The Libyan uprising

Jonny7

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

Where is the proof that the government are killing civilians? I'm hearing reports about Misrata also but it's second hand information with again no proof. The only damage that is seen to be caused at the moment is from the UN air strikes. If you can provide back up to your claims about Gaddafi killing his own citizens then ok but it has all been assumptions to date.

The arab league are criticizing the bombings as are russia.

There was british secret forces reportedly caught in Libya by rebels last week although I doubt they were carrying fighter jets etc with them.

wow..

Arab league saying they are now misquoted.

Russia has been against this for a start, they have contracts to build railways in Libya, a lot of business down there, they were coming out with the anti-US rhetoric before action took place.. and even though it was French and UK leader pushing it - it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they want

Reportedly? there were secret forces caught in Libya, luckily by the rebels, ironically trying to set up some kind of communication with some sort of leadership amongst the rebels.

Jonny7

LeixlipRed wrote: »

And meanwhile in Bahrain the government there have surrounded and attacked hospitals with unarmed protestors inside. Bahrain who were backed up by the Saudis this week. The Saudis support the action against Libya. The hypocrisy of all of this makes my head hurt. This is only about one thing, oil.....

No its not.

Its about people in the middle east trying to stay in power. Bahrain, Libya, Saudi Arabia.

365 people died in Egypt, was the world going to intervene? no

Whats happening in Bahrain is terrible but nothing compared to Libya, its like comparing bloody sunday to dresden

Let them sort it out themselves...

When I start hearing reports from Bahrain of the leadership using jets and tanks against civilians, burning and killing soldiers who didn't comply, firing anti-aircraft guns at protestors, attacking them in hospitals, using African mercenaries against their own people, etc, etc, etc then they need help from the UN.

China, Russia, and many others would never allow the UN to enable force for Bahrain.

Ironically - for all the cynics out there - if Libya is successful, then there's a possibility that we can help places like Bahrain, without the need for it to turn into a bloodbath first

Cold war resource conflicts, Vietnam and the second Iraq war have really ****ed things up for genuine situations where people need help from tyrants and dictators.

LeixlipRed

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

There isn't much oil in Bahrain.

Exactly...

LeixlipRed

Jonny7 wrote: »

No its not.

Its about people in the middle east trying to stay in power. Bahrain, Libya, Saudi Arabia.

365 people died in Egypt, was the world going to intervene? no

Whats happening in Bahrain is terrible but nothing compared to Libya, its like comparing bloody sunday to dresden

Let them sort it out themselves...

When I start hearing reports from Bahrain of the leadership using jets and tanks against civilians, burning and killing soldiers who didn't comply, firing anti-aircraft guns at protestors, attacking them in hospitals, using African mercenaries against their own people, etc, etc, etc then they need help from the UN.

China, Russia, and many others would never allow the UN to enable force for Bahrain.

Ironically - for all the cynics out there - if Libya is successful, then there's a possibility that we can help places like Bahrain, without the need for it to turn into a bloodbath first

Cold war resource conflicts, Vietnam and the second Iraq war have really ****ed things up for genuine situations where people need help from tyrants and dictators.

The people in these countries can only help themselves, the US/Nato forces will only prop up other puppets. Revolution will only come from the bottom up.

metrovelvet

Any predictions in what G is going to do to retaliate?

Black Swan

My guess is that the USA will not put any troops into Libya, but will sit off shore with their Navy using missiles and fighter aircraft helping to enforce the UN no-fly-zone. Obama has to worry about the upcoming 2012 presidential elections, and he needs to pull out as many troops as possible from the (now unpopular) GW Bush started wars in Iraqi and Afghanistan before then. America is still struggling to work their way out of the Great Recession, and is still wasting billions per month running up the federal deficit on their two wars. Starting anything that even looks remotely like a 3rd war (or euphemistically called a police action) will hurt his chances for reelection.

zig

metrovelvet wrote: »

Any predictions in what G is going to do to retaliate?

i know its yahoo but still...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110320/twl-gaddafi-threatens-attacks-in-mediter-3fd0ae9.html

The Libyan leader called the broadcaster to warn of retaliation for Western strikes on his country.
He declared the attacks "an assault against a sovereign state, an assault against Libya" and claimed the Mediterranean had been turned into a "real battlefield".
The leader went on to inform civilians that "arms depots" had been opened so they could defend Libya.
He also called upon "nations of the Arabic world" to support the "victorious Libyan people" in stopping what he called "lunatic aggression that has no justification whatsoever".
It had been rumoured that Col Gaddafi was to make a television address, but an appearance in person could reveal his location to UN allies.
Sky's foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall said: "Gaddafi knows that if the battle lines are frozen and he pulls back his forces, it's only a matter of time before the rebels are fully armed by outside powers.
"They would then probably make another attempt to reach Tripoli.
"So he can try to fight for Benghazi and Misratah - but he knows that his supply lines will be cut by the coalition planes.
"So he could move either to guerilla war in the towns he doesn't control, or retaliate against the European powers attacking him through terrorism."
The country has said it considers a UN Security Council resolution demanding a ceasefire by its forces no longer valid following the launch of air and sea strikes, and demanded an urgent meeting of the council.
The statement followed a television address by Libyan congress leader Abul Qasim Al-Zwai, during which he claimed UN forces had attacked civilian targets.
He said: "I am very sorry and saddened that my country tonight is facing a barbaric and armed attack from Western countries."
He said a rocket attack had been launched on "several locations" including Tripoli and Misratah, and described it as "an attack that has caused some real harm against civilians and buildings".
The spokesman said: "The attack comes as Libya has announced major developments and reform in economic and organisational contexts.
"The claim that this aggression is for the protection of civilians is contradicted by what has really happened on the ground.
"The number of civilians who have been hurt or harmed by this aggression tonight - the number is filling up our hospitals and ambulances are doing their best to save as many lives of civilians as possible."
He added: "This aggression will not weaken our spirits and will not convince Libyans to give up."

Cork24

Now where see a Case fire? how long will this last.. NATO & America should pull out of Libya they have no right being in their. Why dont they go into Bahrain and start bombing them?

we see what the Arab League will do now since they now turned around and stated the NATO have step out of line with their attacking

metrovelvet

Black Swan wrote: »

My guess is that the USA will not put any troops into Libya, but will sit off shore with their Navy using missiles and fighter aircraft helping to enforce the UN no-fly-zone. Obama has to worry about the upcoming 2012 presidential elections, and he needs to pull out as many troops as possible from the (now unpopular) GW Bush started wars in Iraqi and Afghanistan before then. America is still struggling to work their way out of the Great Recession, and is still wasting billions per month running up the federal deficit on their two wars. Starting anything that even looks remotely like a 3rd war (or euphemistically called a police action) will hurt his chances for reelection.

My guess is the US will have to put troops in the secure the oil, and possibly the water supply in case G cuts that off to to create a humanitarian disaster.

Obama is already losing support from his usual fans, such as Moore, who inbetween eating donuts has been publically excoriating Obama, as has Farrakhan. They are all scared they are going to look like hippocrites so they are getting vocally anti war.

We should not be in there. Its a sad day when Moore starts making sense.

Macha

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The people in these countries can only help themselves, the US/Nato forces will only prop up other puppets. Revolution will only come from the bottom up.

That's not what the Libyan rebels said. They were desperately calling for international help.

A revolution can only come from the bottom up but it's not going to get very far if the top holds all the weapons. It's pretty clear that the majority of Libyans want Ghadaffi gone but he has control of the weapons store.

There are plenty of popular uprisings in history that have been unsuccessful in the face of greater firepower.

Dr. Greenthumb

Can anyone back up their beliefs that Gaddafi is carrying out atrocities, massacres or killing civilians?

Also there needs to be a separation between Libya and the rest of the arab states in uprising. There is no organised aggression from the protesters in the other states. They are solely using the power of the protest even in the face of aggression from their government. The fighting in Libya is on both side which is not the case in Bahrain, Yemen etc.

I may be wrong and will accept correction if proof is provided but at the moment people are making a lot of assumptions about what is going on in Libya.

Black Swan

metrovelvet wrote: »

My guess is the US will have to put troops in the secure the oil, and possibly the water supply in case G cuts that off to to create a humanitarian disaster.

According to recent export data, America is a minor player in the receipt of Libyan oil. The EU on the other hand relies heavily upon them:

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) the vast majority (around 85 percent) of Libyan oil exports are sold to European countries namely Italy, Germany, France, and Spain.

This may explain why France is so active with their increasing intervention?

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/libya/pdf.pdf

slimjimmc

mike65 wrote: »

Looking at the world you'd certainly think that, still Norway is pretty democratic!. The oil arguement is embarrassingly lame, as you say Libya has been happy to sell it to whoever wants it. Also and I could be wrong here but I'm pretty sure the UN resolution was passed not to secure oil but to protect (by implication aid?) those rebels based in Benghazi. That city would almost certainly have been raised to the ground by Gaddafi.

The UN resolution's stated aim is to protect civilians from attack, not the rebels because they are combatants. There is a huge difference, at least in political terms. For example, it doesn't mean the UN forces can assist the rebels in their political aims nor can they assist in an assault on Qadhafi's forces where Qadhafi is not targeting civilians.

Macha

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

Can anyone back up their beliefs that Gaddafi is carrying out atrocities, massacres or killing civilians?

Also there needs to be a separation between Libya and the rest of the arab states in uprising. There is no organised aggression from the protesters in the other states. They are solely using the power of the protest even in the face of aggression from their government. The fighting in Libya is on both side which is not the case in Bahrain, Yemen etc.

I may be wrong and will accept correction if proof is provided but at the moment people are making a lot of assumptions about what is going on in Libya.

Attacks against peaceful protesters have been going on for weeks. From Human Rights Watch:

“Gaddafi and his security forces are brutally suppressing all opposition in Tripoli, including peaceful protests, with lethal force, arbitrary arrests, and forced disappearances,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Given Libya’s record of torture and political killings, we worry deeply about the fate of those taken away.”

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/03/13/libya-end-violent-crackdown-tripoli

And Ghadaffi's now infamous quote from Friday:

“No more hesitation: The moment of truth has come. There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight."

metrovelvet

Black Swan wrote: »

According to recent export data, America is a minor player in the receipt of Libyan oil. The EU on the other hand relies heavily upon them:



This may explain why France is so active with their increasing intervention?

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/libya/pdf.pdf

Yes I realise that about the oil. But that is not why I mentioned troops to secure the oil supply. I mention it, as I did earlier, because the only way the rebels can reconstruct Libya into another political entity, assuming they win the civil war, is if they secure their prime natural resource.

Yes I believe Italy gets 25% of its oil from Libya and France not as much, but the US doesnt have a major oil interest there.

Athlone_Bhoy

So even though Gaddafi hasn't flown any airplanes in the last few days (according to US military) there still attacking him to enforce a no fly zone.

Dr. Greenthumb

Macha wrote: »

Attacks against peaceful protesters have been going on for weeks. From Human Rights Watch:



http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/03/13/libya-end-violent-crackdown-tripoli

And Ghadaffi's now infamous quote from Friday:

OK Human Rights Watch but again what evidence do they have rather than just saying it. BBC said there was over 100 western journalists in Libya at the moment yet no pictures of murdered civilians etc have appeared. If he was doing all the killing he is accused of surely there would be concrete evidence.

On the wiki page of HRW

Criticism of Human Rights Watch may be classified into four major categories: accusations of poor research methods producing inaccurate reports, accusations of selection bias, accusations of ideological bias, and questions regarding their funding practices.[19] In the second category, Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived biases that are anti-Sri Lanka,[20][21] anti-Israel,[22][23][24][25] and anti-Ethiopian government.[26] In 2008, Venezuela expelled the organization for its criticism.[27] In the third category, Human Rights Watch was accused of using anti-Israeli sentiment to elicit support while fund-raising in Saudi Arabia.[28][29]

His quote from Friday is aimed at the rebels who have initiated the conflict and not at the civilians. You are taking that out of context to prove a point.

Black Swan

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes I believe Italy gets 25% of its oil from Libya and France not as much, but the US doesnt have a major oil interest there.

The fact that they don't have a major oil interest in Libya (combined with the expectations of coming 2012 presidential elections), suggests to me that CIC Obama will not commit troops to Libya (except for a tiny token UN peacekeeping presence if later implemented during a ceasefire). Obama has to significantly pull out of the two GW Bush wars, and not commit troops to firefighting in yet another if he is to reduce the billions per month wasted on wars, and the associated huge federal deficit, before the election campaign season begins in early 2012.

metrovelvet

Black Swan wrote: »

The fact that they don't have a major oil interest in Libya (combined with the expectations of coming 2012 presidential elections), suggests to me that CIC Obama will not commit troops to Libya (except for a tiny token UN peacekeeping presence if later implemented during a ceasefire). Obama has to significantly pull out of the two GW Bush wars, and not commit troops to firefighting in yet another if he is to reduce the billions per month wasted on wars, and the associated huge federal deficit, before the election campaign season begins in early 2012.

Well, that makes sense. But this war isn't going to be a straight line.

Macha

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

OK Human Rights Watch but again what evidence do they have rather than just saying it. BBC said there was over 100 western journalists in Libya at the moment yet no pictures of murdered civilians etc have appeared. If he was doing all the killing he is accused of surely there would be concrete evidence.

On the wiki page of HRW

Criticism of Human Rights Watch may be classified into four major categories: accusations of poor research methods producing inaccurate reports, accusations of selection bias, accusations of ideological bias, and questions regarding their funding practices.[19] In the second category, Human Rights Watch has been criticized for perceived biases that are anti-Sri Lanka,[20][21] anti-Israel,[22][23][24][25] and anti-Ethiopian government.[26] In 2008, Venezuela expelled the organization for its criticism.[27] In the third category, Human Rights Watch was accused of using anti-Israeli sentiment to elicit support while fund-raising in Saudi Arabia.[28][29]

Libya has been condemned by numerous states and supranational organisations for his force against civilians during the current uprising. The Arab League suspended Libya from council meetings and it was also suspended from the UN's Human Rights Council.

I'm not sure why you're trying to question human rights abuses by Ghadaffi's regime - they are well known and documented:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/libya-arabs-moussa-idUSLDE71K1W520110221

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

His quote from Friday is aimed at the rebels who have initiated the conflict and not at the civilians. You are taking that out of context to prove a point.

How am I taking it out of context? He has already killed civilians indiscriminately. How can you prove that it was only aimed at the rebels? And the rebels are ordinary citizens - teachers, mechanics, pharmacists - who want democracy.

The rebels initiated the conflict? I think you've betrayed your bias right there. There were peaceful protests that Ghadaffi brutally put down. Not only has he killed Libya citizens, he has also captured, tortured and killed foreign journalists as well as targeting paramedics. Now then, who really started the violence?

Dotsie~tmp

Black Swan wrote: »

The fact that they don't have a major oil interest in Libya (combined with the expectations of coming 2012 presidential elections), suggests to me that CIC Obama will not commit troops to Libya (except for a tiny token UN peacekeeping presence if later implemented during a ceasefire). Obama has to significantly pull out of the two GW Bush wars, and not commit troops to firefighting in yet another if he is to reduce the billions per month wasted on wars, and the associated huge federal deficit, before the election campaign season begins in early 2012.

Had Obama not rolled in with this as Gadaffi is toppled (which he will be) the American electorate would have devastated him at the election. They hate weak presidents. Especially weak on democracy.

PatricaMcKay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41n2Iu9SC5E

Good background on the situation. I dont support Ghaddafi at all but we can be certain that the US and UK or their proxies will not be going in there for the good of this country. I would suspect that the invasion is motivated by him saying that he decided that if the western companies werent going to come back and look after the oil wells than he would turn them over to China or India.

Dr. Greenthumb

Macha wrote: »

Libya has been condemned by numerous states and supranational organisations for his force against civilians during the current uprising. The Arab League suspended Libya from council meetings and it was also suspended from the UN's Human Rights Council.

I'm not sure why you're trying to question human rights abuses by Ghadaffi's regime - they are well known and documented:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/libya-arabs-moussa-idUSLDE71K1W520110221


How am I taking it out of context? He has already killed civilians indiscriminately. How can you prove that it was only aimed at the rebels? And the rebels are ordinary citizens - teachers, mechanics, pharmacists - who want democracy.

The rebels initiated the conflict? I think you've betrayed your bias right there. There were peaceful protests that Ghadaffi brutally put down. Not only has he killed Libya citizens, he has also captured, tortured and killed foreign journalists as well as targeting paramedics. Now then, who really started the violence?

I understand they have been condemned by all and sundry and I agree Gadaffi in unstable. I'm not bias towards him but there needs to be good reason for an attack. You link highlights a concern, again no facts. This is the same Arab League that is condoning the brutal put down of the peaceful protests in Bahrain.

It doesn't matter if your a dentist, doctor etc., if you are branding a weapon and planning to use it you got to be ready for the consequences. Your not an ordinary civilian then, you've made yourself a target.

My point is in Yemen & Bahrain there is non violent protesters being killed yet no one in the west seems to care but everyone is up in arms about a conflict where both side are heavily armed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/protesters-killed-in-yemens-capital-by-/2011/03/18/ABFd2hp_story.html

Dotsie~tmp

[QUOTE=Dr.

Greenthumb

;71265321]I understand they have been condemned by all and sundry and I agree

Gadaffi

in unstable. I'm not bias towards him but there needs to be good reason for an attack. You link highlights a concern, again no facts. This is the same Arab League that is condoning the brutal put down of the peaceful protests in Bahrain.

It doesn't matter if your a dentist, doctor etc., if you are branding a weapon and planning to use it you got to be ready for the consequences. Your not an ordinary civilian then, you've made yourself a target.

My point is in Yemen & Bahrain there is non violent protesters being killed yet no one in the west seems to care but everyone is up in arms about a conflict where both side are heavily armed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/protesters-killed-in-yemens-capital-by-/2011/03/18/ABFd2hp_story.html[/QUOTE]

Governments serve at the will of the people. Its not the other way round. The difference here is that western powers have sensed a viable liberal democratic uprising in the offing. Its a risky move but this is how progress is made.

metrovelvet

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Governments serve at the will of the people. Its not the other way round. The difference here is that western powers have sensed a viable liberal democratic uprising in the offing. Its a risky move but this is how progress is made.

There is no official goal in sight. The aim is not to overthrow the government.

Meanwhile the Syrians openned fire on protestors....

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/20/syrians-fire-on-thousands-of-protesters-killing-1/

THe Saudis are demolishing mosques in Bahrain... [no idea what kind of source this is]
http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=232288

Macha

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

I understand they have been condemned by all and sundry and I agree Gadaffi in unstable. I'm not bias towards him but there needs to be good reason for an attack. You link highlights a concern, again no facts. This is the same Arab League that is condoning the brutal put down of the peaceful protests in Bahrain.

He has been condemned because of his actions, not because of "concerns". Your method of debate seems to be trying to pick holes in the organisations I quote but that doesn't take away from the facts. What the Arab League has to say about Bahrain doesn't make the human rights abuses in Libya cease to exist.

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

My point is in Yemen & Bahrain there is non violent protesters being killed yet no one in the west seems to care but everyone is up in arms about a conflict where both side are heavily armed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/protesters-killed-in-yemens-capital-by-/2011/03/18/ABFd2hp_story.html

The Yemeni protesters have not asked for outside intervention and there is no open intent from the leader that he is willing to massacre his people. Now I'm confused - are you opposed to UN intervention in Libya only because the UN hasn't also gone into Yemen and Bahrain?

PatricaMcKay

Macha wrote: »

He has been condemned because of his actions, not because of "concerns". Your method of debate seems to be trying to pick holes in the organisations I quote but that doesn't take away from the facts. What the Arab League has to say about Bahrain doesn't make the human rights abuses in Libya cease to exist.

No it doesnt, but the fact we see one reaction towards what is happening in Bahrain and elsewhere, and one reaction to what is happening in Libiyia should make us concerned about what is afoot. For instance the west made great play about Saddam's treatment of the Kurdish insurgency in Iraq while funding its NATO ally Turkey's much more brutal war against the Kurdish people. All this focus on Libiyia and the coming invasion does not bode well for the people of that country....Look at Iraq. And why oh why is their nothing on our television about the mass protests and riots happening there now?

Macha

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

No it doesnt, but the fact we see one reaction towards what is happening in Bahrain and elsewhere, and one reaction to what is happening in Libiyia should make us concerned about what is afoot. For instance the west made great play about Saddam's treatment of the Kurdish insurgency in Iraq while funding its NATO ally Turkey's much more brutal war against the Kurdish people. All this focus on Libiyia and the coming invasion does not bode well for the people of that country....Look at Iraq. And why oh why is their nothing on our television about the mass protests and riots happening there now?

I don't understand - are you complaining about the government or the media?

What coming invasion?

PatricaMcKay

Macha wrote: »

I don't understand - are you complaining about the government or the media?

What coming invasion?

Im complaining about both...The coming invasion of Libiyia.

Cork24

Libya calls a stop to firing and yet NATO still runs ahead. With its bombing. And bombing his house when is bombing houses a no fly zone mission this has to stop if NATO soes not stop I fear north Africa and iran may join in backing libya