Libya: Time to Say What is Really Happening

Libya: Time to Say What is Really Happening

TOP STORY | LEBEDEVA Irina (US) | 29.03.2011 | 16:16

Global media are beaming with enthusiasm over the advancement of the “rebels” in Libya. The Independent, for example, ran a nearly sadistic weekend account of the coalition's raid which caught the forces of the regime amidst open space, with nowhere to hide, and left scores of crippled and burned bodies of Gadhafi's supporters scattered along the road to Benghazi. The people were either grilled in missile-hit tanks or came under shrapnel fire when they attempted to flee. The shocking details highlighted the actual meaning of the term “no-fly zone” in Libya's case and in fact exposed the violations of the Geneva Conventions and protocols which the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 – a de facto blessing of the aggression against Libya - served to justify. It is outrageous that, upon neutralizing Gadhafi's air defense, the coalition concluded that it had the right to kill en masse a sovereign country's servicemen who in any case simply had no right to disobey their commanders.

Regardless of any UN Security Council's resolutions, Libya should have the legitimate right to self-defense, while sanctioning an aggression is by definition illegal. Pentagon chief R. Gates admitted that the no-fly zone was an euphemism for war, but then, according to the customs of war, it had to be declared or Libya had to be confronted with an ultimatum. We have neither of that happen, but the international law still states explicitly that the laws and customs of war are just as applicable to military conflicts which began without a war being declared. The coalition should not feel that somehow it is authorized to disregard the norms which must be observed in armed conflicts of any nature.

The international law contains no regulations specific to air raids. They are subject to the 1907 and 1954 Hague Conventions as well as to the Geneva Conventions and their additional 1977 protocols pertinent to overland and maritime combat, which prohibit bombarding defenseless cities, cultural landmarks, etc. Since in all epochs wars were fought between states, the protection of potential victims falls into the sphere of the international law. As of today, the international humanitarian law is mainly based on the four August 12, 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols along with the IV Hague Convention of 1907. The latter established over a century ago that “The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited”. Protocol I adopted additionally in 1977 reiterated the above, widening the scope of the requirement to encompass any armed conflict. Moreover, from the legal standpoint the means of injuring the enemy are divided into legitimate and illegitimate. The international law disallows third-party support for any side in a conflict and bans employing a country's citizens to fight against it even if they were enrolled in military service prior to the outbreak of the conflict. Bombing defenseless cities, villages, residences and buildings, ruining cultural landmarks and shrines, or destroying potentially hazardous systems like nuclear power plants or dams is illegal. Eyewitness reports of hospitals and dams being pounded by the coalition forces in Libya are available at the moment. Subjecting civilian populations to famine as a means of war is also prohibited, but the recent assets freeze imposed on Gadhafi's regime makes it impossible for the government to buy foodstuffs and therefore clearly makes the threat of famine among the Libyan leader's supporters real. A marine blockade is regarded as legitimate only when individual or collective right to self-defense is being exercised or if it is sanctioned by the UN Security Council, but even that is open to interpretation. A blockade imposed by an aggressor is definitely illegal. Enforcing the currently neglected international law must top the international community's agenda aimed at remedying the conflict in Libya, and serious efforts should be made to prevent the unpunished aggression and use of force in North Africa from setting a precedent that can be invoked elsewhere.

...

Mark S. Sheetz, Fellow in International Security at the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University, wrote in a post at the Foreign Policy portal on March 23: «The key lesson that states like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will draw from the military intervention in Libya is to keep a nuclear development program if you have one and go get one if you do not. One has to believe that Qaddafi is now tormenting himself at night with the question: "Why did I ever agree to give up my WMD programs?» <1>. In fact, the list of countries now learning the lesson may be even longer than suggested above.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/03/29/libya-time-to-say-what-is-really-happening.html

This really is tiresome, and works more against the position you seem to advocate than for it.

Wtf is going on here anyway?

And there are some simply so desperate to smear President Obama they do not care what they use to do so.

:patriot:

Spoken very eloquently, too!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hi:

;)

:hi:

:hi:

:thumbsup:

if that is the case, is certainly more to be trusted than the pronouncements of the capitalists press and the governments who work for the same masters.

It is of course nation state gamesmanship, but nonetheless.

Such slanders are hardly appropriate, and would properly be resented by those you direct them against....

ex soviet boilerplate is obscure to me
is there something more basically wrong with the pasted text?

Its legal analysis is flawed to the pont of nonesense --- to point out just the leader, there is no legal right of self defence against execution of a Security Council resolution, any more than there is a legal right to resist arrest with violence. The thing is nonesense, and as such, deliberately aimed at arousing an emotional response in people who are ignorant of the subjects it distorts.

i don't know who wrote the text, but it disregards the illegal UN resolution
it is not nonsense
now we have made opposite declarations, but my mom is telling me to get off the computer

"Rex est lex loquens."

I am sure there are procedures which, ignored, could make a Security Council Resolution illegal.

But nobody has suggested that was the case here. Though I wouldn't be surprised seeing such an argument invented.

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it?

The United Nations is not rooted in Common Law, and has no division of branches designed to check one another's authority. There is nothing analagous to a constitutional court to review on appeal from some affected party in the U.N. structure.

This may be said to be rooted in recognition of political and military reality, namely, that who would there be to enforce any judgement against a policy or action agreed on without veto by the five leading powers on the globe? For without means of vindication, no right truely exists, and what point could there be to a judgement that could not be enforced?

The controlling authority is the U.N. Participation Act passed by Congress in 1945.

U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVI, section 287d says: "Use of armed forces; limitations. -- The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution,..."

The matter under discussion is international law, not domestic, as the claim was that Resolution 1973 violates the U.N. Charter.

Deployment of U.S. forces in enforcement of that resolution comes under the vexed question of Executive authority v. Legislative authority, and the question does not much interest me at this point, as the forces are in action, and will remain so so long as the President directs.

President Obama's war in Libya, even if it is legally authorized under international law by the Security Council, is clearly unconstitutional.

Not all use of military force is war; the War Powers resolution contains a statement by Congess of what the Constitutional limits on Presidential power are, which Congress has no Constitutional authority to do, that being a matter for the Judiciary; there is no power to compell obedience behind any such enactment, save impeachment, which could not carry to conviction and is not going to occur.

You might as well debate the average pin-point's carrying capacity in terms of cherubim and seraphim....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Oh, Rexella, what a time to be alive!"

lex, animata et loquens, as charles said
charles was a bad king, judged illegal in animata
an ultimate authority is a limit on reason,
seen when one's pinnacle and governance of reason is tautological
the king is the king, the law is the law, the UN's resolution is legal because it is the UN's resolution
what is right is right. it is what it is and that is that
whether resisting arrest is legal pertains not to whether an arrest is legal
the author in the pasted text says that the UN's resolution is not legal according to the UN
is libya a special case?
then any case is special, just by being particular
and a general international law is never valid unless the security council says so
soviet, i mean, so be it

"Say something once, why say it again?"

mumble

human beings were NOT dying? We have learned nothing from Iraq, both times, Afghanistan, and all our other foreign adventures.

I truly feel for the original revolutionaries. It looks like their revolution has been hi-jacked by the usual suspects and everything the feared, the destruction of ther infrastructure, eg, becoming another Iraq, is looking more and more probable.

I saw footage on RT this week of ambulances taking away injured (or dead) people from the site of a NATO bombing. There were women crying at the scene as they watched.

that human being, Libyans, are not dying. We need more air strikes on Ghaddafi's forces.

NFZ. And airc, the Revolutionaries specifically asked for ONLY that and nothing more.

I am so confused by the people who are supporting this. First they say we are just doing what the Revolutionaries asked for. The asked for a NFZ and specifically 'NO destruction of their infrastructrue'.

Now, you say we are doing in Libya what we did twice in Iraq, killing soldiers. Of course we found out later that many of the soldiers were conscripts trying to surrender and wer mowed down holding white flags in their hands. And we found out, that tens of thousands of civilians were killed, and we on the left said 'never again'. So we elected a president who was against that war.

So, which is it? Are we just doing what the Revolutionaries asked for, or as opponents of this action are claiming, are we at war with the Libyan Government now?

They told us if "we" didn't stop Milosovic he would have committed genocide.

But they didn't say anything about Rambouillet appendix B (there must only be 18 people on the planet that were following it that closely, which is a whole other thread), or any Camp Bondsteel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Agreement

After killing thousands of Proud Yugoslavians, and after the UN and FBI teams found no genocide (look it up) there was...

A BASE!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel

This is an almost exact carbon copy of the non UN approved 78 day bombing of Kosovo.

It was disgusting the first time and it's worse now. I have to leave this country. I cannot stand to go out and be around people that sanction this kind of madness and murder.

So, which Libyan city will get the first US base? Lets have a contest!!!It'll be fun and exciting!


*****

http://costofwar.com

^^ THIS IS YOUR GRANCHILDRENS FUTURE

Someone probably still has the old lease papers....

We'll probably know within a couple of weeks so

get your votes in now people!

And what should the lucky winner get?


"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
Thomas Jefferson


****

http://costofwar.com

free of our former dictator allies and no one knows how 'friendly' any new governments might be to 'our interests' in the region.

I don't think they'll call it the 'Green Zone' though.

Which city? I'm sure they'll build a city, as they have in Iraq.

I feel sorry for all the innocent people on both sides of this civil war, getting slaughtered for the profit of the people playing them.

Odyssey Dawn, what great name for the beginning of a long terrible time for our country. Odysseus spent ten years in the Trojan War and ten years travelling home to Ithaca. China and Russia must be smiling so broadly as they watch us walk so resolutely into a quagmire.

They have an obligation to disobey their commanders and have been advised of the possibility of indictment over the mass slaughter of civilians if they continue to obey their commanders.

death penalty for trying to stop war crimes in Iraq.

Since we know that many of the orders given to our troops were illegal, as in Manning's case eg, to hand over detainees to be tortured, where are all the U.S. soldiers who have met met THEIR obligations, especially since it is part of the oath they took, to disobey.

You know, agree or disagree with this war, but the U.S. has zero moral authority to be telling the citizens and/or their military personel how to behave ethically.

We are currently reading about the latest brutal atrocity by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

We need to come home and start dealing with the multitude of problems this country has. We could start by not trying to give advice to anyone else on matters of morality, especially as it relates to war. Our own war criminals are being protected by this government.

Bradley Manning quite obviously chose to continue being a soldier and to follow orders until he was removed from his post.

That is hardly the same thing as quitting and not complying with orders.

At no time did Bradley Manning refuse orders or discontinue from being a combatant.

to end up in the brig for refusing to follow illegal orders, Kevin Benderman among others have also been punished for doing their duty and refusing to return to Iraq.

Thousands have 'deserted' and of course we don't hear much about them. Some for ethical reasons, others just couldn't take it anymore, but all are being sought by the U.S. government and regardless of their reasons, will be punished if caught.

That punishment is the answer to a soldier whose conscience simply will not let him/her continue to participate in war crimes, cause fear among the rest many of whom just try to tolerate it and get out as soon as they can.

No, we are not in any position to give lectures on morality or ethics. Ask the civilians whose countries we raided and whose loved ones we tortured and killed and are still doing it.

He chose to be a soldier and would have continued being one until he was caught.

Paint me confused.

:shrug:

Color ME confused!

"we are currently reading about the latest brutal atrocity by U.S. troops in Afghanistan."

In fact, we are currently reading about it BECAUSE we are prosecuting them.

And if you are reading about the case you must know that their superior officers did nothing to stop them.

There have been hundreds of incidents of brutality against the Iraqis and Afghans that have not been prosecuted.

We have victims of torture trying to get justice routinely denied access to our civil courts, and we have an administration that actively intervened in the Spanish Court's legitimate attempt to prosecute six of Bush's torturers, in an attempt to protect them from prosecution.

We have ongoing 'extraordinary renditions' now with 'more supervision'.

And there are thousands of photos of abuses that are being suppressed so we do not even know how many have NOT been prosecuted.

We know that Iraqi women were raped, and children in our detention centers, yet those in charge were given medals of honor, despite the findings of the Taguba Report.

We have no moral authority to point fingers anywhere until we start prosecuting our own war criminals, not just the few on the lowest end of the scale.

Not everything is about the US.

removed the U.S. from their jurisiction by refusing to sign on before the Iraq War. A clear statement to those of us watching at the time, that the U.S. intended to commit war crimes.

This country is responsible for its war criminals. It is refusing to do anything about them. We have zero moral authority until we do that. As the world tells us on a regular basis.

Egyptian and Tunisian revolutionaries recently refused to meet with Hillary Clinton until the U.S. issues an apology for its years of support for their brutal regimes.

There is always accountability eventually. That is why it is best to be honorable and do what is right, otherwise someone else will do it for you.

The question that was posed was the warning to soldiers serving under Qaddafi's commanders pursuant to the UN Security Council resolution and the statement by the ICC prosecutor.

Try to stay on topic.

WORD

authority", concur completely with you and sabrina.

The girl in this photo should never sleep peacefully again in her lifetime; if a conscience were involved she wouldn't.

That was actually somehow something that we have just assumed was going to happen in Benghazi, even though it did not happen in any other city.

The "mass slaughter" meme is pure propaganda.

from the last administration and at least try to determine the facts before jumping to conclusions.

I wonder if the Rendon Group is still working for the MIC?

Odessy Dawn is a war of assumption.

Don't they have the right to defend themselves? And who advised Libyan troops about the possibility of being indicted for war crimes, do you have the name of this person or persons?

Do you think US troops would disobey their commanders...no they wouldn't, or have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? What about those drones firing on villages on the Afghan/Pakistan border? How many innocent women and children have been murdered? And yet, those flying the drones and firing the missiles are just following orders...but I guess when it's US military personnel they don't have the same obligation as the Libyan military, do they?

to be on a humanitarian mission in Libya, are sending deadly drones to villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan killing innocent men, women and children on a regular basis.

You have to be able to divide your brain in two to accomodate a belief that suddenly the drone killers overnight developed a deep concern for innocent civilians.

That's who.

As much as people want to talk about US actions, the relevant international bodies are the ones calling the shots here.

won't even talk of the murders "we" commit. Which makes "us" into the very thing "we" claim to be fighting.

By making it all about Gadhafi, these atrocities aren't even discussed.

We are descending have descended into the depths. It's madness.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just;
that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Thomas Jefferson


*****

http://costofwar.com

If we were a Democracy, we'd have Libya hold an election.

The first post I read of yours after we sided with the rebels, you were anti "rebel". Seems rather odd.

is in the service of a rebellion. Not odd when you see the Western powers swooping in to appropriate a democratic movement for their own purposes.

Much of it demonstrably is not.

There are a lot of airborne agendas at the moment, Sir. Might be time to dust off our helmets.

A lot of what we see here is people strapping events to their personal Procrustean beds.

it's more that the sense of being propagandized causes people to cast about for alternate accounts.

For these 'alternate accounts' are propagandas as well, and many of them damned shabby efforts at it. Merely because one side is lying does not mean its opponent is telling the truth. Many start out with a black and white view of things, thinking they identify with the side white as driven snow, and on finding that is not the case, simply reverse polarities, and declare the other side is the pure white light. But the proper response is to realize there is no such thing as black and white in opposition, and learn to discern various shades and tones of grey. Anyone who will not argue for taupe over charcoal grey, or vice versa, has no business near wrangling about politics or economics, and certainly not warfare and revolution.

:)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=514448&mesg_id=514448


Previous Day 9 threads: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15

Previous Day 8 threads: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11

The world’s 100 largest arms dealers, excluding Chinese vendors, sold weapons for $401 billion in 2009, with US vendors remaining in first place

Threads for previous days are in my journal

To make sure the Army doesn't swing the revolution to the people, with the silent complicity of world leaders more concerned about the stability of oil prices than people's lives, Qaddafi has brought in more than 35,000 North African mercenaries specifically from Chad, Nigeria, Guinea and Darfur. There's a Facebook video of a captured mercenary from Chad (Youtube here). Captured mercenaries confessed they were paid between $12,000 - $30,000 each. Today pamphlet ads were found in Nigeria offering them $2000/day for their savage work.

Is Qaddafi the only one paying these mercenaries? Or are EU governments, with their long history of hiring mercenaries, chipping in? I demand to know.
LibyanThinker The Libyan Thinker
Remains of Soldiers Burned to Death for Not Shooting Protesters in #Libya http://www.twitvid.com/YXKOT & http://tinyurl.com/4d6a57n

MAP of Protests across the Middle East





Please rec if you read these so I know if the effort here is worth it.

when presented with new facts.

It's a mark of maturity and intelligence that seems to have almost disappeared circa 2011.


"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way."
Thomas Jefferson


***

http://costofwar.com

^^ this is your grandchildrens future

"I am a man of principles, Sir, and chief among them is flexibility."

and I was firmly against that. As time went on, I noticed some very unsettling things about this uprising and said as much my post explaining why I wouldn't do those threads anymore, which by the way was well before we sided with the rebels. Find me a thread where I wanted the West to intervene because imperialists are the last people I'd look to help from. What I supported was the Chavez Peace Commission and no strings attached humanitarian aid, not intervention by greedy western governments. I suggest you go back and read my comments. What seems rather odd is that you would mis-characterize my position.



Does your whole world come down to you're wid us or against us? Mine doesn't.

These people are being played and so are we.

The constant is that you are opposed to western governments and economic and social systems and endeavors. That is not a problem; many of us are. But it requires at times swerves of the whip-lash quality that followed the abjuration of the Social-Fascist line in favor of Popular Front, and other famous volte-faces of Left history.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

By all means, send in an alert with the complaint....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A quote, from a randomli selected post by the O.P. here:

"To make sure the Army doesn't swing the revolution to the people, with the silent complicity of world leaders more concerned about the stability of oil prices than people's lives, Qaddafi has brought in more than 35,000 North African mercenaries specifically from Chad, Nigeria, Guinea and Darfur. There's a Facebook video of a captured mercenary from Chad (Youtube here). Captured mercenaries confessed they were paid between $12,000 - $30,000 each. Today pamphlet ads were found in Nigeria offering them $2000/day for their savage work.

"Is Qaddafi the only one paying these mercenaries? Or are EU governments, with their long history of hiring mercenaries, chipping in? I demand to know. "

that is evidence of a concern with outside manipulation, not a concern of backing for Gaddafi. Sometimes the best way to fight your enemy is to help him to hang himself.

Edit for clarity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I myself supported either our foreign policy or NATO although I didn't set out to oppose either.

What a world.

It is just that some of the opposition is distasteful in the extreme.

Living in the US has now become a surreal experience


"If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest."
Thomas Jefferson

I am a Proud Jeffersonian Democrat

The Hamilton's can go to hell

****

http://costofwar.com

^^ this is your grandchildrens future

"A good friend will be there to bail you out of jail in the morning. A great friend will be sitting next to you saying 'How the fuck did we get caught?'"

"Don't worry, my Dad is an Attorney" :rofl:

"Send lawyers guns and money...the shit has hit the fan!"

The Magistrate says, "no matter what the US or NATO does she will oppose" (paraphrasing).

The Magistrate does not say, "I support the US and NATO no matter what they do" (not paraphrasing or quoting since he never said that).

on any side, was expressed by more than a few people, being that there was so much at stake financially for the Western powers. I don't think it would have mattered which side they chose to back, the end result was what concerned people of yet another intervention in an oil-producing Arab/Muslim nation.

Is a different thing from specific statements western powers were backing Gaddahfi against the rebellion, to which end all accusations and disparragements of Gaddahfi were endorsed, then turning in a heartbeat, once western powers intervene against Gaddahfi, to endorsing all defenses of Gaddahfi and disparagements of the rebellion.

people were suspicious of Western powers intervening on behalf of their allies, Mubarak, Ben Ali and then Qaddafi.

I think you will admit that if the fall of Qaddafi (which I now realize was most unlikely and wonder what I was thinking myself) was ascertained to be a threat to U.S. interests, the U.S. would have backed him. We backed him for six years. He didn't change in February.

So, people did wonder, 'what will they do' and I think at least in Tunisia and Egypt THEY did not know what to do until it became apparent that the destabilization of these countries WAS going to be a threat to our interests, and only then, did the U.S. stop calling Mubarak 'our friend and ally' and stopped claiming he was 'not a dictator'.

As for when Catherina eg, began to ask questions about Libya, it was in early March, a little before I began to do so myself. So I would not say it was 'in a heartbeat'.

I believe the U.S. and other, even more so probably being that their interests are so much more tied to Libya, Western Nations, weren't sure what to do about Libya either at first. Qaddafi was never an easy 'partner' to deal with, but if the rebels turned out to be less friendly, then do you not believe the Western powers would have supported him?

It cuts down on the costs of garrisons.

What is happening in the Middle East is beyond the power of external governments to halt, and as this became obvious, we began to 'tilt' away from the governments in place. In the long run, it is in the interests of the West to have fresh governments in the Middle East, that more closely reflect the aspirations of their citizens, and therefore it behooves us to be friendly towards the rising tide. That makes it more than likely the will be friends with us....

are not necessarily the interests of the people who are rising up against our allies. And there is suspicion around the world, and especially in those countries themselves as to what our motives are. Eg, once the West realized it could not defend its friendly dictators successfully anymore, do you think they gave up the idea of 'influencing' the outcome of these revolutions?

In Egypt eg, an attempt was made to install a man who was a known torturer. It failed, but had it succeeded that is who the West would have supported once again, against the interests of the people who were fighting and dying to have the right to choose their own governments.

The suspicion now is that the West is influencing the outcome in Libya. That Libya will end up with a government very similar to the Government of Iraq. Are those fears unfounded? I don't think so.

So, since I fully support the revolutionaries' right to choose their own government, I am very opposed to any interference from those responsible for what happened in Iraq. And I'm wondering if the original revolutionaries have already been betrayed.

Last week, the Iraqi people went out across the country in their thousands, to protest their government's policies on corruption, on jobs etc. They were unarmed and peaceful. The western backed government brutally cracked down on those protesters, killing 29 of them and jailing many, many more.

If our efforts in Libya were humanitarian, or if we could be trusted to 'bring democracy' to Libya, we have only to look at Iraq to determine whether or not that is true. The U.S. did not condemn the crackdown in Iraq to my knowledge. Is this what anyone who supports the Libyan people would want for them?

One who supports them is pretty much required to want to government they took up arms against to be defeated; otherwise, things will go hard indeed for them. Unless one subscribes to the view that they rose at the instigation of the U.S. and E.U., there is little choice but to take their requests for support from the West, and their expressions of gratitude for it, at face value.

It is hard to support something that appears to have changed from what you originally supported. Their requests came AFTER they had been urged, by people we now know were not in Libya but issueing orders from websites in Britain and the U.S., to go beyond just protesting. To be honest as I watched these messages on Twitter to the revolutionaries, I had a lot of concern for what the revolutionaries were being asked to do.

Now, I have serious questions about who is in charge. The original requests were clear, posted almost every day from Libya 'we do not want foreign interference in our country' and specifically 'we do not want foreign troops in Libya nor the destruction of our infrastructure, like Iraq' ~ 'we do not want to become another Iraq, brutalized, abused and occupied'.

I supported those revolutionaries, but I'm not sure where they are now.

learned ~ and hopefully will continue to learn as I admit to knowing very little now about this entire situation and hope in the future that will change.

Thank you for the discussion anyhow ..

I know a damn lot and I have vetted every conspiracy theory thrown at me, including this latest garbage which doesn't even merit effort. Adieu!

that what I thought I knew, what we all thought we knew, we do not. Are you in Libya, did you live there, ever? Do you know, can you name who is in charge of this revolution right now? Who is making deals with Qatar for oil contracts? How did they get that authority? Who is setting up 'accounts', in whose names are they?

You appear to believe you know more than even Congress knows. Fyi, reading tweets from anonymous people does not make one an expert on anything.

The revolutionaries are doing what they think is best for Libya, and the TNC is doing what they think is best for Libya.

You'll see, but I bet you'll never apologize to me for all the slander you've said about people I've grown to love.

I can see you are unable to have a rational discussion about this. 'Slander' Wow!

talking about.

They only "pushed outward" because they had all the cities in the east.

Misrata and Zentin are still fighting, AZ Zawaya fought for three weeks without help.

They don't have internet in Libya.

Your commentary is very bizarre. There's no way we can influence what thousands of people choose freely to do.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/2011/03/2011328194855872276.html

It is an insult and a slander to think that they're suddenly going to be magically puppet states, indeed, the whole reason this shit is happening is because we installed puppet states.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

before any intervention, as did many others, especially those following closely the tweets of 'rebels' on twitter many of whom were revealed to be living abroad yet were urging what could have been a suicide mission into Tripoli for the revolutionaries. That didn't seem like good advice, and several of those people are now gone.

Maybe you were not following as closely as others were. And yes, many feared an intervention from the Western powers, either on Qaddafi's side if it looked like a collapse of that, at the time, ally, might not result in a similarly friendly government regarding Oil Contracts and other Business deals already in place.

As the president said 'we make decisions based on OUR interests'. And if those interests looked like they would be better served by supporting Qaddafi, that is who we would have supported AS WE HAVE for nearly six years now. What?? He was NOT brutalizing his people up to Feb. of this year?? We were NOT standing by as all of our dictator friends were killing and torturing their people??

Whether you support this war or not, no honest person can claim that the Western powers are interested in the well-being of civilians anywhere, including right here in our own country.

The revolutionaries were not told to go on a "suicide mission" by anyone that was being posted, I am almost certain (I would have called that shit out). In fact to this day you can find posts of "people abroad" insisting they not fire their weapons into the air, that they take their time, not thin their lines, and so on. You will not find one post supporting your revisionism (nor will you try to substantiate the revisionism by looking for such a post, but I challenge you to do so).

What happened was that the revolutionaries were moving unimpeeded across the Libyan desert, and as soon as they started getting beat back (because they're fucking revolutionaries, not armed militants, not blood thirsty armies, but civilians with guns that they don't even know how to fucking use).

For me the "well-being" of civilians is for the UN to decide, and for history to decide. What is important now is that the revolutionaries get all the support in the world, and not backstabbed just because they ask for fucking help. :puke:

And let's be clear here. Of any of the revolutions in the Arab Spring, Libya is the least manipulated by the west or by any other interests, by all accounts. Libya is the only country so far in the Arab Spring where the almighty military has not defected in numbers great enough to swell the tide. It is a Revolution, of the people, by the people. A true revolution. A true uprising. Not a bunch of protesters surrounded by "benelovent militaries" but protesters slaughtered wholesale.

I do adore this whole "the rebels have been had" rhetoric, though! I am loving it so much that I will giggle gleefully when they do finally liberate Libya from its tyrant.

the beginning. Your nastiness is not helping your cause, although I personally can ignore it.

You are wrong, about those who began to ask questions and when they began to do so.

But you reveal your need to 'win' at all costs and that is your problem, I care mostly that the people who went out in the beginning, asking for their rights, get what they fought and died for.

You or me winning an argument on an internet forum, is irrelevant to me. Your need for self-satisfaction I'm loving it so much I'll giggle should you 'win' on the internet, says all that needs to be said, about where your priorities are.

The dishonesty from people won't end with the revolutions success. It'll continue. Libya will continue to be disgraced by so called "leftists."

Wow, you really do have issues, don't you. But just to show you how wrong you can be when you think you are getting facts from the internet, I am not and never was a 'leftist', however I do not have any real issues with 'leftist's so long as they support human rights and democracy for all people.

And that's all I needed to see how easily misled you can be.

And once again, you are breaking DU rules by calling your fellow DUers 'dishonest' because they do not agree with YOU.

Not just DUers.

it up :-)

OP is, RIGHT NOW, denying that intervention was the right thing to do.

The questions are about the 'saviors', the sudden transformation of those who are even as we type here, slaughtering innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, into 'humanitarians'. We are to believe they are humanitarians in one place while they indiscriminately kill innocent people in another? Sorry, it does not make sense.

As I said, I fear for the Libyan people as I feared for the Iraqi people where I actually did have friends.

I already won, by being the most honest contributor to these slanderous dishonest "debates."

Slandering your fellow DUers because they do not agree with you, is not being 'the most honest contributer' is it?

I have overlooked your attacks on me as I am used to internet boards where people feel the need to resort to attack mode when they feel they cannot defend their positions, but I can assure you other DUers are not so tolerant and do not appreciate your attacks on respected DUers.

This poster changed their mind as soon as the first strikes took place against Libya. Then all of a sudden and after extensive research, the Libyan rebels who took arm have become Al Qaeda.

Nevermind all the raping and harassing done by the pro-Ghaddafi rebels. Some people are just not stable. What can you say.

West bad, rest good....

The OP began to question what was going on on the ground in Libya, long before the NATO intervention. At least as early as March 8th, maybe sooner, as many people had begun doing back then.

Your last statement appears to violate DU's rules btw, if I'm understanding your implication correctly.

It wasn't until then. It really wasn't. Stupid fucking Chavez and conspiracy crap.

But I doubt that will stop you. I remember exactly when people, other than the OP, began asking questions some even before she did.

...happened exactly as I said. They were losing, they asked for help.

Far be it for them to ask for help or otherwise wind up like Zinten or Az Zawayia, or Misrata.

There's absolutely nothing concrete there to suggest we not support them in any way.

Millions of people around the world are asking questions. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but when this country goes to war, Americans have every right to question why and what their purpose is and what plans they have for the future, and how long they intend to be there, and whether they intend to honor the requests of the people there.

We don't have a very good record of honoring the sovereign rights of the civilians in the countries we invade.

I care about the Libyan people and because of that, knowing what this country and its western allies have done to other Arab/Muslim nations, I fear for them and so anyone who truly cares about them.

I have yet to see a genuine question posted yet. When I give a real answer it is ignored and the same propaganda is reposted.

And the air strikes are helping them exercise that right to self defense.

... to protect themselves from American Airstrikes?

Do the Pakistanis?

Afghans?

Iraqis?
:shrug:

The right to one's own self-defense.

and who they support??

It is clear that the Western interest (including the Intelligence services) have had opportunity to do formal or covert polling for a long time and have chosen either not to do it or not to reveal the results.

:shrug: Didn't work out so well for us in Viet Nam ...

"...the coalition concluded that it had the right to kill en masse a sovereign country's servicemen who in any case simply had no right to disobey their commanders"

Not a right, in some cases, a duty. This is a clear principle of international law established at the Nuremberg trials; "but I was only following orders!" is not a valid defence for a soldier in the dock who is charged with war crimes or atrocities.

Then all that will be left are the Killers.

will get through to many.

they're going to have a hell of a time holding on to it without constant Western coddling and protection. there is something dubious about the way they went about obtaining it, and there are doubtless many rival movements that feel they are better suited to govern, who aren't just riding on the trail of destruction left by the Nato forces.

The Libyan rebels violated the Geneva Conventions? Gaddafi would have never done that! What a pantload of hand wringing bullshit.