Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[Kid_Eternity]

Love him or hate politics would be poorer without George Galloway if you ask me...

 

[newbie]

.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Quote from Channel 4 news on the result of that "rescue".



Blah blah ...protect the civilians, erm oil, erm civilians....cough...

The only mention on the BBC news this evening, was the plane crash, & that the US pilots had been safely rescued. Fuck all about the shootings.

 

[newbie]

try C4 news, according to AJE they have a report

 

[butchersapron]

They attacked the people who rescued the pilots

 

[Casually Red]

Lots of reporters were on the ground filing reports about how happy the locals were and making no mention of it . Only much later does the real story emerge . Not that we need examples of how incessantly the story is being spun .
Id fucking laugh too if it emerges the " civilians" shot this plane down too , just like they shot their own one down the other day .

 

[Mr.Bishie]

They attacked the people who rescued the pilots

Yeah, i've heard - more to do with the BBC not reporting this fact.

 

[Casually Red]

Turkey has vetoed - as exepected- any NATO operation . Erdogan says "Turkey will never point a gun at the Libyan people" . Bit of a mixed message there given the Libyan people , according to France, Britian , USA etc are those no good fuckers in Benghazi .

 

[elbows]

Yeah, i've heard - more to do with the BBC not reporting this fact.

They reported it in an article on their website this evening, lets see if it makes the news at 10.

 

[ernestolynch]

I'd love to know how much CIA input there is in these valiant Benghazi rebels.

 

[Casually Red]

given that they appear to be the source for claims that Ghadaffi has been storing his victims in secret freezers to drape over US bomb sites id hazard a guess its quite considerable .

 

[elbows]

Turkey has vetoed - as exepected- any NATO operation . Erdogan says "Turkey will never point a gun at the Libyan people" . Bit of a mixed message there given the Libyan people , according to France, Britian , USA etc are those no good fuckers in Benghazi .

Im still interested in why you go so far with your negative portrait of the Benghazi rebels. We dont know the true scale of any of their hideous acts anymore than we know how many people Gaddafi has silenced in Tripoli. How come its been so easy for you to take a solid and fairly extreme position regarding these folks, whose downsides you draw attention to at any opportunity, who you have branded as everything from radical Islamists to western puppets, monarchists or whatever. You know that I do not disagreee with every point you have been making, but I still dont understand the extremity of your stance.

The international disagreements sound a bit more severe than I initially anticipated. I had assumed that the early squabbles that became public were due to them feeling the need to rush the last few stages of the process due to events on the ground, and that many of the condemnations were down to politicians from various countries or bodies having to say things that appeal to the people whose votes they covet at home, whilst privately they may still support the action. I think thats likely still true in some cases, just as US unwillingness to look like they have been leading the way or speak of regime change may be more down to the wider propaganda campaign in the region and Obamas need to be seen as the anti-bush. But there does seem to be a bit more to these disagreements than this, but I have little clue quite how much.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

lol erns got a mate

they should get together and swap Battle of Stalingrad memorabilia

 

[Deareg]

lol erns got a mate

they should get together and swap Battle of Stalingrad memorabilia

You are starting to seem like a bit of a dick.

 

[Casually Red]

I

m still interested in why you go so far with your negative portrait of the Benghazi rebels. We dont know the true scale of any of their hideous acts anymore than we know how many people Gaddafi has silenced in Tripoli. How come its been so easy for you to take a solid and fairly extreme position regarding these folks, whose downsides you draw attention to at any opportunity, who you have branded as everything from radical Islamists to western puppets, monarchists or whatever. You know that I do not disagreee with every point you have been making, but I still dont understand the extremity of your stance.

when it first broke out i honestly believed it was a genuine grass roots uprising for democracy . When I heard Ghadaffi had supposedly bombed unarmed protestors , that his entire state was abandoning him and that he was relying on mercenaries I hoped his end would be quick , that he'd completely betrayed his country and would deserve all he got .
But then it transpired that these guys were running about with the reactionary flag of an old corrupt puppet order whod favoured their tribes before he was given the boot . That set alarm bells ringing for me . Then the airstrikes had never happened at all , and neither had the mercenaries . And it seemed very clear to me this crowd were actively courting foreign intervention by tugging at western heartstrings , deliberately deceiving millions of people to permit western interests install a willing puppet regime over the Libyan people , or at least carve the country up after bombing it to the stone age.

Then there was the wretched and reactionary Arab League rushing immediatelt to their defence in an unprecedented manner. A collection of despots and tyrants supporting democrats my arse . It was one buch of monarchs supporting fellow monarchists and other assorted reactionaries , those who lost out and harboured grudges after an old ordr was deposed . Its a counter revolution .
The targetting of black africans too strikes me as more rectionary behaviour . I believe its got little to do with mythical mercenaries and much more to do with Ghadaffis identification of Libya as an African country and not a middle eastern one . His backing for pan africanism as opposed to pan arabism , his massive funding for the ANC in the past and the African Union in the present and hsi largesse towards impoverished black africans accross the continent . In my opinion blacks are being targetted sim[ly because they are identified with Ghadaffi and his programme . As something he beleives in and that they therefore reject , because theyre fucking reactionaries

Anyone whod actively encourage the west to bomb and invade their own country or carve it up in my opinion is well dodgy . So too if theyre being supported by Saudi and the Egyptians .

The international disagreements sound a bit more severe than I initially anticipated. I had assumed that the early squabbles that became public were due to them feeling the need to rush the last few stages of the process due to events on the ground, and that many of the condemnations were down to politicians from various countries or bodies having to say things that appeal to the people whose votes they covet at home, whilst privately they may still support the action. I think thats likely still true in some cases, just as US unwillingness to look like they have been leading the way or speak of regime change may be more down to the wider propaganda campaign in the region and Obamas need to be seen as the anti-bush. But there does seem to be a bit more to these disagreements than this, but I have little clue quite how much.

I think its clear that regime change is completely illegal . Ghadaffi isnt a threat to international security and the case that he posed a genocidal threat to his own people - largely based on the claims his air force bombed demonstrators - is exposed as an utter fallacy .
The disagreements arent just international but internal , Camerons slapping his own generals down for pointing this out . And on top of its descent into illegality its clear its fast becoming a shambles , leaderless and with no other point than to bomb Libya and remove Ghadaffi on the basis of nothing more than he has powerful external enemies . The decision to recognise the Benghazi grouping as the legitimate government as well is an utterly crazy action .
That voices are being raisd questioning this is unsurprising .
I believe that many were prepared to turn a blind eye to due process in the mistaken belief Ghadaffi was finished but now that its clear he continues to endure and attract support while rebel support has proven negligible when faced with opposition , particularly in the west , that many predict a protracted and exceedingly messy affair that a lot of people dont want tarnished with .
Bottom line regime change is illegal , completely unmandated . What precedents are being set ? Who next ? Cuba ? Venezuela ? remember th coup against chavez ? sparked by false claims he'd massacred dmonstrators ? sound familiar ?

 

[elbows]

Thanks for the detailed response. I suppose a crucial difference in our positions is that I have not yet reached a conclusion about the real level of anti-Gaddafi sentiment within the country, nor the level of support for the rebels, not the exact nature of what will emerge should rebels triumph. What you speak of is well within the bounds of possibility, but there may yet be further twists to the story.

 

[dylans]

Thanks for the detailed response. I suppose a crucial difference in our positions is that I have not yet reached a conclusion about the real level of anti-Gaddafi sentiment within the country, nor the level of support for the rebels, not the exact nature of what will emerge should rebels triumph. What you speak of is well within the bounds of possibility, but there may yet be further twists to the story.

No the difference in your positions is that casually red thinks that there is something progressive and worth defending in the Gaddafi regime. There isn't and all the talk of university education and health care doesn't change the fact that the Libyan regime is an utterly reactionary police state that kills its people for the slightest expression of dislike for Gaddafi. Tortures them and executes them in public and any regime that does that is utterly reactionary and deserves to be overthrown. I do not support Western attempts at regime change but I have no doubt that the uprising that began in Benghazi was a popular expression of hatred for a regime deserving of hatred even if that rebellion was only a regional uprising. It was still an uprising and as such worthy of our support for its own sake. Counter revolution? Counter to which revolution? Gaddafi is not a revolutionary.

 

[Anudder Oik]

The revolt against gaddafi was geographically widespread, so hardly the work of one tribal group with CIA backers. Whatsmore, Given the context of the rolling revolutions spreading across the region, and especially in both countries they have as neighbours, the revolt can be seen to be genuine and a part of the historical process we are witnessing. Unless of course you believe lybia to be excempt from all that's going on around them.

Now, having said that, the question is, IMO, how can the likes of the CIA influence the rebels in Benghazi? Maybe they can't. It doesn't have to be automatically assumed that they will form a puppet dictatorship. That's too black and white.

How much damage has been done to the revolt by this intervention (a la Afghanistan-Iraq, complete with American war crimes against civilians today) and where will the rebels go from here?

Will the revolt maintain unity across tribal fault lines or degenerate into mistrust?

I think it is patent that gaddafi will rally people to him simply because they now have an enemy without. The spectre of US/Eurpean/imperialist intervention will be too much for most people to take.

 

[Anudder Oik]

The BBC at 21.40 p.m. Still have no mention of the war crime against civilians during the plane crew rescue. They are running the crew story omitting this little detail on their website so it can be concluded that it simply is not deemed to be good propaganda for the cause.

 

[Lock&Light]

The BBC at 21.40 p.m. Still have no mention of the war crime against civilians during the plane crew rescue. They are running the crew story omitting this little detail on their website so it can be concluded that it simply is not deemed to be good propaganda for the cause.

Quote from BBC website:

"There are reports six villagers were shot and hurt in the US rescue effort."

 

[Anudder Oik]

Quote from BBC website:

"There are reports six villagers were shot and hurt in the US rescue effort."

I've just found it. it's inserted in the middle of the article as "Channel 4 have said" Therefore for the BBC it is unverified.

Strange that really if you consider the rest of the reporting in the article appears to be first hand. So the BBC who were there, can't verify a war crime but they can verify the pilot waving his hands in the air?

Do you think the headline is correct?

US crew rescued after Libya crash

Shouldn't it be something more inclusive like " Americans shoot civilians in rescue attempt"?

 

[Casually Red]

No the difference in your positions is that casually red thinks that there is something progressive and worth defending in the Gaddafi regime. There isn't and all the talk of university education and health care doesn't change the fact that the Libyan regime is an utterly reactionary police state that kills its people for the slightest expression of dislike for Gaddafi. Tortures them and executes them in public and any regime that does that is utterly reactionary and deserves to be overthrown. I do not support Western attempts at regime change but I have no doubt that the uprising that began in Benghazi was a popular expression of hatred for a regime deserving of hatred even if that rebellion was only a regional uprising. It was still an uprising and as such worthy of our support for its own sake. Counter revolution? Counter to which revolution? Gaddafi is not a revolutionary.

with this logic we'd have been obliged to support a certain beerhall putsch in Munich a while back

 

[dylans]

with this logic we'd have been obliged to support a certain beerhall putsch in Munich a while back

Well your Orwellian logic is now complete. A vicious police state with an horrendous human rights record becomes worthy of unconditional uncritical defence and a long repressed people launching an insurrection against it become the fascists. nice

Which is all fine but at least be honest about it. don't try to sell us this "at first I supported the uprising" bullshit. No you didn't. You side with Gaddafi and search for every reason to smear the rebels all the while taking care to avoid a single word of criticism for your favourite dictatorship. Hideous, really fucking hideous.

Tell us a little of your great leaders anti imperialist credentials. Tell us about the thousands of Palestinians deported and left stranded in the desert by Gaddafi. Tell us about the horrific treatment, rape, arrest and torture of migrant workers and asylum seekers at the hands of Gaddafis police. The same African workers whose abuse at the hands of rebels you so loudly cry crocodile tears for. Your great anti imperialist leader is a fake and you are a fool for siding with him.

I oppose Western intervention and have outlined in detail why I do. But I have nothing in common with apologists for that murdering bastard, nothing at all

 

[dylans]

Gaddafi the great Pan African defender of migrant workers.....oh wait

UN Watch Written Statement
UN Human Rights Council 13th Session
16 February 2010

Libya must end its practices of racial discrimination against black Africans, particularly its racial persecution of two million black African migrant workers. There is substantial evidence of Libya’s pattern and practice of racial discrimination against migrant workers. In 1998, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressed concern about Libya’s alleged “acts of discrimination against migrant workers on the basis of their national or ethnic origin.”

In 2000, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions issued a condemnation of “racist attacks on migrant workers” in Libya.2 Migrant workers from Ghana, Cameroon, Sudan, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Nigeria were the victims of attacks by Libyans targeting black migrants, following a government-ordered crackdown on foreign employment, and state-sponsored news reports portraying African migrants as being involved in drug-trafficking or dealing in alcohol.

In 2004, the CERD addressed this particular situation of discrimination in Libya and pointed to the responsibility of Libyan state authorities. In general, the CERD expressed regret that Libya failed to provide detailed information on its resident non-citizens, despite earlier requests made by the Committee. It asked Libya to provide information relating to documented and undocumented migrant workers and members of their families. The Committee rejected Libya’s categorical denial of the existence of any racial discrimination within its borders, asked the government to conduct studies to effectively track racial discrimination in the country, and review its assessment.

Specifically on migrant workers, the Committee expressed deep concern about reported acts of violence in 2000 against migrant workers which led to the death of many persons. The Committee noted with regret that “no updated response was provided by [Libya] on the action taken to sanction those responsible and prevent the occurrence of such violence in the future.”3 The Committee also expressed its concern that, according to some reports, “thousands of African migrant workers [were] expelled since 2000.”4 The Committee felt it necessary to recommend to Libya to “ensure that foreign workers are not discriminated against in employment on the basis of their colour or their ethnic or national origin.”5 The
Committee expressed specific concern about evidence of “racially motivated acts against foreign workers.”

Libya’s pattern and practice of discrimination against foreign workers has persisted. Human Rights Watch in September 2006 documented how Libya subjects migrant workers and other foreigners to serious human rights abuses, including beatings, and forced return to countries where they could face persecution or torture. From 2003 to 2005, more than 140,000 people were subject to return or deportation.7

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=8411733

 

[Casually Red]

well good for you little chap , but lets not mention the fact the guy who was in charge of the police when this happened is a rebel spokesperson now and may well be one of those they put in charge of Libya if the west can drop enough bombs . Youre welcome to him .

" a people" have not launched an insurrection . Far from it . A nation however is being bombed and is on the point of being invaded in a crusade simply because these reactionaries didnt have the support they let on to have and Ghadaffis people had not deserted him

 

[krtek a houby]

well good for you little chap , but lets not mention the fact the guy who was in charge of the police when this happened is a rebel spokesperson now and may well be one of those they put in charge of Libya if the west can drop enough bombs . Youre welcome to him .

" a people" have not launched an insurrection . Far from it . A nation however is being bombed and is on the point of being invaded in a crusade simply because these reactionaries didnt have the support they let on to have and Ghadaffis people had not deserted him

Lies

 

[dylans]

Tell us about the million dollars that Saif Gaddafi paid Mariah Carey for singing 4 songs and please explain the socialist principles behind spending your nations money on bimbo pop stars?

Tell us why Abdelnasser Al-Rabbasi is serving a 15 year jail term for writing a novel?

Tell us why 1270 prisoners were massacred in Abu Salim prison in 1996?

And tell us why Hamas and the PA have only last week warned the UN that they fear a massacre of Palestinians in Libya at the hands of the regime?


You can't have it both ways. You can't make emotional denunciations of the (accurate) crimes of rebel forces and then deny the crimes of the Libyan regime. If you do it makes your crocodile tears for the dead totally fake and cynical

 

[dylans]

well good for you little chap

Oh and go fuck yourself cunt

 

[Casually Red]

now now

 

[phildwyer]

CR has a point actually.