began bombing. The U.K. and the U.S. followed, in an arm’s-length operation that the Obama Administration described as “leading from behind.” From warships in the Mediterranean, they launched a withering strike of a hundred and twelve Tomahawk missiles, but within days Gates had announced that the French and the British would take the lead. The coalition kept fighting for seven months, with American forces in a lower-profile role. In the end, Lévy was pleased with the intervention. “The NATO mission, as far as I am concerned, was as it had to be.”

more http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling

IS it Hifter or Haftar? One is close enough to be believable the other is just a stretch

[Neuro]

IS it Hifter or Haftar? One is close enough to be believable the other is just a stretch
It is hard to say. Arabic written language doesn't have vowels. Most articles write Haftar. He is a US citizen so probably that is what he is registered as, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is pronounced Hifter, but the cunning man he is he probably figured it would be better to be Haftar.

[Joshua01]

It is hard to say. Arabic written language doesn't have vowels. Most articles write Haftar. He is a US citizen so probably that is what he is registered as, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is pronounced Hifter, but the cunning man he is he probably figured it would be better to be Haftar.

Yeah, I dunno.....it's a bit of a stretch with lots of assumptions.

[Neuro]

Yeah, I dunno.....it's a bit of a stretch with lots of assumptions.
From his Wikipedia page post #2. I got this:

transliterations of his name include Heftar, Hafter, Hifter, Hefter, etc

[Joshua01]

From his Wikipedia page post #2. I got this:

Point taken...yeah, I can see a connection now. Because they didn't have vowels then but vowels are used now so they had to offer various combinations of the name as transliterations

[cheka.]

who is? op article spells it out in first few keystrokes

from op:

In 1991, the New York Times reported that 350 exiled "Libyan soldiers were trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the Reagan Administration’s eagerness to topple Colonel [Muammar] Qaddafi."

Former Libyan General Khalifa Hifter was the leader of that group, the Libyan National Army, and was one of those flown to the United States and granted exile.

Within three years, Hifter was given U.S. citizenship and spent much of the next 20 years in suburban Virginia, near the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, VA.

[cheka.]

i'll see your hifter and raise you a headley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley

David Coleman Headley (born Daood Sayed Gilani; 30 June 1960) is an American terrorist of Pakistani[2] origin, and a spy who conspired with the Lashkar-e-Taiba in plotting the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

The Indian public has followed Headley's story closely, considering him to be their equivalent of Osama bin Laden. U.S. authorities gave Indian investigators direct access to Headley,[6] but some in India have questioned why the U.S. had not shared suspicions about him with Indian authorities before the Mumbai attacks.[7] At the trial of Tahawwur Hussain Rana, an alleged co-conspirator, Headley gave detailed information about the participation of Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in carrying out the attacks.[8][9] Since his arrest and guilty plea, Headley has cooperated with U.S. and Indian authorities and given information about his associates.[10][11][12][13] On January 24, 2013, a U.S. federal court sentenced Headley to 35 years in prison for his role in the Mumbai attacks.

David Coleman Headley was born as Dawood Sayed Gilani in Washington, D.C., to Sayed Salim Gilani (?-2008) and Alice Serrill Headley (1939-2008). Sayed Gilani was a well-known Pakistani diplomat and broadcaster.

Gilani resumed work as a DEA informant in New York City and participated in an undercover operation that reportedly led to the seizure of one kilo of heroin from Pakistani traffickers. Yet despite working for a U.S. government agency, Gilani actively raised money and recruited new members for Lashkar, a group that swore allegiance with Al-Qaeda. Gilani would later testify that he discussed his views regarding Kashmir—a region in India that is the focus of Lashkar's terror campaign —with his DEA handlers. The DEA has insisted that it was unaware of Gilani's political and religious radicalization.[28]
Post-9/11 activities

One day after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Gilani's DEA handlers tasked him with collecting counter-intelligence on terrorists through his sources in the Pakistani drug trade. However, a New York City bartender named Terry O'Donnell reported Gilani to an FBI task force after Gilani's ex-girlfriend told him that Gilani had praised the 9/11 hijackers and "got off on watching the news over and over again" in the weeks following the attacks. Under questioning by two Defense Department agents, in the presence of his DEA handlers, Gilani denied the accusations and cited his work for the DEA as proof of his loyalty to the U.S. Gilani was cleared, and the DEA did not write a report on his interrogation.[30]

On November 16, 2001, six weeks after his interrogation, Howard Leader and Assistant U.S. Attorney Loan Hong made a joint application to Judge Carol Amon asking for Gilani's supervised release to be terminated three years early. Judge Amon agreed to their request and discharged Gilani from any further probation.[29] Leader has claimed that the DEA was involved in the drive to end Gilani's probation, which would have kept him from traveling to Pakistan to continue his intelligence work on terrorists. However, the DEA has claimed that Gilani wanted his probation lifted so he could travel to Pakistan for family reasons. DEA officials also claim that the agency officially deactivated Gilani as an informant on March 27, 2002. Headley himself has claimed that he ended his work for the DEA in September 2002; other agencies claim that he remained a DEA operative as late as 2005.[28]

In February 2002, Gilani went to a Lashkar training camp and did a three-week introductory course on Lashkar ideology and jihad. That summer, Serrill Headley, who by then had moved to the town of Oxford, Pennsylvania with her brother, confided to friends that her son had become a religious fanatic and had been to terrorist training camps. While Gilani was on a catering visit to his mother's house, one of her friends, Phyllis Keith, noticed that he parked his car behind her residence as if he was trying to hide it. Keith reported Gilani to the FBI office in Philadelphia, which apparently did not follow through with an investigation.

That August, Gilani returned to Pakistan and began a second stint at the Lashkar training camp; he spent his spare time with Shazia in Lahore. Despite being already married in Pakistan, Gilani embarked on a series of affairs in the U.S. and had become engaged to a long-time girlfriend in New York City the month before. In December 2002, after landing in New York City, Gilani was briefly detained by border inspectors who had been on the lookout for unusual travel patterns to hubs of terrorism such as Pakistan. However, the border inspectors found nothing amiss and soon released him. Gilani married his fiancée at a Jamaican resort a few days later.

more at link.....and other sources

how they roll

[Neuro]

French forces arrive in Libya to support Hifter/Haftar, reported 19 hours ago...

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/24109-french-forces-arrive-in-libya-to-support-haftar-in-benghazi

The guy really hates Muslims, considers most of them terrorists, and plans on eradicate them!

[boogietillyapuke]

I don't care how it's spelled or pronounced.

the only thing to remember is "the hand that feeds the dog is the same one that beats the dog" when it no longer fits the given scenario.

[Neuro]

Just wanted to highlight a few passages from the excellent New Yorker article I posted above:

The nationwrecker, you know who:
In March, 2011, the well-connected French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy arrived in the city and took it upon himself to make sure that the rebels got aid. In Paris recently, I asked Lévy why he’d adopted the Libyan cause. “Why? I don’t know!” he said. “Of course, it was human rights, for a massacre to be prevented, and blah blah blah—but I also wanted them to see a Jew defending the liberators against a dictatorship, to show fraternity. I wanted the Muslims to see that a Frenchman—a Westerner and a Jew—could be on their side.”

working together with:

Lévy said that he returned to Paris and told President Nicolas Sarkozy that humanitarian intervention wasn’t enough. “The real objective had to be to topple Qaddafi,” he told me. Sarkozy agreed, and Lévy became his emissary. Lévy accompanied a Libyan opposition leader to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to lobby for U.S. involvement.* (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling#editorsnote) “It was hard to convince the Americans,” he said. “Robert Gates was totally opposed. Obama as usual was hesitating. But Hillary got it.”


It worked out really well for the Libyans, with the three Jews "liberating" them, and preventing them from being "massacred" didn't it? With friends like that who needs enemies?

[mick silver]

some day a lot of they folks will see hell in some place here are In hell..........
Just wanted to highlight a few passages from the excellent New Yorker article I posted above:

The nationwrecker, you know who:
In March, 2011, the well-connected French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy arrived in the city and took it upon himself to make sure that the rebels got aid. In Paris recently, I asked Lévy why he’d adopted the Libyan cause. “Why? I don’t know!” he said. “Of course, it was human rights, for a massacre to be prevented, and blah blah blah—but I also wanted them to see a Jew defending the liberators against a dictatorship, to show fraternity. I wanted the Muslims to see that a Frenchman—a Westerner and a Jew—could be on their side.”

working together with:

Lévy said that he returned to Paris and told President Nicolas Sarkozy that humanitarian intervention wasn’t enough. “The real objective had to be to topple Qaddafi,” he told me. Sarkozy agreed, and Lévy became his emissary. Lévy accompanied a Libyan opposition leader to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to lobby for U.S. involvement.* (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling#editorsnote) “It was hard to convince the Americans,” he said. “Robert Gates was totally opposed. Obama as usual was hesitating. But Hillary got it.”


It worked out really well for the Libyans, with the three Jews "liberating" them, and preventing them from being "massacred" didn't it? With friends like that who needs enemies?

[Glass]

ok Hister is an old name for the Danube river in Germany. It seems that in the days of old Nostro(a) the Danube passed through an area known as the Histeri or something. The local people were called that.

Any could still be relevant as the quatrains mentioning it (3 of them) may have been talking about blood thristy hordes of muslims pushing up to the Danube.

May be it's still a time to come.

Hister does not mean Hitler
When people stand next to me in social events, those who know I write books about Nostradamus, it seems casual conversation often finds that person saying, “He predicted Hitler, even naming him … right?”

I guess they cannot understand when they hear me say that I have a new way of understanding what Nostradamus wrote. Whenever I do a presentation that generally covers what it is I do with The Prophecies, I always say, “Forget what you think you know about Nostradamus, because everything you have read or seen on TV is wrong.”

I imagine people hear that and still think I am copying what many other people have said Nostradamus meant, prior to me writing about his work; and because televised sensationalism says, “Nostradamus named Hitler,” many people tend to remember that above all things.
For that reason, I want to make it publicly clear that Nostradamus did not name Hitler. Admittedly, it is easy to see how several quatrains fit nicely to the history of the Third Reich and some events of World War II. Still, no one knew to look for Hitler before he rose to power, because Nostradamus wrote Hister in some quatrains that seem to be focusing on Germany.

In three quatrains, Nostradamus wrote variations of the word “Hister,” which has been read as close to Hitler. In quatrain V-29, beginning the fourth line, he wrote, “D’Hister.” Near the end of the second line in quatrain II-24, Nostradamus wrote “Hister.” Near the beginning of the third line, in quatrain IV-68, the word is written in the lower case, as “hister.” At no place did Nostradamus write “Hitler.”


V-29 La liberté ne sera recovréce,
L’occupera noir fier vilain inique:
Quant la matiere du pont sera ouvrée,
D’Hister, Venise faschee la republique.

II-24 Bestes farouches de faim fleuves tranner,
Plus part du camp encontre Hister sera:
En caige de fer le grand sera treisner,
Quand rin enfant de Germain observera.

IV-68 En l’an bien proche non esloigné de Venus.
Les deux plus grans de l’Asie & d’Affrique
Du Ryn & hister qu’on dira sont venus,
Crys, pleurs à Malte & coste ligustique.



Due to this importance of line order, the highest placement of “Hister” is in the secondary theme of quatrain II-24. In that quatrain, the main theme states: “Bestes farouches de faim fleuves tranner,” which can translate to state, “Wild animals savages from famine rivers to swim across.” However, that sounds like a main theme for Africa, rather than modern Europe.

A major problem with the translation (similar to those seen on TV) is “tranner” is not a readily recognized word. To make it translate as “to swim across,” one has to see it as a misspelling of the Latin word “trānāre,” which is the present infinitive of “trano.” The problem is God knows Latin and French and the spelling of all words, so a “misspelled” word is a red flag that it may be an anagram.

Anagrams open a can of worms, which means they are best left alone until one can see what surrounds a “made-up word” first. That can help one made an educated guess as to the primary intent for those letters. However, because people like to see “to swim across,” that can have some role as a secondary intent.

When one reads “Bestes” as “Wild animals,” the capitalization cannot be overlooked. That means these are significant “Beasts,” and the figurative use in Old French means it could be significant “Dolts,” or “Blockheads,” of “Dimwitted fellows.” This would then make “Wild animals” a statement about the lack of education of “savages,” “cruel ones,” “cursed ones,” “fierce ones,” or “shrewd ones.”

When one then sees how this is a theme being stated about significant harshness of military troops, perhaps those with a reputation of savagery from their training, one can then read “faim” not as “famine,” but as “hunger,” or “extreme desire for something.” Thus, the main theme is then directing one to see a strong will to defeat an enemy, with purpose behind this savagery and beast-like reputation,

There is a reasonably detailed break down of the meanings of some of these words and more explanation here
https://katrinapearls.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/hister-does-not-mean-hitler/

how true? :(??