Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[phildwyer]

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

There's not much secret about the West's backing for the rebels.

 

[pk]

I think Gadaffi was lying when he admitted to the Lockerbie bombing. He only signed up to that for political reasons, it allowed him to cease being an international pariah. Syria is much more likely to be the guilty country according to Robert Fisk.

With respect HE, that's not right. Iran/CIA at the outside. Quaddafi most likely to be the guilty party.

 

[pk]

Ghadaffi isnt a threat to international security

Not directly perhaps - but his influence on affairs all over the ME with regard to Europe is certainly a worry, the oil notwithstanding.

 

[Ld222]

I

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 .




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 ?

Well said!!

 

[ernestolynch]

Casred has this spot on, well said. It's exposing the fake leftists and blueshirt imperialists and their vile opinions.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The only fake leftism is the one says you have to choose either Gaddafi or the 'Coalition'. Fuck them both and victory to the revolutionary forces in Libya.

 

[ernestolynch]

That's assuming there are any.

 

[elbows]

Well said!!

Any chance of you editing your post so that it no longer looks like those words were mine, as they were not.

 

[Idaho]

You know when Casually Red, Ernesto and Phildwyer are all united behind a common cause that it's almost certainly the wrong one.

 

[likesfish]

not sure mindnumbing stupidty can be described as a war crime.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

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 .

Lets get the facts clear.

1. Libya has an appalling human rights records going back decades. It is the "North Korea of the Middle East" has Dylans pointed a few weeks ago when all this started to kick off.

2. They are using heavy weaponry such as tanks and and artillery to dislodge armed rebels in built-up areas and subdue the population. The evidence points to indiscriminate usage of heavy weaponry with cities like Misurata having their electricity and water cut off 10 days now.

3. They have made a series of hysterical threats to the rebel areas calling them rats and cockroaches and claiming a desire to "cleanse" these cities "house by house" and "exterminate" the opposition. They don't have a secret agenda here - they are shouting it from the rooftops.

To claim that the threat is an "utter fallacy" would be to look at Libya - past, present and future - with your eyes shut.

I wanted to respond to Dylans OP on the Benghazi thread yesterday but didn't have time. I'll try to do it later.

 

[Spion]

not sure mindnumbing stupidty can be described as a war crime.

Lucky for you

 

[extra dry]

The coalition will have to kill Gaddafi, ether a missile strike or one those CIA trained assassins, can't wait for the movie of how the west won the desert again...

 

[likesfish]

Lucky for you

 

[dylans]

The UN mandate in 1973 is to protect "civilians" but given that there is a conflict between armed rebels and regime forces, the US is tying itself up in circles trying to make the distinction between "civilians" and rebels . The following exchange between Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, and journalists yesterday is very revealing of the incoherence and contradictions in US strategy

Q: Is there a difference?

MR. DONILON: Is there a difference between a rebel and a—no, a civilian is a civilian.

Q: But if a rebel is standing in front of Libyan forces, is he to be protected by——

MR. DONILON: Well, the point, though—I mean, the point is pretty clear, though, is that you have a civilian population under attack by regime forces. And I’ve tried to be very clear about what the instructions are. The coalition partners and others under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 are empowered to use all necessary measures to protect civilians from military attack.

Q: So if a civilian with an AK-47 is facing off against Qaddafi forces, is he protected under 1973 and coalition forces?

MR. DONILON: Well, but that's—the focus, the activity of the coalition forces is against the military forces who are attacking civilians. That's the activity. So that's the best I can do.

Q: So the answer is no, civilians who take up arms against Qaddafi’s forces are not protected under 1973?

MR. DONILON: Not protected? No, I don't—well, the civilians who are protecting themselves from the Qaddafi regime, is that the——

Q: They’re fighting the Qaddafi forces, aren't they? Are they——

MR. DONILON: Is that the question?

Q: —protected by coalition forces in 1973?

Q: Doesn’t that mean you’re taking sides on behalf of a military force fighting the Qaddafi regime?

MR. DONILON: We’re taking—this is not unclear either in the resolution, which I’ll reach for here, or in terms of the activities of the coalition forces. The Qaddafi regime was threatening attack and attacking civilians and civilian-populated areas. Those are the two terms in the Security Council resolution. They were under threat of attack, and the goal is to take action to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack by the Qaddafi regime. That's the——

Q: I didn't understand—civilians—do you recognize the rebels as civilians?

MR. DONILON: They are citizens of Libya, and they are civilians.

Q: They are? They are? They are civilians?

MR. DONILON: They're not military forces under the direction and control of Qaddafi.

Q: But they’re military forces——

MR. DONILON: Yes, yes.

 

[weltweit]

I think it should be a matter for regret that UN resolution 1973 is so unclear.

 

[dylans]

I think it should be a matter for regret that UN resolution 1973 is so unclear.

It's a transparent cover for regime change.

 

[phildwyer]

You know when Casually Red, Ernesto and Phildwyer are all united behind a common cause that it's almost certainly the wrong one.

Be quiet, moron. No-one care what you think.

 

[phildwyer]

I think it should be a matter for regret that UN resolution 1973 is so unclear.

It's deliberately unclear. Did you really think the West would stop at a no-fly zone? They want to ensure that Libya will never again be a threat to anyone.

 

[cybertect]

I am surprised our government has decided to intervene to support the Libyan rebels, since they are, apparently, terrorists under UK law.

Terrorism Act 2000

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [racial] or ideological cause.​

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.​

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.​

They seem to fit all the criteria.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

I think somebody at the time pointed out would have included support for the ANC during the Apartheid era

 

[weltweit]

It's a transparent cover for regime change.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory,
...

Does not sound like regime change to me.

But does not sound like siding with the rebels either.

 

[phildwyer]

The West's military actions in Libya will have the additional effect of discrediting the "revolution" in Egypt. I don't think that the West instigated that uprising, but I do think it was extremely well poised to take advantage of it.

Always remember that re-writing the political map of the Muslim world has been quite explicitly at the top of the American Israeli lobby for at least a decade. No-one should be surprised that this is now happening.

The only thing that surprises me is the order of dominoes: I thought they were going to do Iran first. We saw on these boards recently how easy it would be for them to get the liberal segment of their own populations to go along with imposed "regime change" there. Well, they'll do it next.

 

[newbie]

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm



Does not sound like regime change to me.

But does not sound like siding with the rebels either.

we'll find out if 'rebel' forces attack civilian areas loyal to the mad dog. At the moment I would not expect to see UN 'intervention' but time will tell.

 

[cybertect]

The UN mandate in 1973 is to protect "civilians" but given that there is a conflict between armed rebels and regime forces, the US is tying itself up in circles trying to make the distinction between "civilians" and rebels . The following exchange between Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, and journalists yesterday is very revealing of the incoherence and contradictions in US strategy

This is essentially the flipside of the same thing Bush was trying to do with "enemy combatants", isn't it?

Do you suppose he should have read the ICRC FAQ on the topic?

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/direct-participation-ihl-faq-020609.htm

 

[cybertect]

I think somebody at the time pointed out would have included support for the ANC during the Apartheid era

Well, quite.

 

[weltweit]

I had long since forgotten about the no fly zone in Iraq after Iraq war I but apparently that lasted 10 years!! With the weak state of rebel forces, this conflict could also go on and on. It does not seem to me that the rebels have what is needed to defeat Gaddafi forces.

 

[phildwyer]

The UN mandate in 1973 is to protect "civilians" but given that there is a conflict between armed rebels and regime forces, the US is tying itself up in circles trying to make the distinction between "civilians" and rebels . The following exchange between Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, and journalists yesterday is very revealing of the incoherence and contradictions in US strategy

There's no incoherence, there are no contradictions. They don't give a tinker's cuss about any distinction between civilians and rebels. They're not there to save the Libyan people. If they were, they wouldn't be slaughtering a conscript army. They (we) are there to impose their (our) will on the country. They are doubtless laughing at the gulls and dupes who imagine otherwise.

 

[phildwyer]

I had long since forgotten about the no fly zone in Iraq after Iraq war I but apparently that lasted 10 years!! With the weak state of rebel forces, this conflict could also go on and on. It does not seem to me that the rebels have what is needed to defeat Gaddafi forces.

The aim of the West is not to "defeat Gaddafi's forces." It is to keep Libya in a permanent state of warfare and chaos, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there is no strong central state, there is no-one to prevent us taking their oil, and no-one to threaten Israel.

 

[Lock&Light]

There's no incoherence, there are no contradictions. They don't give a tinker's cuss about any distinction between civilians and rebels. They're not there to save the Libyan people. If they were, they wouldn't be slaughtering a conscript army. They (we) are there to impose their (our) will on the country. They are doubtless laughing at the gulls and dupes who imagine otherwise.

Do you ever suffer from vertigo while looking down from such a great height?