Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[TruXta]

The revolution is dead. Western intervention has killed it just as surely as Gaddafis tanks had rolled through Benghazi. The rebellion has failed to win Tripoli and Western intervention has made that impossible now Any rebel military victory in the Capital will only be made against the wishes of half the country. It will be seen as conquest not liberation and it will result in the replacement of Gaddafi by another dictatorship. One that the West likes.

So the best we can hope for is, what? A loyalist revolt against the new pro-Western regime and so on and so on?

 

[dylans]

So the best we can hope for is, what? A loyalist revolt against the new pro-Western regime and so on and so on?

We can remember that Libya is a part of a regional revolutionary process that is sweeping the region. A process that inspired those who rose up in Benghazi and a process that will continue to inspire millions across the region. Libya is not immune to that. The fight goes on.

 

[pocketscience]

Actually I don't really have a problem with the IRA getting guns off the Germans, (or off Gaddafi for that matter)The Arabs did the same thing. Why should they care about the security of a colonial regime that is occupying them. The enemy of my enemy etc. What is important is that they keep their independance and didnt adopt the ideologies of those whose aid they sought and as far as I know they didnt. Hate to say it but I agree with Gaddafi boy on this one

Using that logic, the rebels are justified in receiving support from the west then(?)
What suggests that the rebels are adopting the west's ideologies and don't intend to keep their independence?

 

[elbows]

wheres Dylans and his genuine revolutionaries taking a bit of a wrong turn now ? As every day passes this thing seems more and more pre planned , like what happened Chavez in Caracas . Almost identical . A media blitz unquestioningly accusing him of massacring his own people preceding an attempted coup led by all manner of reactionary fuckwits looking to get their hands on the oil . With the trail leadin right back to the states .

There are a number if differences. Its been quite some years now since the attempted coup against Chavez, so I may have remembered some details wrong but I'll have a stab at this anyway. In Venezuela the opposition were allowed to operate, and they had extremely powerful private media assets at their disposal. These were used to deliver the anti-Chavez propaganda in a manner of ways that were far more dramatic than anything we've seen in Libya. Snipers killing people and video footage suggesting Chavistas were to blame used by networks, the withholding of a variety of important details about what was happening on key coup days, complete failure to acknowledge or cover pro-Chavez counter-demonstrations after the coup kicked in, and rather stupidly some gloating on tv about how they had planned this coup. There was some proper preparation put into this coup, and various players had their recorded speeches all ready to go hours in advance, it wasnt a total shambles.

The buildup to that coup was also rather different, in that recent policies by Chavez provided a clear reason why a variety of interests would want to topple him at that time. The opposition were well established and powerful, strikes and protests were a factor, US support of opposition and dislike of Chavez was far more obvious, and as already mentioned there was some proper planning involved.

There are a few similarities with Libya I suppose, and it can be a tad hard to compare fairly due to the extreme lack of power the opposition in Libya were starting from, meaning that even if things in Libya had been planned for quite a while the chances of it turning into a shambles were greater. However its still quite plausible that the shambles is because this was not a well planned coup at all. If it has been driven largely by outside interests then there are some big questions about when they really started to get involved. Rather than something that had been planned for some time, it could have been a rush job conceived of only when other countries started to have uprisings, or it could have been a decision to get involved only once something had actually started stirring in Libya itself. I would assume that poor past relations with Gaddafi would mean that some plans and assets for overthrowing Gaddafi would have been established over time as part of business as usual, but without any specific emphasis on trying to turn any of these plans into reality, and perhaps they then dusted this stuff off once 2011 started to demonstrate what was in store for the region.

What is clear is that at some point a variety of irresistible opportunities presented themselves in Libya. The opportunity to get rid of someone who was a bit of a pain to deal with at times, to divert attention away from gruesome events in other countries, politicians of certain countries getting to have a war that they hope might help them politically, to reassert the power of military means as a way to achieve results rather than that pesky people power making people think they actually have a say, and to try to make international rhetoric about human rights and common values ring slightly less hollow, no matter if the underlying values are urinated on my the deeds carried out in the name of such things. Add the need for Libyas oil exports not to be unavailable for too long, and how could they resist getting involved?

Looking on the bright side, I hate oppressive police states, and there remains some chance that when this turmoil ends the average Libyan may eventually end up better off in this regard at least. I continue to wait without presumption to see whether a more accurate glimpse into public opinion in Libya will actually be possible at some point, eg if Gaddafi actually goes, how Tripoli will react. Im not exactly optimistic about some aspects of the possible futures for Libya and its people, it seems a far safer bet that Gaddafi will go than to bet that what will emerge instead will be loads better. All the same, given some of the insights we've had into the likely level of control, the style of regime propaganda and the level of loyalty that is demanded, we might expect that Gaddafis downfall would give Libyans at least one sort of freedom that they have lacked for decades. Sure its just one component of peoples lives, and rings a tad hollow if the economics are evil, but I cant really sit here in a country where I've been allowed to express strong criticisms of the government without much fear, and claim that such a freedom is meaningless, that it is worth putting up with power-maddened control freaks who tolerate no dissent just because some of their international political positions or economic policies suck less than the overwhelming forces that dominate todays globe.

 

[elbows]

The revolution is dead. Western intervention has killed it just as surely as Gaddafis tanks had rolled through Benghazi. The rebellion has failed to win Tripoli and Western intervention has made that impossible now Any rebel military victory in the Capital will only be made against the wishes of half the country. It will be seen as conquest not liberation and it will result in the replacement of Gaddafi by another dictatorship. One that the West likes.

And what if Gaddafi goes without a military victory in Tripoli needing to take place? I dont think we can make any claims about what the split is, whether half-the country is for or against Gaddafi. For all I know it there could be just as many anti-Gadafi people in Tripoli as there are pro, or even more. There could also be lots more people in Benghazi who are unhappy with the rebels than we can possibly tell. Im not expecting to ever get an accurate guide to the reality, but I do expect that if Gaddafi goes we might suddenly see Tripoli in a whole new light, even after discarding obvious propaganda. This is the main reason I delay my desire to form a conclusion in my mind about these events, I just cannot express so much certainty about the will of the Libyan people right now, in either direction.

 

[Casually Red]

Nice attempt to sweep that one under the carpet but, let's hear the full storey.
Sean Russell (the leader of the IRA at the time) accepted the offer, went on a training mission provideded by the Wehrmacht in Germany where he subsequently negotiated arms shipments via Uboots to the West Coast of Ireland.
The IRA does love a fascist dictator as bedfellow and seemingly doesn't do lessons learned exercises.

IRA/Nazi Collaboration

why would he not be elated at the prospect of boatloads of guns ? He was at war with england for fucks sake and had been for decades . His country was occupied and partitioned in he exact same way Vichy France was . He had every right to accept offers of arms to free his country and every right to fight to free his country from foreign military occupation. Just as the Finns had every right to accept German munitions to resist Stalins occupation of their country . Just as millions of Arabs had every right to accept German guns to fight imperialism in their countries .
He had little alternative to go to Germany as the US secret service were about to jail him for addresing public meetings there opposing the impending visit of King Gorge . The Germans were the only people able to spirit him out of the country and in Ireland he faced possible internment and execution .
He also used this contact from the outset to secure the immediate release of Socialist International Brigader Frank Ryan from a death cell in fascist Spain . This was less than a year after Winston Churchill was still openly praising Hitler , just as he'd praised Mussolini and fascism for decades . When dear old winnie was spersonally sponsoring the White army and their anti jewish pogroms , even sending the British army in to fight alongside them and the glorious RAF to drop mustard gas on Russian villages ( something even Hitler never did) Russell was actively assisting the communists .
Sean Russell personally organised and personally led the smashing of the Blueshirt fascist menace from one end of Ireland to the other . He also personaly set up the Soviet Unions first intelligence ring in Britian , putting every IRA unit there at the disposal of Lenins Soviet union . Irish workers and sympathisers in British munitions , aircraft and radio factories were sending blueprints and designs directly to him and he was passing them on directly to Lenins intelligence people .

That was the reason why Irish fascists smashed up his statue during the 1950s . And that was why De Valera and the British intelligence services were conspiring together to out him as a Soviet spy .

De Valera sought British help to cast IRA leader as Soviet spy

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0329/1224293300168.html

Furthermore nazi collaborator Francis Stuart testified later that Russell flatly refused to entertain any nazi ideology in return for guns . Pobably one of the main reasons why he never got any . While england has been fortunate enough to have American military might save them time and again from invasion unfortunately Ireland has not been . If it wasnt for that military occupation of his country Sean Russell would not have been anywhere near Germany . End of .

 

[Casually Red]

Using that logic, the rebels are justified in receiving support from the west then(?)
What suggests that the rebels are adopting the west's ideologies and don't intend to keep their independence?

their country is not occupied by a foreign invader . Although give them another week and theyll be demanding it too .

 

[Lock&Light]

Him and Ghadaffi were great mates .

That, among many others, is a good reason to disparage Gadaffi.

 

[pocketscience]

why would he not be elated at the prospect of boatloads of guns ? He was at war with england for fucks sake and had been for decades . His country was occupied and partitioned in he exact same way Vichy France was . He had every right to accept offers of arms to free his country and every right to fight to free his country from foreign military occupation. Just as the Finns had every right to accept German munitions to resist Stalins occupation of their country . Just as millions of Arabs had every right to accept German guns to fight imperialism in their countries .
He had little alternative to go to Germany as the US secret service were about to jail him for addresing public meetings there opposing the impending visit of King Gorge . The Germans were the only people able to spirit him out of the country and in Ireland he faced possible internment and execution .
He also used this contact from the outset to secure the immediate release of Socialist International Brigader Frank Ryan from a death cell in fascist Spain . This was less than a year after Winston Churchill was still openly praising Hitler , just as he'd praised Mussolini and fascism for decades . When dear old winnie was spersonally sponsoring the White army and their anti jewish pogroms , even sending the British army in to fight alongside them and the glorious RAF to drop mustard gas on Russian villages ( something even Hitler never did) Russell was actively assisting the communists .
Sean Russell personally organised and personally led the smashing of the Blueshirt fascist menace from one end of Ireland to the other . He also personaly set up the Soviet Unions first intelligence ring in Britian , putting every IRA unit there at the disposal of Lenins Soviet union . Irish workers and sympathisers in British munitions , aircraft and radio factories were sending blueprints and designs directly to him and he was passing them on directly to Lenins intelligence people .

That was the reason why Irish fascists smashed up his statue during the 1950s . And that was why De Valera and the British intelligence services were conspiring together to out him as a Soviet spy .

De Valera sought British help to cast IRA leader as Soviet spy

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0329/1224293300168.html

Furthermore nazi collaborator Francis Stuart testified later that Russell flatly refused to entertain any nazi ideology in return for guns . Pobably one of the main reasons why he never got any . While england has been fortunate enough to have American military might save them time and again from invasion unfortunately Ireland has not been . If it wasnt for that military occupation of his country Sean Russell would not have been anywhere near Germany . End of .

So in the same vain as my post to Dylans', I'll reverse the circumstances.
The rebels in Lybia are receiving aid from the west to overthrow an oppressor, without any apparent agreement "to entertain any [western] ideology in return for guns". Where's the difference to the RA getting guns from the nazis?
Aren't the IRA sometimes referred to as rebels too?

What's worse in your opinion: a home-grown fascist dictator or a colonial regime and is it ideologically acceptable to receive help from either to further a rebellions cause against the other?
I may be missing something but both you and Dylans both seem to be contradicting yourselves on this point over the last weeks.

Maybe that's why your spat with him isn't getting anywhere.

 

[pocketscience]

their country is not occupied by a foreign invader .

So foreign invaders are a bad thing if they invade my land, but it's perfectly acceptable to receive arms from them if they've invaded somebody else's.

 

[pocketscience]

DP

 

[weltweit]

Libya former energy minister Shatwan flees to Europe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12997178
A former top minister in the Libyan government, Omar Fathi Bin Shatwan, has fled to Europe.

says several members of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's inner circle want to defect, but many are too scared to do so.
...
He said he still had contact with some government figures and many feared for their safety. In some cases, their families were under siege, he added.

"Those whose families are outside Libya will flee if they get a chance," he said. "But many can't leave, and all the families of ministers are under siege."

He said he had spent 40 days at his home in Misrata before escaping from Libya, and witnessed the destruction of the city by government forces.
...
He said government forces - which he said were mainly foreign mercenaries led by a small number of Libyans - had fired on civilians indiscriminately inside Misrata.

 

[Casually Red]

well it looks like that wanker from yeserday giving out abiout NATO not blowing up enough of his fellow Libyans just got his wish . Theyve just gone and bombed his guys yet again - this time killing 5 and wounding many more outside Brega . Al Jazeera are reporting some rebels are now claiming NATO is actually on Ghadaffis side .
I predicted a few days ago this type of stuff would happen once Libyan troops hid their tanks away and started floating about in Toyota technicals . Although it appears these guys were advancing on Brega in tanks . How long before the rebels turn on NATO and each other ?

 

[Casually Red]

So foreign invaders are a bad thing if they invade my land, but it's perfectly acceptable to receive arms from them if they've invaded somebody else's.

If your countrys invaded its a perfectly acceptable thing to accept arms from whoever will provide them . It was just as perfectly acceptable for the IRA to accept arms from Germany as it was for the FFI to accept them from Britain . And it was just as wrong for Britian to occupy anyone eleses country as it was for Germany , or France and Belgiums colonialism too for that matter . Your argument would appear to be along the lines of its a dreadful thing to occupy a white europeans country - except for the Bogwogs of course , but perfectly fine to colonise dark skinned and oriental countries , fuzzy wuzzies etc .
If you want real hypocrisy with fascists though we could address the issue of the British army marching into Greece and immediately butchering its partisans and putting the fascist collaborators theyd been fighting and routing back in control of the place . Reverting right back to their pre 1939 positon of political and military support for fascism in Europe .
But thats an issue for another thread , lets not derail this one any further.

 

[Casually Red]

BBC now reporting 14 rebels killed in the NATO airstrike . Unlike the dead babies though it appears they arent that happy about it this time . It also appears Ghadaffi didnt take their bodies from a freezer either .

 

[weltweit]

BBC now reporting 14 rebels killed in the NATO airstrike . Unlike the dead babies though it appears they arent that happy about it this time . It also appears Ghadaffi didnt take their bodies from a freezer either .

It is going to be a problem, they all look the same now. I suppose what is needed is spotters on the front line able to give GPS coordinates of Gaddafi forces. But seeing as the US at least has said there is no communication between the rebels and those carrying out the air strikes this may be difficult. Well I know there are some special forces units on the ground, but to be effective they might have to be embedded in the rebel front line forces.

 

[pocketscience]

If your countrys invaded its a perfectly acceptable thing to accept arms from whoever will provide them . It was just as perfectly acceptable for the IRA to accept arms from Germany as it was for the FFI to accept them from Britain . And it was just as wrong for Britian to occupy anyone eleses country as it was for Germany , or France and Belgiums colonialism too for that matter . Your argument would appear to be along the lines of its a dreadful thing to occupy a white europeans country - except for the Bogwogs of course , but perfectly fine to colonise dark skinned and oriental countries , fuzzy wuzzies etc .
If you want real hypocrisy with fascists though we could address the issue of the British army marching into Greece and immediately butchering its partisans and putting the fascist collaborators theyd been fighting and routing back in control of the place . Reverting right back to their pre 1939 positon of political and military support for fascism in Europe .
But thats an issue for another thread , lets not derail this one any further.

Apart from not answering my questions and spectacularly missing my point - yep, you are going off on a bit of a tangent... and I find all that stuff you wrote about fuzzy wuzzies and so on, quite bizarre. You couldn't be further from the truth if you think that that's the line along which my argument goes.

I'm simply pointing out the moral corruption involved in adopting the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach.
For your information, I'm against tyrants of any form, be it a dictator or colonial power and "rebels" (IRA, lybian or any other) who have the potential of tyranny too. Being against them means I also wouldn't deal with them.
I prefer being part of a humane society, that tries to peacefully rid the world of perpetual regional, sectarian, racist or religious tyranny and conflict . Maybe you think that's naive but, should that day come there'll be a huge party and I hope you'll have chilled out enough by that time to make it to the dance floor.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

BBC now reporting 14 rebels killed in the NATO airstrike . Unlike the dead babies though it appears they arent that happy about it this time . It also appears Ghadaffi didnt take their bodies from a freezer either .

They invited the yanks in, what the fuck did they expect?

 

[Casually Red]

apparently not to have bombs dropped on them repeatedly by their heroic allies. All they had to do was ask the British about the likelihood of that one .
A real problem now . Both AJ and BBC are quoting distraught rebels convinced NATO is actually siding with Ghadaffi . Along with that twats outbursts light night at the press conference they sound like the most unallied allies ever . More chaotic by the day .

Meanwhile credibility stretched even further by a rebel spokesperson at a press conferennce claiming it was Ghadaffis planes which bombed them , along with a detailed account of the upposed planes used . No doubt the same myythical ones that bombed the demonstrators.

 

[Casually Red]

Apart from not answering my questions and spectacularly missing my point - yep, you are going off on a bit of a tangent... and I find all that stuff you wrote about fuzzy wuzzies and so on, quite bizarre. You couldn't be further from the truth if you think that that's the line along which my argument goes.

I'm simply pointing out the moral corruption involved in adopting the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach.
For your information, I'm against tyrants of any form, be it a dictator or colonial power and "rebels" (IRA, lybian or any other) who have the potential of tyranny too. Being against them means I also wouldn't deal with them.
I prefer being part of a humane society, that tries to peacefully rid the world of perpetual regional, sectarian, racist or religious tyranny and conflict . Maybe you think that's naive but, should that day come there'll be a huge party and I hope you'll have chilled out enough by that time to make it to the dance floor.

except sean russell never became morally corrupted and the IRA never adopted nazi ideology . Ireland was under occupation , an IRA campaign had kicked off prior to WW2 . Turning down offers of munitions from a world superpower simply wasnt an option for Russell . tTurning down strings attached ie nazi ideology was an option however . And he turned that down flat . Theres no doubt Frank Ryan did too .

 

[Lock&Light]

At some stage this thread might still just about recover from the effects of the insane postings of CR.

 

[ernestolynch]

Shut up, clown shoes. He's the only one talking sense.

 

[pocketscience]

except sean russell never became morally corrupted and the IRA never adopted nazi ideology . Ireland was under occupation , an IRA campaign had kicked off prior to WW2 . Turning down offers of munitions from a world superpower simply wasnt an option for Russell . tTurning down strings attached ie nazi ideology was an option however . And he turned that down flat . Theres no doubt Frank Ryan did too .

Of course he could have turned the offers down. And the claim that by not adopting the ideology of a fascist provides immunity from moral corruption, is not a rule. It's dylans opinion remember. You make it sound like its in the Geneve convention
Let's take YOU for an example. Because the IRA got some arms from Gadaffi years ago you now sing his praises, totally oblivious to the fact he's a fascist. You're presenting a case here for him on this forum, showing your support for him. I can only assume you'd be doing the same for Hitler if he'd held on to some sort of local power. That's morally corrupt! Basta!
And then you have the audacity to your self a socialist.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Terrible logic you're using. And would 'fascist' be factually correct, to describe Gaddafi?

 

[weltweit]

Libya Conflict Prompts Defence Cuts Rethink
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...nce_Cut_Rethink_Amid_Military_Action_In_Libya
Military action in Libya has prompted Prime Minister David Cameron to launch a rethink on defence cuts, Sky News has learned.

 

[pocketscience]

Terrible logic you're using. And would 'fascist' be factually correct, to describe Gaddafi?

according to dictionary.com
fascism:
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism"

Nailed on, IMO

 

[Idaho]

Terrible logic you're using. And would 'fascist' be factually correct, to describe Gaddafi?

It's a word with disputed meanings. Does it just mean an autocratic ruler who allows a capitalist system but supresses all civil society?

 

[Idaho]

Shut up, clown shoes. He's the only one talking sense.

(glug, glug, glug)

 

[ernestolynch]

Lol, the projection of a failing puritan.

 

[Idaho]

Lol, the projection of a failing puritan.

I bet you had to retype that a few times