Anyone who believes the media on this war is a complete cretin.
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
...
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
You're right about that, except the last sentence is hyperbole. But that's no reason to support Gadaffi.
Are you serious? Stand by a murdering psychopath against his people because he stood by "us." Na, kill the SOB & his sons & his mercenaries.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
That's the mentality of the Gaddafi supporters, unfortunately. On the wrong side of history, as usual.
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
He stood by us then , stand by him now !!!!!!
You are the reincarnation of Seán Russell. I claim my fiver.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/02/irelandThe Gurniad said:
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Translation: they might not do what we tell them to do
Idaho
blah blah blah
Lulz....
I suppose you only trust your own network of trusted intelligence assets dotted across the middle east?
Dupe
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
There's ample reason to be sceptical about something like this story, based on past form.
After the the "babies thrown from incubators in Kuwait" and all of the cynical propaganda associated with the invasion of Iraq, it's totally plausible that Hill and Knowlton or the Rendon Group or some other bunch of poisonous PR shits might want to manufacture such a story to drum up support for military action.
If that's so though, it's not too clear how they might have pulled it off in this particular case. If it really is a propaganda stunt it's a horribly plausible one.
After the the "babies thrown from incubators in Kuwait" and all of the cynical propaganda associated with the invasion of Iraq, it's totally plausible that Hill and Knowlton or the Rendon Group or some other bunch of poisonous PR shits might want to manufacture such a story to drum up support for military action.
If that's so though, it's not too clear how they might have pulled it off in this particular case. If it really is a propaganda stunt it's a horribly plausible one.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Dassault, and therefore by logical extension the French government, are absolument prêt à tout to get an export order for the Rafale. It's down to the last two for the Brazilian FX2 competition (4 billion euros) and the Indian MRCA competition (9 billion euros). Nothing will shift hardware like a bit of footage on a news channel showing it to be combat proven.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
dylans
overlord of all acorns
This could also be said by Charles Taylor and the RUF in Sierra Leone. You are keen on photos. Here are a few.
Gaddafi. Hero of the oppressed? He armed Taylor and the RUF. The hackers of the limbs of children.
I'm against Western intervention in Libya too but vile apologists for Gaddafi do the anti war cause no favours. You are a disgrace
Sick twat.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I agree Ernesto. Anyone that arms, trains and finances those who hack the arms off children is indeed sick. Closely followed by those who apologise and defend such people.
teqniq
DisMembered
Probably going to add fuel to the debate, in any event, imo worth a read - From Juan Cole:
An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
weltweit
Well-Known Member
That isn't a letter, it is a thesis ...
If you can't say something concisely there is no point in pontificating more and more ...
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I have just lost all respect for Juan Cole, someone I used to hold in high regard. A thoroughly dishonest and incoherent article.
No contradiction at all. I opposed the invasion of Iraq but if today Saddam was facing a revolution by his own people, I would be cheering.
True enough and the left should support them but the fact remains the rest of the city didn't. That it didn't is a sign that the rebellion didn't have national support.
Simply untrue, the military barracks in Benghazi fell by the 19th and people siezed arms. In any case whether the rebellion was armed or not is of relevence only to pacifists. I support the siezure of arms.
Dishonest and untrue. The fact is Gaddafi's success in turning the tide is an indication of the failure of the rebellion to inspire the entire nation and as such must be seen for what it is, a regional revolt that is opposed by large sections of the population. will those who support western intervention support the use of western firepower against the population of Tripoli or Sirte if the rebels advance is opposed by the people of these cities?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
this is precisely my viewpoint, other than the bit about the stage at which the protestors took up arms, which was Benghazi
free spirit
more tea vicar?
this is not a fact, it's your interpretation of the situation, and IMO it's you who're being dishonest by repeatedly stating it as fact.
The failure of the rebellion to achieve it's aims by itself is largely down to Gaddafi and his sons managing to keep control of the vast majority of Libya's armed forces, and persuade enough of them to turn their guns on the Libyan people in a way that hadn't happened in Egypt or Tunisia. The true opinions and loyalties of the people in Tripoli & Sirte is impossible to judge, as dissent was put down so swiftly and violently in these places that the lack of visible dissent can not really be taken as evidence of full support for the regime.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
If you think the population of Tripoli are waiting to receive the rebels with open arms you are as deluded as George Bush who thought the same about Baghdad. A rebellion making gains by hiding behind the skirts of western firepower will be seen as treason not liberation
free spirit
more tea vicar?
and the rest of it?
do you still contend that the failure of the rebels was a failure to attract the people to thair cause or do you accept that it was largely a failure to pursuade enough of the army to protect them the people instead of obeying gaddafi & sons orders to put down the rebellion?
I think you're probably right to some extent that there will be significant sections of the population in Tripoli who won't immediately welcome the rebels if they do get there, whether they'd actively take up arms against them, and whether the rebels would use force or diplomacy against them are far more open questions.
More important though is the question of whether the rebels will actually ever need to fight their way into Tripoli.Personally I don't expect this to get that far, I suspect that if this is going to end in the rebels favour it will happen via an army coup that removes Gaddafi and his sons from power once it's clear the writing's on the wall for his regime, and negotiates for peace & some form of powersharing agreement with the rebels. I'd think this is at least as likely as your doomsday scenario.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That Juan Cole article seems to fall into the same trap as his imagined interlocutors – a simple binary opposition: either you support NATO or you support Gadaffi.
He reads the neocon position wrongly, I think. The neocons don't despise the UN. Why would they? Where the UN serves their purposes, they love the UN. In the case of Iraq, the UN did not serve their purposes, so they deliberately sidelined it and ridiculed it because that was their best interest. If they could have obtained explicit UN permission to invade Iraq, they would have been delighted and used that fact as much as they could to justify their actions.
I don't understand why it matters to him that the UN has approved this action (which is nonetheless clearly still a NATO action). Would he have supported the invasion of Iraq if the UN had voted in favour of it? Can he not think for himself? I hear this argument a lot, still, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong because it was illegal. No, it was wrong because it was the wrong thing to do. Its legal status makes absolutely no difference to its rightness or wrongness as a course of action. Cole reads like a LibDem.
He reads the neocon position wrongly, I think. The neocons don't despise the UN. Why would they? Where the UN serves their purposes, they love the UN. In the case of Iraq, the UN did not serve their purposes, so they deliberately sidelined it and ridiculed it because that was their best interest. If they could have obtained explicit UN permission to invade Iraq, they would have been delighted and used that fact as much as they could to justify their actions.
I don't understand why it matters to him that the UN has approved this action (which is nonetheless clearly still a NATO action). Would he have supported the invasion of Iraq if the UN had voted in favour of it? Can he not think for himself? I hear this argument a lot, still, that the invasion of Iraq was wrong because it was illegal. No, it was wrong because it was the wrong thing to do. Its legal status makes absolutely no difference to its rightness or wrongness as a course of action. Cole reads like a LibDem.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Thats precisely what it is .
Meanwhile the Emir of Qatars interests - that is the self appointed king currently helping to bomb democracy into the Libyans - become a bit clearer . He has announced today that he - Qatar in person - will start taking delivery of Libyan crude from rebel held areas and market it for them . Helpful chap that he is .
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You're calling the rebellion treason? Against Gadaffi? ffs.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Its illegality is still important . Because as bad as things are now - and bad they truly are - if theres no rules at all then the entire world is well and truly fucked . The UN couldnt approve the invasion of Iraq because such a move was illegal under international law . As is regime change at the point of a cruise missile in Libya . Rightness and wrongness are concepts that are purely abitrary that change from one person to the next , one day to the next .
Today what the zionist state fears most is not Palestinian resitance , which it can contain with minimum effort - but the loss of its own legitimacy . Thats whats ultimately important .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
its a rebellion against Libya itself , propped up solely by western military might . A coup .
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
