Terrific- Experts Estimate There Are Only 1,000 Rebel Fighters in Libya… And 1,000 Fighters Are Jihadists

What do you want first?… The bad news or the bad news?

Rebels guard the front line on the road between Ajdabiyah and Brega as forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi threatened to push them further away from strategic oil refineries in eastern Libya March 31, 2011. (REUTERS/Finbarr O’Reilly)

CNN’s Jon Lee Anderson gave Eliot Spitzer some bad news yesterday. According to Anderson there are only 1,000 rebels fighting Gaddafi forces in Libya.

During “In the Arena,” Jon Lee Anderson, staff writer for The New Yorker reporting from Benghazi, Libya, tells Eliot Spitzer that the number of opposition fighters on the front lines are fewer than anyone would think and that they are poorly armed and badly trained. Anderson says, “Effective number of fighting men, well under 1,000. Actual soldiers, who are now in the fight, possibly in the very low hundreds on the opposition side.”

Earlier it was reported that there were 1,000 Al-Qaeda members in the rebel ranks.

Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya…

…Outside observers generally estimate the number of trained Libyan fighters to be about 1,000.

That’s weird. So if there are only 1,000 rebel fighters in Libya and there are 1,000 members of Al-Qaeda fighting with the rebels in Libya, then wouldn’t that mean that the rebels are 100% jihadists?

And, the Obama Administration wants to arm them?
Now does that sound like smart power to you?

Not to worry… There are at least 200 more Al-Qaeda fighters on their way to Libya from Afghanistan.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • bc3b

    Trying to pick the “good guys” in this war is like trying to pick the “good team” in a Lions-Browns game.

  • DINORight

    I thought there was just a “flicker” of al Qaeda among the rebels?

  • http://www.southernwolf.net S. Wolf

    Well, since we are on al Qaeda’s side now let’s issue boxcutters to our military and train them in hijacking airplanes.. I never thought I’d see the day the U.S. crawled on it’s belly to lick the boots of terrorists.

  • retire05

    If you will remember, Obama said at first that we were going to do a no-fly zone in Libya due to the “humanitarian” crisis of Qdaffy’s troops killing Libyan rebels. Then we learn, via the news, that the total body count in Libya by 3/17/2011 was less than a hundred.

    So Obama changed his excuse and said it was to PREVENT a humanitarian crisis in Libya. Only he failed to tell us that exercising a no-fly zone was going to include bombing the hell out of Qdaffy’s headquarters and that it was going to cost us a pretty penny and that we were going to be spending more money that the rest of his “coalition” combined.

    But what do you expect from the guy who sided with Castro and Chevez over tiny Honduras and who backed the Egyptian rebels, claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood was not involved, although the MB is now poised to take over the Egyptian government? And remember, as people were being slaughtered in the streets of Tehran, it was not our affair, according to Obama.

    And guess what? I heard someone on the radio today say that the Air Force was being deployed to Libya and that they should prepare to be there 9 months to a year. Hardly sounds like we are going to do a no-fly and then get out. Why are the Marines being sent there? CIA? What is their purpose?Do you think if the CIA learns that the Libyan rebels are really jihadists that will make any difference to Obama?

    God help us. Can we make it through another 22 months with Obama in office?

  • Nanna1

    Gaddafi said that the rebels were Al Quida, everyone laughed, and I’m including mmyself. Looks as if he wasn’t just spinning a tale!!

  • Muffin

    Oh good grief, there are only 999 because one is living in the White House. Can God help us now, please?

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

    I’m sorry but I just don’t believe this. I believe it about the Jihadists making up a large percentage of the rebels, but only 1,000 rebels total? Sorry, there just ain’t no way.

  • FGT

    Oh no, don’t those rebel fighters know that plastic water bottles are bad for the environment?!?!

  • mike191

    The “moderate taliban” are on the way-Hillary found them for President44.

  • retire05

    ThePaganTemple, have you seen the videos of the Libyan rebels? It looks like a Keystone Cop flick. Dozens of cars, some with just the driver in them, scampering around shooting off their weapons in the air (as Arabs are wont to do), smiling for the western cameras.

    Qdaffy said they were radical jihadists but our Liar in Chief chose not to believe him. Same with Mubarak. But remember, both Qdaffy, and Mubarak were radically ANTI-jihadists since they did not want to go the way of the Shah of Iran.

    Also, I would remind you that Obama said “should the political winds change” he would side with Muslims. Now, most left wingers want to assume he meant the policial winds against Muslims in the U.S., but Obama did NOT say WHAT political winds. The political winds in the ME is definately changing, and he seems to be siding with those that have strong jihadist leanings. Again, never listen to what Obama says; pay attention to what he does and right now he is supporting Libyan rebels when he doesn’t even know who they are.

  • Muffin


  • MamaGrizzly

    Told ya this was all fake. We shouldn’t be in Libya. There is no (legitimate) reason. Barry and Soros playing econ games to benefit China in the long run. Plus, if Obama can eliminate all the “moderate” govts in the ME, he can rally the loony jihadiis to strike at Israel, and everyone will believe that’s a good idea, since these “overcomers” were such great guys getting rid of Egypt and Libya as we know them–the brave proletariat against the brutal regimes of oppression. Blah, blah, blah. That’s why he has tried SO HARD to legitimatize the “freedom” fighters. What a crock. OUT OF LIBYA! (I know Ghadaffi is a problem, but not even, if you consider Iran and the rest of the reason. Basically, he’s a nobody. Lots of oil though. And China’s hungry). Just sayin’ . . . .

  • bg


    DINORight #22

    well you see, it’s like this.. there was a trace, and then a flicker, but no one could designate a literal number to either quantity, but given time, hey finally came up with an expert to do the counting more than a month later.. and there you have it, the war in Libya is as over and done with as the global war on terror.. my guessimate however, is that the majority of the freedom & democracy dissenters will be discovered in mass graves decades from now, perhaps even sooner, not that anyone wil care, we won’t be around by then, seems we were too busy condmneing others freedom & democray to niotice where ours went../ :-( s/

    Obama, Wright, Farrakhan, and Gaddafi

    [To a great many Americans, President Obama’s response to the Libyan crisis has been puzzling. First, dithering. No response. The White House claimed “scheduling problems” for the president’s no-show. Then, wimpy calls for Libyan government restraint and an end to the violence, never mentioning the “mad-dog” tyrant by name. Then, finally, following the lead of normally-reluctant-to-do-anything-whatsoever Europeans, Obama declared “time for Gaddafi to go.” Then, military moves with warships. Then, Secretary Clinton says we must wait for the UN and move only in an internationally coordinated way to aid anti-Gaddafi forces. Now, Obama’s director of national intelligence tells Congress (and the entire world) that Gaddafi will win and the rebels will lose.

    Still, the blood flows at Gaddafi’s orders. News leaked out nearly two weeks ago that desperate rebels were begging the U.S. for military intervention. “Send Bush,” they pleaded!

    Meanwhile, back at the White House, where the cowboy is no longer in charge, President Obama held a Motown soiree, danced the night away, and a day later served a sumptuous lunch to the nation’s governors while giving them lots of unasked-for advice. Instead of meeting reporters head-on to talk about the Libyan crisis, Obama sent out his new press secretary to fumble the ball. Then, Obama met with the president of Mexico, again, and, no doubt, offered to sue a couple more states. Obama took one question from the American press and it was something to do with an NFL union dispute. Now, the president is off on the campaign trail and planning his basketball party.

    Confusing, to say the least. Libya? What?

    Sentient Americans are left wondering whether President Obama fully
    intends to keep the mad-dog Gaddafi in power — no matter what.


  • retire05

    MamaGrizzly, it’s not Libyan oil for China Obama is trying to protect, it is Libyan oil for France. Sarkozy took a drubbing with the elections of the socialists, and he had to have a “rally ’round the flag” moment to up his own approval rating. So what better to do that than to show what stalwarts of “freedom” the French are? And Obama, who is clueless to the fact that Sarkozy thinks he is a twit, goes right along with the UN passing a resolution that totally violates their (the UN) own charter. And agrees to pick up the tab.

    Now, the left who are trying to sweep the Obamanure under the rug will say that Obama has War Powers Act powers, but he doesn’t. Not when there is not an immediate threat to the U.S., and Libya posed no immediate threat to us.

    And have you noticed that Obama has spoken more on the less than 200 Libyans that have been killed by Qdaffy troops than he has about all the soldiers we have lost in Afghanistan and Iraq under his watch?

  • Chisum

    Dinoright @ #22,

    A “flicker” of al Qaeda. New military word?


  • Dave-O

    retire05 #34 – you are correct. But not just Libyan oil for France and Great Britain – German companies have huge oil interests in Libya and they are playing the game the other way.

    All of Europe (notably italy, France and Great Britain) fear a massive influx of North Africans on top of what they already have if Gaddafi succeeds –

    see: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/31/italys-boat-people/?test=latestnews

    this is all about oil for Europe and preventing a huge emigration from North Africa – they are using the “humanitarian” tag only as a fig leaf

  • Dave-O

    Let me see if I’ve got this straight:

    1) Over 1800 combat sorties flown in Libya;

    2) Approximately 220 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Launched into Libya @ $600,000 each;

    3) 2 F-15 fighter jets lost so far @ $35 million each;

    4)Libyan Rebels Supported: ~1000
    You do the math.

  • Bill Duhemel

    Of course, none of this is actually stated in any of the linked articles. The 1000 number is from a man who was a jihadist eleven years ago. Where he gets that number is completely unexplained. And as for “at least two hundred more” – the article actually states that “some of the 200 or so Libyans operating near the Afghan border may be on their way home.” So that’s “some” of the two hundred who “may” be on their way.

  • bg


    ps re: #32

    [“Our confrontation with America was like a fight against a fortress from outside.” After speaking with Minister Farrakhan, however, “we found a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it.” Colonel Qaddafi promised that as it battles America from the inside, the NOI will eventually fulfill one of its fondest dreams: establishing a black state within America’s borders. Ever the military man, the Libyan leader also predicted that this new state will boast the “biggest black army on the planet.”]

    bit more here and here and connecting links, and there’s still tons more..


  • Thingamajig

    Oh boy…A new central *labian* bank and an oil deal:

    and this was supposedly done by an incompetent, disorganized, ragtag “army”?
    (Yeah, right.)