Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[Lock&Light]

Im sure the people of Sirte and Tripoli feel the same

Older people from Leningrad, (St.Petersburg for the young), will probably think, the worst is yet to come.

 

[weltweit]

If you support the intervention by the great powers then you are. They are there to further their interests in Libya's oil

Not at all, you really are a conspiraloon.

I supported U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 which permitted the defence of Benghazi.

If you did not then you supported the sacking of Benghazi, the slaughter of the armed rebels, the supression of the people and the dissapearance of the regime's critics.

Did you support Resolution 1973 Spion or not?

 

[Luther Blissett]

Not at all, you really are a conspiraloon.

Like fuck is Spion a conspiraloon. You really are talking CAMELSHIT

 

[Spion]

Not at all, you really are a conspiraloon.

I supported U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 which permitted the defence of Benghazi.

If you did not then you supported the sacking of Benghazi, the slaughter of the armed rebels, the supression of the people and the dissapearance of the regime's critics.

Did you support Resolution 1973 Spion or not?

You really are a startling combination of thick and naive. It's plain to see the resolution is not just about the defence of Benghazi as bombing has occurred all over Libya. It's plain to see the great powers have put all their money on regime change, hence the meeting of 40-odd foreign ministers here the other day, the talk of arming the rebels etc. People have been killed in numerous places by oppressive regimes and there have been no UN resolutions to save them, but in this case the opportunity arose to fashion a pro-western regime in an important oil state so in they go all guns blazing. I'll support UN resolutions when they are applied uniformly; against the Bahrainis suppression of protesters, likewise in Yemen and particularly against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Until then they'll remain the instruments of stinking, self-interested hypocrisy.

 

[dylans]

Not at all, you really are a conspiraloon.

What is conspiraloon about recognising that Western powers are following their own self interests in this? To think otherwise is to believe that the likes of Sarkozy, who only months ago offered to send French riot police to help Ben Ali put down protests, suddenly discovered a humanitarian conscience in relation to Libyan democracy. Or the US, responsible for sociocide in Iraq, gives a fig for the lives of Libyan citizens. Or that Britain whoich is standing by silently as Saudi troops drown Bahraini protests in blood suddenly cares about Libyan freedom. Don't be so bloody naive

I supported U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 which permitted the defence of Benghazi.

But which doesn't permit the defence of Sirte or Tripoli and which hypocritically defines armed rebels as civilians, but refuses to define civilians who disagree with regime change as worthy of defending. 1973 is a transparent attempt at regime change using the cover of humanitarian intervention as an excuse.

If you did not then you supported the sacking of Benghazi, the slaughter of the armed rebels, the supression of the people and the dissapearance of the regime's critics.

Pure hysterics. First of all we will never know if Benghazi would have fallen or that if it did the city would have been "sacked". For sure the people would have been suppressed and the regimes critics (those who didn't retreat to Tobruk) would have disappeared but how is that any different to what is happening right now in Bahrain? Where while the world is looking away the regime is now sentencing demonstrators to death. Do you support western intervention there? Or in Israel which has just launched a devestating air attack lasting several days and which looks set to launch a rerun of Caste lead? I look forward to your heartfelt cries for Western intervention in Gaza, but I won't hold my breath. If you support Western intervention to protect Benghazi do you also support western intervention to defend regime loyalists or migrant workers from retribution at the hands of the rebels?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

At the risk of repeating what has already been stated, I believe that

1. The UN should reserve the right to militarily intervene in exceptional circumstances.
2. Those circumstances existed in Libya.
3. Unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan there was a clear call from the population under threat in favour of foreign intervention

However, you'd have to look at international affairs with your eyes shut to realise that strategic importance of Libya to Europe.

The Oil aspect has been brought up but one major concern is immigration.

A few years ago Italy paid Libya £2.5 billion in reparations for colonial rule while at the same time Libya announced a crack down on immigrants leaving Libya to sail to Europe

Who the fuck has every heard of a former colonial power paying reparations to the colonised? I can't think of any other case where this has happened. Under the banner of compensation for an historic wrong it was clear what that money was intended for.

 

[ernestolynch]

You're just another UK liberal imperialist like Cameron and Blair.

 

[Spion]

You're just another UK liberal imperialist like Cameron and Blair.

So says Saif Al-Islam Lynch

or should that be G'Dafydd? LOL

 

[dylans]

Couldn't resist posting this. At first I thought it was an Onion type satire but apparently it is serious. According to the New York Times Libyans are glad their children are being killed by NATO airstrikes. "Thank you NATO for killing my baby"

Standing at the grave of an 18-month-old baby on Wednesday, officials of the Qaddafi government presented the first specific and credible case of a civilian death caused by Western airstrikes.

But relatives speaking a few yards away said they blamed Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and welcomed the bombs.

“No, no, no, this is not from NATO,” one relative said, speaking quietly and on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The Western planes had struck an ammunition depot at a military base nearby, he said, and the explosion had sent a tank shell flying into the bedroom of the baby, a boy, in a civilian’s home. “What NATO is doing is good,” he said, referring to the Western military alliance that is enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya.

What a thoroughly vomit inducing piece of propaganda

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31casualty.html?_r=1

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Is it propaganda or do the facts contradict the layers of opinion you have built around your argument for popular support for Gadaffi?

 

[dylans]

Is it propaganda or do the facts contradict the layers of opinion you have built around your argument for popular support for Gadaffi?

"Thank you NATO for killing our children. Please kill more" Quote from .mysterious " anonymous" relative.

Did you believe this too?

 

[elbows]

What a thoroughly vomit inducing piece of propaganda

It doesnt matter whether it is propaganda, it matters whether it is true.

The truth, so elusive in Libya, may still be hiding from us. So spare me the excessive proclamations at this stage.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

"Thank you NATO for killing our children. Please kill more"

Whatever you think about the details of the article the fact remains that the Libyan authorities had to drive journalists 70 miles out of Tripoli to see one death. What does that tell you about the extend of civilian casualties because of the current bombing campaign?

 

[dylans]

It doesnt matter whether it is propaganda, it matters whether it is true.

The truth, so elusive in Libya, may still be hiding from us. So spare me the excessive proclamations at this stage.

Show me a grieving family anywhere in the world that would thank their baby's killers. Of course it's not true. Its a New York times piece of fiction with only the written account of a "journalist" as evidence.

 

[dylans]

Whatever you think about the details of the article the fact remains that the Libyan authorities had to drive journalists 70 miles out of Tripoli to see one death. What does that tell you about the extend of civilian casualties because of the current bombing campaign?

Really?

ROME (Reuters) - At least 40 civilians have been killed in air strikes by Western forces on Tripoli, the top Vatican official in the Libyan capital told a Catholic news agency on Thursday, quoting witnesses.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m76404&hd=&size=1&l=e

And of course, NATO bombing isn't the only cause of civilian deaths in Libya

Libyan rebels massacre black Africans

The opposition forces in Libya attempting to march on Tripoli with the assistance of American, French and British bombs are far removed from the image of innocent civilians fighting for freedom and democracy promoted by the media and political circles.

This is made clear in a March 22 article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by Gunnar Heinsohn, the author of Encyclopaedia of Genocide (Rowohlt, 1998).

Heinsohn cites a report by the well-known Zimbabwean journalist and documentary filmmaker Farai Sevenzo dealing with barbaric, pogrom-like massacres perpetrated by the so-called "rebels" against black African workers in Libya. The article states:

"Because mercenaries from Chad and Mali are presumed to be fighting for him [Gaddafi], the lives of a million African refugees and thousands of African migrants are at risk. A Turkish construction worker told the British radio station BBC: 'We had seventy to eighty people from Chad working for our company. They were massacred with pruning shears and axes, accused by the attackers of being Gaddafi’s troops. The Sudanese people were massacred. We saw it for ourselves.’ "

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m76401&hd=&size=1&l=e

 

[elbows]

Show me a grieving family anywhere in the world that would thank their baby's killers. Of course it's not true. Its a New York times piece of fiction with only the written account of a "journalist" as evidence.

We dont know how close a family member is, nor how much they may hate Gaddafi. Therefore it is impossible to 100% reject the story.

Im not trying to excuse the horror that 'our' side is inflicting, but if Gaddafis years in power were even a fraction as horrible to live under as is presented, then I think there may still be quite the party when/if he goes.

For this simple reason, I refuse to allow my own political beliefs to sweep me down a desert road of assumptions of either kind. I've not lived with the claustrophobia of a large secret police-managed state,so I'm trying not to judge.

 

[Crispy]

G'Dafydd?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Show me a grieving family anywhere in the world that would thank their baby's killers. Of course it's not true. Its a New York times piece of fiction with only the written account of a "journalist" as evidence.

It's the New York Times not Fox News. It is a paper with a history of not tugging their forelock to the official government line, see the The Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks

 

[dylans]

It's the New York Times not Fox News. It is a paper with a history of not tugging their forelock to the official government line, see the The Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks

Oh really. Who was it that reported as FACT claims of WMDs in Iraq? Coverage so bad, so erroneous and so falsethat (years later) it had to correct its own story and issue an apology.
Remember Pulitzer prize winning New York Times Journalist Judith Miller?

During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate.

Remember the "silver bullet" reported by Miller?

JUDITH MILLER (on the NewsHour, 4/21/03): Well, I think they found something more than a, quote, "smoking gun." What they've found is what is being called here by the members of MET Alpha-- that's mobile exploitation team alpha-- what they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them firsthand, and who has led MET Team Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions that have kind of challenged the American intelligence community's under -- previous understanding -- of, you know, what we thought the Iraqis were doing.

Remember Saddams "aluminium tubes".Cited by Cheney as evidence of WMDs?

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning -- this is, and I want to attribute to the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources -- but it's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring, through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge.

In 2004 the Times itself was forced to admit it printed total fabrications.

To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable. Except, of course, it appears to have been mistaken.

Yeah New York times. Bastion of truth and accuracy.

 

[Spion]

1. The UN should reserve the right to militarily intervene in exceptional circumstances.
2. Those circumstances existed in Libya.

Is it propaganda or do the facts contradict the layers of opinion you have built

You need to ask yourself the same question. You're basing your support for the great powers regime change escapade on something that didn't happen, the "sacking" of Benghazi

 

[Idris2002]

So says Saif Al-Islam Lynch

or should that be G'Dafydd? LOL

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Look, the facts about Libya:

1. The regime has an appalling human rights record stretching back decades.
2. They were using heavy artillery and weaponry to pacify urban civilian areas
3. They were quite openly shouting from the rooftops about "cleansing" the "rats and cockroaches" and doing so by going from "door to door"

In these circumstance you have to presume that the worse is going to happen. And to know what the worse could be then look at the 20th century

 

[Idris2002]

Oh really. Who was it that reported as FACT claims of WMDs in Iraq? Coverage so bad, so erroneous and so falsethat (years later) it had to correct its own story and issue an apology.
Remember Pulitzer prize winning New York Times Journalist Judith Miller?



Remember the "silver bullet" reported by Miller?



Remember Saddams "aluminium tubes".Cited by Cheney as evidence of WMDs?



In 2004 the Times itself was forced to admit it printed total fabrications.


Yeah New York times. Bastion of truth and accuracy.

In the late 1990s, the NYT reported as fact the episode where the Clinton administration planted spies in the weapons inspection teams being sent into Iraq. By 2003, they were describing these facts as 'allegations'.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2011/mar/libyan-defector-moussa-koussa-invited-royal-wedding.html

PRINCE WILLIAM and Kate Middleton are to invite Libyan defector Moussa Koussa to their upcoming wedding, it has emerged.

Koussa, still officially the Libyan Foreign Minister, flew to London this week and is thought to have agreed to trade secrets about his boss, Colonel Gaddafi, in exchange for a berth at the prestigious marriage to be held on 29 April at Westminster Abbey.

 

[dylans]

Look, the facts about Israel:

1. The Israeli regime has an appalling human rights record stretching back decades.
2. They were using heavy artillery and weaponry to pacify Gaza
3. They were quite openly shouting from the rooftops about "cleansing" the "rats and cockroaches" and doing so by going from "door to door"

In these circumstance you have to presume that the worse is going to happen. And to know what the worse could be then look at the 20th century but then, Gaza doesn't have oil so we let them do what they wanted

Edited for you

 

[magneze]

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2011/mar/libyan-defector-moussa-koussa-invited-royal-wedding.html

April Fool?

 

[weltweit]

What is conspiraloon about recognising that Western powers are following their own self interests in this?

The U.N. resolution showed 10 countries in favour of action according to 1973 in Libya and five abstentions. There was not a single vote against 1973.
The Arab League was in favour
The African Union was in favour

It will be impossible for all of these nations to benefit from the oil in Libya, there are too many of them. Indeed the nature of the resolution points to defence of civilians being the aim, and that is the aim.

With so many countries being involved, do you not think if oil was the motive that we would have heard one at least of them talking about it in a press conference? The reason oil does not come up at press conferences of the U.N.S.C. : China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and Bosnia & Herz., Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Columbia, Germany, India, Portugal, South Africa - is because oil is not the primary motive of the U.N. Coalition in getting involved.

It is possible to discuss the situation in Libya without reference to what is going on elsewhare, but in relation to elsewhare consistency would certainly be fine, but Libya is also unique. The situation in Libya presented us with a situation in which something could be done and where there was international agreement that it should be done.

But which doesn't permit the defence of Sirte or Tripoli and which hypocritically defines armed rebels as civilians, but refuses to define civilians who disagree with regime change as worthy of defending. 1973 is a transparent attempt at regime change using the cover of humanitarian intervention as an excuse.

Actually 1973 just talks about preventing harm to civilians, it does not differentiate between civilians in Benghazi or Sirte or Tripoli.

Pure hysterics. First of all we will never know if Benghazi would have fallen or that if it did the city would have been "sacked". For sure the people would have been suppressed and the regimes critics (those who didn't retreat to Tobruk) would have disappeared but how is that any different to what is happening right now in Bahrain? Where while the world is looking away the regime is now sentencing demonstrators to death. Do you support western intervention there?

Bahrain? this thread is about Libya. I don't know what would be possible to do in Bahrain or if there would be international consensus and suitable UN resolutions. As I mentioned this thread is about Libya.

Or in Israel which has just launched a devestating air attack lasting several days and which looks set to launch a rerun of Caste lead? I look forward to your heartfelt cries for Western intervention in Gaza, but I won't hold my breath. If you support Western intervention to protect Benghazi do you also support western intervention to defend regime loyalists or migrant workers from retribution at the hands of the rebels?

As it happens, I am anti Israel but dylans the situation in the Israel Palestine conflict is quite clear when on takes the test which you set out on previous pages of this thread.

You said, the revolution in Libya has failed because it has not overcome the regime, i.e. the regime is stronger therefore we should leave the rebels to their fate. i.e. Might is right! .. it is quite simple to apply your own Might is Right doctine to the Israel Palestine conflict and what would that bring, it could only bring acceptance that Israel is right because it has might on it's side.

Note that I do not agree with might is right. It was however your argument for not intervening to help the Libyan rebels, an intervention which I support.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

April Fool?

of course it is

 

[elbows]

It will be impossible for all of these nations to benefit from the oil in Libya, there are too many of them. Indeed the nature of the resolution points to defence of civilians being the aim, and that is the aim.

With so many countries being involved, do you not think if oil was the motive that we would have heard one at least of them talking about it in a press conference? The reason oil does not come up at press conferences of the U.N.S.C. : China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and Bosnia & Herz., Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Columbia, Germany, India, Portugal, South Africa - is because oil is not the primary motive of the U.N. Coalition in getting involved.

Ok I've had enough of your ignorance now. Why do you take everything at face value, have their not been enough events in your lifetime that would make you think twice before swallowing everything and erroneously taking PR at face value?

 

[London_Calling]

I see Moussa Koussa has made a run for the humanitarian highground - after 30 years of not feeling its importance.

Absolutely nothing to do with $CIA is a Swiss account I'm sure.