Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

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.

except its not plausible at all . The mercenaries never existed . The airforce never bombed any demonstrators . Its also clear these rebels dont have national support .
 
has anyone noticed a change in a lot of the pictures of the rebels recently since they started to advance again on pro government districts ? I noticed yesterday one waving a machete on the BBC site . Then last night i was watching euronews and there was a line of them walking up the road brandishing meatcleavers , knives and hatchets . Somehow I dont think theyll be using those on soldiers .

SebMeyer-LasRanuf-Battle-14.JPG


article-1364721-0D8B68FC000005DC-403_634x431.jpg


74581178-antigaddafi-rebel.jpg
 
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.

dassault-aviations-rafale.jpg

tis a good plane, though taking out a taxiing 30-year-old Soko G-2 Galeb is hardly combat. French government stiffed Dassault on the trials that really count a few years back: Singapore, seen as the least bent therefore helpful in other orders. Was looking good then Chirac bigged up relations with China with under a week to go, who did he think Singapore was looking to defend itself from:rolleyes:.
 
has anyone noticed a change in a lot of the pictures of the rebels recently since they started to advance again on pro government districts ? I noticed yesterday one waving a machete on the BBC site . Then last night i was watching euronews and there was a line of them walking up the road brandishing meatcleavers , knives and hatchets . Somehow I dont think theyll be using those on soldiers .

Have worried from the beggining what the tribe thats been repressed for 40 years will do if it gets to tripolli
 
What do you mean 'a rebellion against Libya itself'? You sound like Gadaffi. You've completely lost the plot on this.

the outcome of this could well be partition . And to implement it theyre inviting foreign forces in to bomb shit out of the place . Thats treason against your own nation .
 
What if you don't give a fuck about your 'nation'? In its modern form, Libya has only existed as a unified area since the Italians invaded in 1911 – 'Libya' is the creation of Italian imperialists. It has since only existed as an independent unified area since 1951.

I don't know the intricacies of regional identities in Libya. I guess they fall along the lines of the three pre-Italian occupation Ottoman empire provinces. Which is pre-eminent under Gadaffi, and which have been excluded from power? If you're from a group that's been excluded from power for almost the entirety of the existence of the 'nation' of Libya, why would you feel any kind of identification with it?

By your reasoning the Irish rebels fighting for an independent Ireland were treasonous – Ireland was part of the UK at the time, after all.
 
obviously they dont give a fuck about their nation , theyre opely inviting theimperialists back in . Just like the treasonous bastards in this country are at .
 
Who are you to tell them what their nation is, though?

Libya has been an occupied territory – first by the Italians, then the French and British – then it's been a corrupt monarchy dominated by foreign influence, then it's been a corrupt dictatorship.

And that's it. That's the entire history of 'Libya'. Is it unreasonable of people who feel they have been on the wrong side of the various regimes listed above not to care about the continued existence of the Libyan nation?

It is bizarre of you to call treason. It is only treason from the point of view of someone who considers Gadaffi to be the legitimate leader of Libya, and who considers Libya to be a territory whose unity comes above all other considerations. 'One indivisible nation,' cry nationalists and tyrants the world over.
 
There are pro-Gadaffi Libyans in London. I took a snap of them as they demonstrated in Picadilly yesterday while the TUC march was on. Just before this they had been trampling on a rebel flag. "Hands off Libya" was their cry.
 
Another example of a 'nation' created by European imperialists that comprises groups that consider their group identity to be more important to them than any national identity – like Iraq. Well done, European imperialists.
 
Prior to Ghadaffis revolution those people lived in hovels , in shacks , illiterate and without medical care or basic sanitation . That was the lot of almost the entire population . They had absolutely nothing . Ghadaffi reversed that . Their nation provided them with free medical care , decent housing ,sanitation, social and public services, free education right through to university level . Women were released from medieval bonds of backwardness in that nation - 30 odd years later Saudi Arabia which actively supports this counter revolution , while invading Bahrain to put down protests there - still refuses to permit women even to drive a car while Ghadaffi had them driving tanks decades ago.

The forces at work here are completely reactionary . Islamic obscurantism supported by conservative clerics and medieval sheikdoms , tribal envy and infantilism, social backwardness , and outright western imperialism all coming together for one ignoble end . An imperialist and Saudi backed counter revolution .
 
So the same rebels you were supporting are now Western imperialists?

No. Western powers bombing Libya are Western imperialists. There isn't a single indication that the rebels are doing a scrap of fighting. They are marching into empty towns following Western air strikes. Giving them the credit for battles they took no part in is simply absurd. And calling Western engineered regime change a "revolution" is an insult to the word.

How is bombing towns ahead of an marching rebel army on a military offensive in an way compatible with the UN mandate to "protect civilians"? So an armed rebel army, marching towards Tripoli seizing towns along the way ( regardless of whether or not those towns wish to be liberated) are now defined a civilians? This is beyond Orwellian.

(I have spelled out my position on this more clearly and in more depth than probably anyone on these boards. Please read my thread "what about Benghazi if you want to know my political positiion on this and please refrain from putting words into my mouth, thanks)
 
No. Western powers bombing Libya are Western imperialists. There isn't a single indication that the rebels are doing a scrap of fighting. They are marching into empty towns following Western air strikes. Giving them the credit for battles they took no part in is simply absurd. And calling Western engineered regime change a "revolution" is an insult to the word.
Aside from the politics I have to take issue with your military analysis. Do really you think it's possible to take a firmly defended city simply with airstrikes?
 
Prior to Ghadaffis revolution those people lived in hovels , in shacks , illiterate and without medical care or basic sanitation . That was the lot of almost the entire population . They had absolutely nothing . Ghadaffi reversed that . Their nation provided them with free medical care , decent housing ,sanitation, social and public services, free education right through to university level . Women were released from medieval bonds of backwardness in that nation - 30 odd years later Saudi Arabia which actively supports this counter revolution , while invading Bahrain to put down protests there - still refuses to permit women even to drive a car while Ghadaffi had them driving tanks decades ago.

The forces at work here are completely reactionary . Islamic obscurantism supported by conservative clerics and medieval sheikdoms , tribal envy and infantilism, social backwardness , and outright western imperialism all coming together for one ignoble end . An imperialist and Saudi backed counter revolution .

You are right about advances made under Gaddaffi. Same with Saddam in Iraq. They did a lot of good in the early years. But as so often happens, benign paternalism turns into jealously guarded control. States of emergency, martial law, increased spending on internal security and increased action against political pluralism.
 
Aside from the politics I have to take issue with your military analysis. Do really you think it's possible to take a firmly defended city simply with airstrikes?

The question is how firmly defended these places really were. And yes, the way the media are painting the story it pretty much is a case of rebels driving in without doing very much fighting. Which is not surprising because unless there is a rebel force that is carefully avoiding the limelight (possible I suppose) then this rebel army is hardly an army at all.
 
Aside from the politics I have to take issue with your military analysis. Do really you think it's possible to take a firmly defended city simply with airstrikes?

Without resistance. Means without firing a shot doesn't it?

Libyan rebels are advancing on Muammar Gaddafi's home city, Sirte, after retaking all the ground lost in earlier fighting as government forces broke up and fled under western air strikes.

Revolutionary forces rapidly moved more than 150 miles west along Libya's coastal road, seizing several towns without resistance, as the first witness accounts emerged of the devastating effect on Gaddafi's army and militia of the aerial bombardment that broke their resistance at Ajdabiya on Saturday.

Marching into towns after the enemy has been destroyed or forced into retreat by western bombing is not my definition of "rebel victories"

But you are right on one level. What happens when resistance is offered. Say in Tripoli. How are western airstrikes against defending forces compatable with the UN mandate to protect civilians. Let's forget the right or wrong of either side for a moment. Armed rebels on the offensive siezing towns are not "civilians. This is regime change and rightly or wrongly, that is not the UN mandate
 
That tool of Western imperialism in the Middle-East, Al-Jazeera, is now asserting that soldiers loyal to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya are using rape as a weapon against dissidents

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201132845516144204.html

Bastards! How dare these NATO running dogs insult the fighters holding back the combined hoard of Al-Qaeda, colonial crusaders and drug dealers.

Long Live Brother Leader Number One!
 
But you are right on one level. What happens when resistance is offered. Say in Tripoli. How are western airstrikes against defending forces compatable with the UN mandate to protect civilians. Let's forget the right or wrong of either side for a moment. Armed rebels on the offensive siezing towns are not "civilians. This is regime change and rightly or wrongly, that is not the UN mandate
I take your point. You weren't saying what I thought you were, sorry. My point about the limitations of airstrikes still stands, though, and we'll see just how limited if Tripoli is defended.
 
You are right about advances made under Gaddaffi. Same with Saddam in Iraq. They did a lot of good in the early years. But as so often happens, benign paternalism turns into jealously guarded control. States of emergency, martial law, increased spending on internal security and increased action against political pluralism.

Similar things can be said about Fidel Castro – came to power overthrowing a corrupt regime and proceeded to do good things for the poor, but eventually ended up seeing the continuation of being in power as the sole objective of his rule.

It's not straightforward in places like Libya. Just as many of those Cubans who oppose Castro have dodgy agendas, so it is in Libya. Gadaffi's forces killed 12 protesters in Benghazi a few years ago who were protesting against the Danish Mohammad cartoons. If these protesters and their ilk are at the forefront of the rebellion, I would not have much confidence in the kind of society they wish to impose on their fellow Libyans, particularly Libyan women. But that doesn't mean one has to support Gadaffi any more than one has to support Castro. 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' is a rotten logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom