Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

State of emergency declared in Libyan capital

  • 18-11-2013 4:55am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭


    The armed gangs that NATO helped take over in Libya continue to slaughter unarmed civilian protesters by the dozen and the West is doing nothing to stop it.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/11/state-emergency-declared-libyan-capital-20131116221716364104.html


    When Gaddafi killed protestors the West sprung into action.
    24 February 2011

    US President Barack Obama has denounced the violent crackdown by the Libyan authorities on peaceful protesters as "outrageous and unacceptable".

    Mr Obama said the world had to speak with "one voice", and that the US was drawing up a range of options for action in consultation with its allies.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12562574


    So where is Obama's outrage now? and why isn't the US drawing up a range of options for action?

    Obama's indifference to the mass slaughter of innocent protestors that is happening in Libya now is inexplicable.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,189 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I'm confused, you state that they are unarmed but your link states they were armed.

    There was a very different set of circumstances in 2011. In this case it looks as though the armed rebels helped to spark their own problem. And the firing on unarmed protestors is not, this time, sponsored by the Libyan government, its condemned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    cyberhog wrote: »
    The armed gangs that NATO helped take over in Libya continue to slaughter unarmed civilian protesters by the dozen and the West is doing nothing to stop it.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/11/state-emergency-declared-libyan-capital-20131116221716364104.html


    When Gaddafi killed protestors the West sprung into action.




    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12562574


    So where is Obama's outrage now? and why isn't the US drawing up a range of options for action?

    Obama's indifference to the mass slaughter of innocent protestors that is happening in Libya now is inexplicable.


    There was no outrage from the empty suit in Washington when Saudi tanks crossed into Bahrain and massacred Bahraini protesters either. There isn't a peep out of him when Uzbeks are rounded up and shot. There wasn't a gurgle out of the hypocrite when Sudanese were being butchered.
    But you will hear a load of empty rhetoric from the guy when Iranian girls are sanctioned for holdiing their boyfriend's hands in public or when Venezuelan shopkeepers are prosecuted for price-gouging. That right there is a massive violation of human rights.

    Guy's a bullsh1tter

    Amazing too how all that outrage over Syrian chemical attacks has just disappeared. Surely if it really occurred then those who yelled loudest about it would still be using it as some kind of excuse to do something or other. The fact is that it was a complete set-up, it backfired and didn't have the effect of rallying a public to back another war based on bullsh1t.

    I wonder are the Libyans still taking viagra to rape people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Overheal wrote: »
    I'm confused, you state that they are unarmed but your link states they were armed.

    The link does NOT say the protestors were armed. It says there were gun battles between rival militias which is a separate issue.

    In a statement, the Ministry of Interior said it had monitored yesterday’s protests and had not seen evidence of weapons amongst protestors. The demonstration was peaceful until the first shots were fired, from an “unknown place,” according to the head of the Supreme Security Committee Hashim Bishr. Members of the Misrata brigade stationed in Ghargour then immediately opened fire on protestors, Bishr said. Protestors say that the shots came from the brigade which, they said, first fired into the air and then directly at the demonstrators.

    http://www.libyaherald.com/2013/11/16/ghargour-clashes-43-dead-460-injured/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    cyberhog wrote: »

    When Gaddafi killed protestors

    I'm astonished this is even admitted.

    The world responded, but this context is often lost on certain views.

    The elected government is doing their best to root out the offending militia's - a lot of the billions Gadaffi's family stole from the country is still being unlocked and released - they also stand to lose the next election if they don't get the militia's under control

    A very different picture from 2 years ago, when the government was actually using security services, military, militia's and even mercenaries to violently suppress the population so that one unelected family could stay in power.


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Overheal wrote: »

    There was a very different set of circumstances in 2011...

    Jonny7 wrote: »

    A very different picture from 2 years ago,...

    Enough with the excuses!

    The only difference between then and now is with the US attitude towards the slaughter of peaceful protestors.No decent human being would try to rationalise those brutal attacks for any reason.

    Obama was outraged when Gaddaffi was in power but now that regime change has been achieved the US has moved on to newer targets and the most they have to say about the unarmed civilian protesters being slaughtered with heavy military weapons is that all sides should "exercise restraint" which amounts to little more than a mild rebuke.

    It's yet another example of the glaring double standards practised by the West.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,189 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Is this a government-sponsored killing of civilian protesters?


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Overheal wrote: »
    Is this a government-sponsored killing of civilian protesters?

    Why? Does it have to be "government-sponsored" before the US feels outraged?

    Civilians are no less terrified now than when Gaddafi was in power, Libya is still ruled by the gun. The militias control much of Libya and they are perpetrating widespread human rights abuses.

    So saying it isn't "government-sponsored" is not a legitimate excuse to do nothing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    At the very least, apportion blame fairly.

    Most countries condemned, without equivocation, the events in 2011 and many countries either directly or indirectly supported the action that took place.

    No protesters should be dying, in any country, in any situation, however this is something the current government in Libya is trying to avoid rather than perpetrate. There is quite a significant difference.

    The country is tribal, has been through 6 months of conflict, coupled with the fact that much of the leadership and control apparatus of 4 decades has been ripped out. Egypt has also gone through a similar level of post-uprising turmoil, if not more - the power vacuum and dynamic social changes in these countries mean that any form of democracy is going to be very fragile, often it's hard to tell if there's any democratic procedure at all

    You only have to look at Russia, imprisonment of political opponents, beatings and murders of journalists - to see that it's an incredibly long process that can take decades or generations

    Certain militias are expected to keep causing problems in Libya, but the most recent, which resulted in so many depths, will most likely harden the resolve needed to remove them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 168 ✭✭esteve


    The current situation in Libya right now is one of the most under reported stories, that for some reason has been for the majority completely overlooked by western media. When the west were banging their war drums over Libya, you could not tune into any media outlet without being confronted by it. Now though, well the silence is deafening. I believe there is a moral obligation on the western countries who helped overthrow Gaddaffi, to see their action through. Taking out Gaddaffi in reality was not really that difficult, preventing Libya spiralling into chaos was always going to be the most important, and most difficult thing to accomplish. It seems though that those directly involved, and who directly supported military intervention have washed their hands of this responsibility, and taken on some type of simplistic conclusion to their direct involvement in Libya.


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    At the very least, apportion blame fairly.
    It's prefectly fair to criticise the West for doing nothing to stop the militias from slaughtering peaceful protestors since the West played a significant role in "ripping out the control apparatus" that kept the militias in check.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No protesters should be dying, in any country, in any situation, however this is something the current government in Libya is trying to avoid rather than perpetrate.There is quite a significant difference.

    It's not in the least bit significant. The West said it had a duty to protect peaceful protestors from being slaughtered in 2011. There is no good reason why that duty to protect should not apply in 2013.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Certain militias are expected to keep causing problems in Libya, but the most recent, which resulted in so many depths, will most likely harden the resolve needed to remove them.

    The libyan security forces are no match for the militias and any attempt that's made to disarm them will be fiercely resisted. Libyans face a far bleaker future under militia rule than when Gaddafi was in power because at least then the West signaled it would not allow Gaddafi to slaughter peaceful protestors but today they get no such signals from the West and are being left completely at the mercy of the militias.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    esteve wrote: »
    I believe there is a moral obligation on the western countries who helped overthrow Gaddaffi, to see their action through.

    With careful exception of non-Western countries and the Arab League nations which pushed so hard for an international response..

    Or are we only aiming for certain targets again in this thread ;)

    Many of these countries are investing in Libya which is under-going a large rebuilding process - instability or violence is not in anyone's interests

    Taking out Gaddaffi in reality was not really that difficult

    Actually it was pretty difficult, more than a few very stressed individuals in NATO and beyond - most expected action to take a few weeks, it dragged on for months and entered a stalemate.

    Libya is currently in a far better situation than Syria and generally has a much brighter future than they did 3 years ago - plus they have a fledgling democracy

    However, the oil industry is still not operating anywhere close to max levels, the militias are a large problem and corruption is still rife

    edit: plus the internal police and security situation seems to be a bit of a free-for-all

    So yup, rebuilding slowly, adhering to the democratic process (so far), I wouldn't say it's been abandoned either - not by a long shot, many countries have a very keen interest in Libya performing well and becoming a good democratic example for the rest of the region.


  • Registered Users Posts: 168 ✭✭esteve


    Jonny7 wrote: »

    Or are we only aiming for certain targets again in this thread ;)

    I criticize the west more, because i am from the west. I will leave criticism of Arab countries, China, Russia etc..to people from those countries. If i were to be sitting here, pointing the finger at countries and government that i am not associated with, well it would be entirely pointless. It would be the equivalent to somebody from China, sitting on a Chinese forum and only criticizing US foreign policy while ignoring the atrocities committed by its own nation. Unfortunately, with some boards members here, that is exactly what happens. They like to focus their energy in defending the west, and then criticize other nations that they have really nothing to do with. It is so illogical it is actually quite frustrating.




    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Actually it was pretty difficult, more than a few very stressed individuals in NATO and beyond - most expected action to take a few weeks, it dragged on for months and entered a stalemate.

    I mean it may have been more difficult than anticipated, but come on, the most powerful military in the world, supported by a whole number of other nations. Fine it was really difficult, but i stand by my point that the focus should have been on developing a strategy for once he was removed. This is so blatantly obvious and the west know this but their inaction with regard to this has been facilitated by the western media almost refusing to cover what is happening in Libya nowadays.

    Jonny7 wrote: »
    So yup, rebuilding slowly, adhering to the democratic process (so far), I wouldn't say it's been abandoned either - not by a long shot, many countries have a very keen interest in Libya performing well and becoming a good democratic example for the rest of the region.

    Yawn, for how many decades, and in how many countries will we have to listen to this line being dropped. It really is just the same stuff, repeated over and over again, and people just lap it up. I also do not think it is for you to decide if Libya is in a better position now, than three years ago. That is up to Libyans and Libyans only, and id like to warrant a guess that the majority would not share your optimism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    esteve wrote: »
    I criticize the west more, because i am from the west. I will leave criticism of Arab countries, China, Russia etc..to people from those countries. If i were to be sitting here, pointing the finger at countries and government that i am not associated with, well it would be entirely pointless. It would be the equivalent to somebody from China, sitting on a Chinese forum and only criticizing US foreign policy while ignoring the atrocities committed by its own nation. Unfortunately, with some boards members here, that is exactly what happens. They like to focus their energy in defending the west, and then criticize other nations that they have really nothing to do with. It is so illogical it is actually quite frustrating.

    I thnik the "US factor" plays a larger role than people think in these debates

    Also, the "West" is a bit of a generalisation, a lot of countries in there, more than a few who have had diametrically opposing views on various situations

    I mean it may have been more difficult than anticipated, but come on, the most powerful military in the world, supported by a whole number of other nations. Fine it was really difficult, but i stand by my point that the focus should have been on developing a strategy for once he was removed. This is so blatantly obvious and the west know this but their inaction with regard to this has been facilitated by the western media almost refusing to cover what is happening in Libya nowadays.

    All the significant events have been reported t my knowledge. In fact, in my opinion, they typically receive more "Western" media attention than most events in Africa.

    Newsworthiness is key - unless you think there's an audience for three hour world news bulletins
    Yawn, for how many decades, and in how many countries will we have to listen to this line being dropped. It really is just the same stuff, repeated over and over again, and people just lap it up. I also do not think it is for you to decide if Libya is in a better position now, than three years ago. That is up to Libyans and Libyans only, and id like to warrant a guess that the majority would not share your optimism.

    Despite the security problem and other issues, they don't seem in a huge hurry to reinstall some sort of autocracy

    The country has the potential to change and for the situation to improve which is completely at odds with the past 40 years under dictatorship


  • Registered Users Posts: 168 ✭✭esteve


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I thnik the "US factor" plays a larger role than people think in these debates

    Perhaps, but the US is the most powerful nation on the planet so I am not surprised they pop up so much in these debates. Also the fact that this is a US politics thread may have something to do with it.

    But listen, I am fully aware of all the terrible things that other nations have done/did/do, particularly powerful nations. I feel though that as I am more associated or aligned with the US, it is therefore my responsibility to call them out more than lets say Russia. Please dont get me started on Russia.




    Jonny7 wrote: »

    Newsworthiness is key - unless you think there's an audience for three hour world news bulletins

    Yes it is key unfortunately. This is how a News Agencys main goal has shifted from reporting the news to making a profit for survival, depressing stuff really as it wasn't always like that.

    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Despite the security problem and other issues, they don't seem in a huge hurry to reinstall some sort of autocracy

    The country has the potential to change and for the situation to improve which is completely at odds with the past 40 years under dictatorship

    Again, Libyans are the only people who can come to that conclusion. It is all well for us to sit here debating this, but the reality of living under the militias, may change your opinion on this, regardless of what it may have been like before.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    esteve wrote: »
    Yes it is key unfortunately. This is how a News Agencys main goal has shifted from reporting the news to making a profit for survival, depressing stuff really as it wasn't always like that.

    We consume the news, therefore, in the market, we dictate it (as much as some try to think otherwise)

    We literally only have ourselves to blame. Then again, thanks to the internet, the variety and range of quality is enormous, so there are no excuses.
    Again, Libyans are the only people who can come to that conclusion. It is all well for us to sit here debating this, but the reality of living under the militias, may change your opinion on this, regardless of what it may have been like before.

    The militias are a byproduct of the struggle to rid the country of a dictator. It's part of the "cost" or the legacy left by the ruling family and their grip on power.

    The Libyans didn't ask for either situation, but one put upon the other

    Am not keen on the comparison, but whilst the Germans in 38 were economically a hell of a lot more comfortable than those sitting in the ruins in 46 - hope and future was firmly with the latter


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    The civil war started BEFORE the UN Allied strikes Which had massive international backing Without The strikes Libya would look like Syria , far worse than it currently is Qaddafis assault on East Libya would have collapsed the country would have had massive infrastructure damage and civilian causality and partitioned with a increasingly islamsied opposition. The failure to intervene and stop the Tryants
    would have created far worse situation

    The United Nations allied forces is playing a major role in the creation of the new Libyan institutions to replace the Criminal Qaddafi Clan MIL/Police state which the Libyan people overthrew
    With the help of the United nations Allied Forces, although they could do more a lot more and could have done a lot sooner for example (I can pick many more) recent graduation of Graduation of Chemical and toxin troops from the Air defense by the UN
    1233499_427748837331738_1942835313_n.jpg
    Libyan Airborne training
    1266608_431211866985435_1271235276_o.jpg

    The militia situation is been dealt with..
    Misrata local council ordered all Misrata militias to withdraw from the Tripoli and they are there no more. Gharghour district was taken by military and Tripoli local council ordered demolition of ex-Misrata base. Zintan council ordered all Zintani militias to withdraw from Tripoli as well, although they played no part in that massacre.

    One way or another what happened there was not clash between militias. It was uprising of citizens against militias. All of them. Misratis and Zintanis are dealt with, albeit Tripoli militias remain, especially in Mitiga air base. Anyone ever wondered why Misratis wanted to remain in Tripoli so much? Let me remind you what happened during Political isolation law - militias stormed government buildings, put parliament under siege and forced parliament to pass the law. They wanted to remain there until Constitution is accepted. Because they wanted it to be theirs Constitution. Now, they cannot threaten with guns anymore.

    Benghazi is for all purposes militia-free, Special forces are heavily deployed in the city and are manning the checkpoints and militias were forced to disarm. The word is that deployment came as a result of military command being fed up with political non-sense and waiting on approval of government and did it their way. I am strongly inclined to believe that. This may be a turning point for Tripoli, and with Tripoli for the rest of Libya as well, since people are fed up with militias justifying their thuggish behavior by "revolutionary legitimacy" and whatever bollocks they come up with. And it also is a hard strike for Muslim Brotherhood and their new Speaker of parliament who got additional militias to Tripoli under so-called "Revolutionary operations room". Which for all purposes ceased to exist as well.

    Protesters announced that next Friday they will head to Mitiga airbase to kick out Tripoli militias out of there (so-called SSC what was supposed to be a transitional police which militias barricaded as their justification for existence....long story).

    Anyone wondering how many former "revolutionaries" are receiving salaries based on claims that they fought against Qaddafi.
    Hold your chairs because its 220,000. Yep, 220 000. Being a militiaman or having a militia is one of the most profitable business. And if up to it you can close some gas or oil fields....well, you get my point. We´re talking about political influence and money.

    Several of the militiamen who fired on civilians were arrested and they can be glad that they weren´t lynched. Probably SSC units. If you want to look for a person responsible for Friday massacre than by all means you cannot miss Abdulrahman Swehli and Salaheddin Badi, both leading members of Misrati Union for Homeland party which is closely linked to Muslim Brotherhood.
    also Grand Mufti Gharyiani, head of Dar al-Ifta.

    Misratas are prideful and well, even though you would find many who say they do not agree with shooting that happened in Garghour, many more would be apologetic. One way or another finding Misratan who is not supportive of Misrata militias is next to impossible. That resulted in perhaps the greatest fitna between Tripoli and Misrata in history. Tripoli says that Misrata should GTFO and rot off in hell, Misrata that they can all sod themselves and recalled all militias back to city and also called for members of GNC and government to resign.

    Thing about Misrata militias is that they are fine as long as they are confined within Misrata, they do shyt once they get out (Bani Walid, Tripoli even once in Benghazi). There are several other cities that can handle their own militias and militias play positive role like Baydah, Zintan or to lesser extent Tobruq (which is mostly secured by army and police). And as far as I know Misrata is controlled by their militias - mostly composed by SSC and Shield (bankrolled by MoI and MoD and technically falling under their command). Those militias are completely loyal to Misrata local council though.


    ---

    Its military parade in Benghazi. Whole purpose was to show Benghazians that army is deployed in the city after additional reinforcements from Saiqa and military police. Benghazians feel safer and there is heavy 24/7 presence of military in Benghazi and that is what counts.

    Libyan-army-takeover.jpg

    photo-2.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    .


    The militias are a byproduct of the struggle to rid the country of a dictator. It's part of the "cost" or the legacy left by the ruling family and their grip on power.

    .

    Need I remind you that Gaddafi was well on the way to victory as he closed in on Benghazi. Had the West not intervened when it did the rebellion would have been crushed. So the militias are a byproduct of Western Intervention because they would otherwise have been wiped out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Need I remind you that Gaddafi was well on the way to victory as he closed in on Benghazi. Had the West not intervened when it did the rebellion would have been crushed. So the militias are a byproduct of Western Intervention because they would otherwise have been wiped out.

    I disagree strongly

    Without The strikes Libya would look like Syria is now , i.e. far worse than it currently is, The
    Regimes assault on East Libya would have collapsed the country
    There would have been massive infrastructure damage and civilian casualties and de facto partitioned with a increasingly Islamist opposition and many Jihadist foreign fighters
    His assault would have ended in Farce.
    It was not just Benghazi, It was the whole of Eastern Libya Several million people
    The Rebels had captured huge arms depots in the east Combined with gunrunning from friendly states which had ready began.
    The size of the Armored column Qadaffi sent was not big enough for the job,
    The length of supply line from Sirte was extreme and very vulnerable to Guerrilla action

    The military history of Libya military under Qaddafi is list of strategic and tactical defeats in every campaign, The very fact that there lost the entire east of country in days underpins this
    His Air-force and Army where a joke only a a handful of units where capable
    Not enough to deal with multiple emerging fronts
    Dealing with east and garrisoning the west and the numerous rebellions pockets emerging in the west namely Misrata and the western mountains.
    The rebels would not have won outright but they would have stopped his advance.

    The threat on Bengazi was way overplayed to gain western support.
    The rebels where armed to the teeth (they even had planes remember?), entrenched easily supplied from Egypt while Qaddafi forces were a skeleton unit (maybe a dozen of tanks, half a dozen howitzers, 20 BMP/IFV...), against at least 10 000 rebels a fair bit of it coming from military that defected, including well trained forces lead by the ex-Interior Minister that defected with him. They did try to push trough with an armored fist before the airstrikes and that was stopped neat by rebel armor.
    If you look at the make up of the Gaddaffi column from news reports(CNN where embedded with them just days before french strikes) and interviews
    with captured personnel they did not appear to be top quality many of them appeared to be black African teenage mercs and constantly firing weapons in air, ill dressed . Also the initial clashes before air strikes resulted in numerous AFVs
    being knocked out by rebel ambushes in street fighting. The rebels already captured 50 prisoners according to CNN report.
    I predict the Column was not big or high quality enough to do the job (the column had already bypassed the small city before Benghazi after resistance there) it was asked to do and the rebels too strong, It would would have stalled before Benghazi would have suffered heavy losses in street fighting in outskirts
    and then faced Raids on its supply lines and supporting units from mobile columns equipped with technical's
    similar to how the Chadians defeated Libya in "Toyota" war
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
    and been forced to withdraw to Brega-line
    after that the rebels would have consolidated backed by Arms supplies including weapons like Milan ATGMs
    and the war would have stalemated in east. The regime could very well have won in west depending on patterns of desertions, defections and mutiny.

    A map from wiki showing fronts at moment of no fly zone
    Gaddafi would have to fight on at least 3 major fronts(western mountains, misrata + east) and deploy troops at a massive distance from his support base to invade eastern Libya which contains some 2 million people
    Those troops would have to be of a certain standard* and at least two divisions.
    which would have to be sent before the Rebels received ATGM and Air defense etc weapons from allies He lacked the Quality manpower needed
    * capable of fighting and advancing in Urban terrain against committed enemy and maintaining extended logistics lines against guerrilla action.
    250px-Libyan_war_final.svg.png

    And there are relevant statistics that show how great Gaddafi support was. Amazigh community, Tripoli, Zintan, Zawiya, Misrata, al-Khums, all other cities with exception of Bani Walid and perhaps Tarhouna and Mizdah shows rather low support for Gaddafi. As it happens everyone forgets about the Nafusa, about Toubou rebellion and also about fact that Ajdabiya was never taken by Gaddafi, Benghazi was fully mobilized and that there was also Darnah, Baydah, Tobruq and Kufrah. Misrata fought for month without any NATO support, yet Gaddafi troops failed to take control of the city.

    Gaddafi had his patrons, like his own tribe, people from the Sirte area, some of the black Libyans and a few others, but his support base was essentially just people who benefited from his system, and there weren't enough of them to save him.

    Gaddafi had no real genuine allies willing to do more than offer moral support. Even the Russians signed off on a security counsel resolution which they and everyone else knew would result in Gaddafi's army being bombed outside Benghazi.fighters to Syria. Who did Gaddafi have that was willing to do that for him? South Africa and Algeria offered verbal and moral support but that was it, Niger has housed one of his sons that escaped and so did Algeria, but they did nothing to help him militarily. The Gaddafi loyalists in the military were completely on their own.

    As long as Gaddafi had no outside support, and the rebels were receiving arms and even training (especially the fighters in the mountains) from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and even the west, he had no chance. He would have held out longer but his downfall was inevitable. People here are also forgetting that even if they'd lost in Benghazi the rebellion was ongoing in the areas west and south of Tripoli, in the Berber areas, and his (Gaddafi's) army would still have needed to take the Derna and Tobruk areas as well near the Egyptian border.


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    The rebels would not have won outright but they would have stopped his advance.

    That's not how it was reported at the time.

    From the The Guardian 15 March 2011.
    Libyan uprising close to collapse as Gaddafi's troops near Benghazi...

    Muammar Gaddafi's effort to defeat the rebels before international support can come seems to be paying off, with the uprising close to collapse as the US ended weeks of stalling to join Britain and France in supporting a United Nations resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

    France's UN ambassador, Gerard Araud, told reporters: "We are deeply distressed by the fact that things are worsening on the ground, that the Gaddafi forces are moving forward and the council has not yet reacted."

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/15/gaddafi-defeat-rebels-pays-off

    From Time 15 March 2011.
    If or when Benghazi is under immediate threat, the West is going to face stark options. "This is going to be very embarrassing for the Western countries who have demanded Gaddafi step down or have said they are 100% behind the rebellion," says McGregor. "What do they do when the rebellion starts to be crushed — are you going to watch or are you going to intervene militarily? Those are the basic choices you are going to be left with if Gaddafi's forces reach Benghazi, and that will be a decisive battle and that will be a decisive time for the foreign policy of Western countries — they will have to make a rather quick decision." France, so far the only country to recognize the rebels' National Transition Council as Libya's legitimate government, will be particularly on the spot. "Does [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy take the political hit or send in the Special Forces?" asks McGregor. Or will everyone just watch as the most dramatic revolt in the Middle East's Arab awakening is brutally crushed?

    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058832,00.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    cyberhog wrote: »
    The armed gangs that NATO helped take over in Libya .

    State of emergency declared....no surprises here!

    I've been saying for some time that the west and NATO should keep right out of any place and let the locals(who know what's going on) sort it out.

    There will never be peace in lybia till the locals sort it out between themselves.

    The US should just stand back and keep war spending to defending the US. This should return the US economy to a more positive outlook within 10 years.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Eye-witnesses told Amnesty that police made no attempt to protect unarmed protestors many of whom were old people.
    A 51 year old man told Amnesty International’s researchers: "Many of the demonstrators were old people who had just come out of the mosque after prayer. They were not armed and carried revolutionary and white flags and posters with peaceful messages. The police were in the background but did not do anything to stop the shooting. I was hit by shrapnel in my left leg, which had to be amputated."

    Amnesty also expressed concern about the Government's plan to integrate militias into the state security forces.
    Amnesty International urges the government to ensure that any disarmament, demobilization and reintegration efforts are compliant with human rights standards. No one responsible for human rights abuses should be integrated into state institutions.

    "As militias withdraw from Tripoli, the government must put in place measures to fight impunity and ensure that perpetrators of abuses are held accountable for their actions and brought to justice. Otherwise it is merely shifting around the problem," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui. "People throughout Libya – not only in Tripoli – must be able to live without fear of militia abuses."

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/libya-must-protect-demonstrators-out-control-militias-or-risk-new-bloodshed-2013-11-21


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    Rival militias quit Tripoli, hand bases to Libyan army
    BY GHAITH SHENNIB
    TRIPOLI Thu Nov 21,
    Rival Libyan militias surrendered their bases to the army and retreated from Tripoli on Thursday in the face of popular anger against their refusal to disarm in the two years since they toppled longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi.
    Libya's chaotic struggle to control militia fighters and Islamist militants has become an increasing worry for Western powers, concerned that violence in the OPEC country could spill over to its North African neighbors.
    At Mittiga airbase, militias tied to the Islamist-leaning Supreme Security Committee (SSC) said they would turn over control to the army. The powerful al Qaqaa brigades from Zintan, southwest of Tripoli, also handed over their base, commanders and officials said.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-libya-security-idUSBRE9AK0ZV20131121

    Tripoli eats cake to celebrate Libyan militias' withdrawal
    By Rana Jawad
    BBC News, Tripoli
    Tripoli residents have been brandishing and eating pastries on the streets this week as a symbol of their victory in forcing militias from elsewhere in Libya to withdraw from the capital.

    The city is famous for its baryoosh - a croissant-like brioche - but since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, its residents have been derided by some in the provinces as cake-eaters.

    The capital was one of the last cities to be taken by rebel forces during the 2011 revolution and how it fell is a very testy subject.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25037332


    Wow great step forward for emerging democracy Libya
    There may stille be problems. Only few of these militias actually handed over their weapons, including heavy weapons. Many just returned to their cities of origin (Misrata, Zintan, Ghariyan) The one which did hand the over and fully integrated into military, while relocating itself to borders, was Qa3Qa3 Zintani brigade, which is linked to NFA head Jibril. Also several Tripoli brigades did. However, most remain still in Mitiga airbase, although some disbanded and apparently the Mitiga prison was finally handed over.

    This move was however sparked by people taking things into their own hands and government than using the opportunity. But military, nor police did not really use any force. They can show it now - deadline for blocking of oil and gas terminals have passed and Zeidan yesterday said that Jathran will be dealt with by force. Jathran blocking has divided federalist movement sharply and brought nothing but financial loss for whole country. If military manages to end the occupation and bring Jathran to court it will be a huge PR boost for them.

    Meanwhile International AID, equipmentand training for New Libyan institutions of emerging democracy continues from united nations allies, newly arrived USA Humvee on Parade

    Humvees.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,189 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It's not in the least bit significant. The West said it had a duty to protect peaceful protestors from being slaughtered in 2011. There is no good reason why that duty to protect should not apply in 2013.
    A significant reason would be that there is a government in place this time that is doing that. In 2011, it was the government performing the atrocity and there was no alternative protection beyond armed intervention.

    If you're going to be outraged about this, look into the state of Mexico's affairs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Overheal wrote: »
    A significant reason would be that there is a government in place this time that is doing that.

    They are doing SQUAT to protect demonstrators.

    "The police were in the background but did not do anything to stop the shooting."


    http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/libya-must-protect-demonstrators-out-control-militias-or-risk-new-bloodshed-2013-11-21


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    At the very least, apportion blame fairly.

    Most countries condemned, without equivocation, the events in 2011 and many countries either directly or indirectly supported the action that took place.

    No protesters should be dying, in any country, in any situation, however this is something the current government in Libya is trying to avoid rather than perpetrate. There is quite a significant difference.

    The country is tribal, has been through 6 months of conflict, coupled with the fact that much of the leadership and control apparatus of 4 decades has been ripped out. Egypt has also gone through a similar level of post-uprising turmoil, if not more - the power vacuum and dynamic social changes in these countries mean that any form of democracy is going to be very fragile, often it's hard to tell if there's any democratic procedure at all

    You only have to look at Russia, imprisonment of political opponents, beatings and murders of journalists - to see that it's an incredibly long process that can take decades or generations

    Certain militias are expected to keep causing problems in Libya, but the most recent, which resulted in so many depths, will most likely harden the resolve needed to remove them.

    There were no militias in Libya until NATO put them there. It was the richest country in Africa until it was wrecked by NATO in search of destabilsation and resources. Ghaddafi did not even rule the country, in case you didn't know. Local councils were responsible for everything.
    Libya is now shattered, like Iraq, thanks to the desire for profit and strategy. All the talk in the world about the leaders of these places being such monsters won't hide that fact.
    If you know a single person from any of these countries, if you have ever even spoken to one you would know that they had a beautiful life before now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    MonaPizza wrote: »
    There were no militias in Libya until NATO put them there.

    NATO didn't "put" anyone there. The militas formed to fight Gadaffi under the NTC.
    It was the richest country in Africa until it was wrecked by NATO in search of destabilsation and resources.

    Germany was the richest country in Europe until it was "wrecked" by the allies. Context is important. Also Libya was rich "on paper", large areas of the country were extremely poor with high corruption. Gadaffi and his family laundered 10's out of billions of the country.
    Ghaddafi did not even rule the country, in case you didn't know.

    He very much did, with an iron fist. Opposition was outlawed, journalists, political opponents and activists were thrown in prison, tortured and disappeared - the country had an awful human rights record.
    Libya is now shattered, like Iraq, thanks to the desire for profit and strategy.

    You are partially correct, the infrastructure (which was terrible before) took a beating during the conflict. Also the leadership was ripped out which meant the corrupt courts, judiciary and all the trappings of the huge internal security appartus has been torn out - leaving a large hole where they was once (very one sided) security

    However it's being rebuilt thanks partially to the reclaiming of billions that the Gadaffi family stole from the country over the decades, Chinese, Russian and foreign investment. Oil infrastructure is still not at pre-war levels but it's slowly returning to normal.

    You must remember, cities like Misrata were shelled for months - it takes a long time to rebuild
    If you know a single person from any of these countries, if you have ever even spoken to one you would know that they had a beautiful life before now.

    Horse**** of the highest order :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,189 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    cyberhog wrote: »
    They are doing SQUAT to protect demonstrators.
    There is still a colossal divide between "doing SQUAT" and "Orders to Fire"


  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Overheal wrote: »
    There is still a colossal divide between "doing SQUAT" and "Orders to Fire"

    There was no alternative protection for protestors when they were fired on under Gaddafi's rule and there is no alternative protection for protestors being fired on by unaccountable militias. So who orders what should matter not when unarmed civilians are not being protected.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,189 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    cyberhog wrote: »
    There was no alternative protection for protestors when they were fired on under Gaddafi's rule and there is no alternative protection for protestors being fired on by unaccountable militias. So who orders what should matter not when unarmed civilians are not being protected.
    To the best of my knowledge though it makes quite a significant difference when you are asking what should be done by international law. Otherwise places like Mexico would have been open to Armed Intervention years ago.

    And again, think about this: militia groups with rifles, some IEDs, kind of like the RIRA, but throw it back a bit and recall that the Libyan government ordered military air strikes against its own people. Does this militia have military strike capability? More importantly, you really think a second intervention force is necessary at this time?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Overheal wrote: »
    throw it back a bit and recall that the Libyan government ordered military air strikes against its own people

    That claim has never been confirmed.
    There is no evidence that aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against crowds.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    At the very least, apportion blame fairly.

    Most countries condemned, without equivocation, the events in 2011 and many countries either directly or indirectly supported the action that took place.

    No protesters should be dying, in any country, in any situation, however this is something the current government in Libya is trying to avoid rather than perpetrate. There is quite a significant difference.

    The country is tribal, has been through 6 months of conflict, coupled with the fact that much of the leadership and control apparatus of 4 decades has been ripped out. Egypt has also gone through a similar level of post-uprising turmoil, if not more - the power vacuum and dynamic social changes in these countries mean that any form of democracy is going to be very fragile, often it's hard to tell if there's any democratic procedure at all

    You only have to look at Russia, imprisonment of political opponents, beatings and murders of journalists - to see that it's an incredibly long process that can take decades or generations

    Certain militias are expected to keep causing problems in Libya, but the most recent, which resulted in so many depths, will most likely harden the resolve needed to remove them.


    Jonny, you're a lovely fella, I'm sure.....but these stale and weak generalisations are not fooling anyone.

    Not so long ago I stated that 1.5 million Iraqis are dead as a result of the American attack on that country.

    Your comeback was (whilst digging through various numbers) that the high-end figure of deaths was (in your words) "disputed".

    Well, anything can be disputed. Anything. That smoking tobacco causes heart problems, cancer and a shortened life has always been "disputed" or "questioned".

    For you to dismiss a possibility and embrace a myth is anathema to your conversation.

    I mentioned, not long ago, that 150,000 Syrians had died in a low intensity civil conflict as opposed to you sticking to a paltry 100,000 Iraqis who had died in 10 years of all-out war.....tanks, bombers, troops, drones, shelling, missile strikes, (10 years of sanctions), tortures at Bagram/Abu Ghraib/Bucca, etc., etc., and you acquiesced.

    ....and you never came back and said that the 100,000 Iraqi dead may have been understated.
    You agreed that 150,000 Syrians could have been killed in 18 months but you refused to believe that more could have died in 10 years of Iraqi slaughter.

    Why is that?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Just quote what I said and we'll debate that


Advertisement