Civil War in Libya [Archive] - Page 5

Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

Adrian II

10-23-2011, 10:23

Even Reuters comferms at least 40.000 by the Red Cross, estimated much much more maybe even over a hundred, check your news-sources yourselve

Like I wrote earlier, I can find no Reuters message or Red Cross statement to this effect. Can you tell us where they are?

AII

Fragony

10-23-2011, 11:11

Like I wrote earlier, I can find no Reuters message or Red Cross statement to this effect. Can you tell us where they are?

AII

Few pages back, guy called AdrianII posted it, you know him. Must admit that I can't find the red cross part either though might not be true that it's comfirmed, give them a call tomorrow

Viking

10-23-2011, 11:16

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-23-2011, 14:04

It seems increasingly obvious that the three big players killed in Thursday's battle in Sirte were captured alive and then summarily executed. It seems like that would have been the quentisential moment for the new Libya to demonstrate a commitment to human rights and the rule of law that the old Libya lacked, but as we've seen over and over again, the NTC is more interested in vengeance against real and imaginary enemies than such lofty ideals. It is ironic, though, that both Qaddafi's Libya and now 'free' Libya were founded in summary execution. The leadership has changed, but the bodies of innocents still hung from lamp posts across the country. :shame:

Show me an innocent hanging from a lamppost. Or I could show you the reports of the Loyalists who were executed by the Patriots during the American Civil War.

As I said, this is how Tyranny ends.

That being said, as an American I could not help but think of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am 103, especially the 35 students from Syracuse University coming home to spend Christmas with their families, when I heard the news. Qaddafi chose to live by the sword, most of his victims did not.

Try thinking of all the Libyan prisoners murdered by Gadaffi in the last few months.

Why are these myths still being repeated as fact?

Much of that 'news' has since turned out to be complete fabrication... baseless propaganda, breathlessly reported.

Exageration, not fabrication, and we now know that the Gadaffi loyalists were enacting a "scorched earth" policy with regards to prisoners, the NTC has already requested international help in identifying the occupants of several mass graves that number in the dozens to the hundreds. This is a regime that regularly indulged in summary execution and mass extermination.

Gadaffi makes Saddam Hussain look almost palatable by comparison.

Banquo's Ghost

10-23-2011, 14:43

As I said, this is how Tyranny ends.

Not if you play your cards right. Some tyrants get to expire peacefully (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-crown-prince-dies-abroad-after-illness-2374427.html) in a New York hospital. It never ceases to amuse me that wannabe dictators don't get this simple rule. Don't they teach it anymore in Tyrant Academy?

Personally, whilst understanding the wish for a properly conducted arrest and trial (particularly when expressed with heartfelt condemnation by such leading luminaries of the human rights movement and the Geneva Conventions as Sergei Lavrov of Russia :dizzy2:) the execution of Gaddafi and his son was pretty inevitable. What I find more worrying for the future of the new Libya is that the NTC continued to lie about it - taking lessons from the West on such things already - and the unedifying spectacle of the dictator lying in a meat locker for days so that the crowds can gawp as he rots.

Whilst the USA got an undeserved haranguing from assorted commentators for the quick (and religiously conformist) disposal of bin Laden, there seems to be a limited amount of criticism for an Islamic country treating one of their own vanquished with such contempt. Execution is one thing and to be expected. Parading the dead will diminish the successors somewhat.

On just that theme, Lord Ashdown wrote an interesting piece yesterday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/libya-path-democracy?INTCMP=SRCH) where he argues that for Libya, establishing the rule of law is much more important at this time that elections.

And then of course there's elections. Everyone wants these early – but I prefer them as late as possible. Our mistake is to believe that elections are democracy. Democracy consists of much more than just voting. It also needs the rule of law; an effective constitution capable of holding the executive to account; a free press; and a vibrant civil society. I suspect that the public pressure for early elections cannot be long resisted, but the more of the above that can be put in place before voting, the safer the outcome will be.

I tend to agree with that analysis, as there are no civil institutions of any note or authority extant, and thus no useful way of embedding a pluralist democracy. There is some danger that the Arab Awakening will throw up politicians who fail economically (the main driver for the original discontent) and thus pave the way for fundamentalism. Economic woes are stoking the fires of reactionary fundamentalists in the West - how much more vulnerable will be the fragile North African states?

We must only help where we are asked to. This was a different war – we played our part to enable the Libyan people to fight on their own terms. We have to be prepared to let them build their own peace on the same basis. Interference will be unwise and unwelcome as they have already made clear. Sending in floods of uninvited businessmen to capture contracts as reward for our help is not likely to be well received. Ditto dispatching the kind of small army of wet-behind-the-ears economic graduates to "help them rebuild their economy", which we sent to Iraq in the early days.

I disagreed with the intervention, but consider that we have a duty to work effectively towards helping the Libyans in the peace as they see fit. I agree with Lord Ashdown that we would be very wise to support Turkey in leading the restoration efforts in Libya. The US, UK and France would do well to set up a working group with Turkey as the lead nation, with the former supplying necessary security guarantees and monetary investment (since we are likely to be the beneficiaries of the oil deals) but political direction and guidance coming from Turkey - a moment to bring that nation deeply into a strong regional role. One would hope that the Libyan NTC would be keen on such an offer.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-23-2011, 15:39

Not if you play your cards right. Some tyrants get to expire peacefully (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-crown-prince-dies-abroad-after-illness-2374427.html) in a New York hospital. It never ceases to amuse me that wannabe dictators don't get this simple rule. Don't they teach it anymore in Tyrant Academy?

Come now, you know as well as I do that Kings are not Tyrants, for all sorts of reasons, shiefly because they have managed to make themselves generally popular and align themselves with their people's wishes in general. It's interesting to note that both Saudi and Bahrain monarchs are less popular now because they are starting to give their people more rights and freedoms, not less.

Personally, whilst understanding the wish for a properly conducted arrest and trial (particularly when expressed with heartfelt condemnation by such leading luminaries of the human rights movement and the Geneva Conventions as Sergei Lavrov of Russia :dizzy2:) the execution of Gaddafi and his son was pretty inevitable. What I find more worrying for the future of the new Libya is that the NTC continued to lie about it - taking lessons from the West on such things already - and the unedifying spectacle of the dictator lying in a meat locker for days so that the crowds can gawp as he rots.

While I agree it's distaseful I think its clear that displaying the bloodied corpse had a genuine political sense to it, but that has now served its purpose and some form of burial is necessary.

Whilst the USA got an undeserved haranguing from assorted commentators for the quick (and religiously conformist) disposal of bin Laden, there seems to be a limited amount of criticism for an Islamic country treating one of their own vanquished with such contempt. Execution is one thing and to be expected. Parading the dead will diminish the successors somewhat.

My thought here is that it is not for us to judge, and the current finger wagging is not only pointless, but also wholly negative.

On just that theme, Lord Ashdown wrote an interesting piece yesterday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/libya-path-democracy?INTCMP=SRCH) where he argues that for Libya, establishing the rule of law is much more important at this time that elections.

And then of course there's elections. Everyone wants these early – but I prefer them as late as possible. Our mistake is to believe that elections are democracy. Democracy consists of much more than just voting. It also needs the rule of law; an effective constitution capable of holding the executive to account; a free press; and a vibrant civil society. I suspect that the public pressure for early elections cannot be long resisted, but the more of the above that can be put in place before voting, the safer the outcome will be.

I tend to agree with that analysis, as there are no civil institutions of any note or authority extant, and thus no useful way of embedding a pluralist democracy. There is some danger that the Arab Awakening will throw up politicians who fail economically (the main driver for the original discontent) and thus pave the way for fundamentalism. Economic woes are stoking the fires of reactionary fundamentalists in the West - how much more vulnerable will be the fragile North African states?

We must only help where we are asked to. This was a different war – we played our part to enable the Libyan people to fight on their own terms. We have to be prepared to let them build their own peace on the same basis. Interference will be unwise and unwelcome as they have already made clear. Sending in floods of uninvited businessmen to capture contracts as reward for our help is not likely to be well received. Ditto dispatching the kind of small army of wet-behind-the-ears economic graduates to "help them rebuild their economy", which we sent to Iraq in the early days.

I disagreed with the intervention, but consider that we have a duty to work effectively towards helping the Libyans in the peace as they see fit. I agree with Lord Ashdown that we would be very wise to support Turkey in leading the restoration efforts in Libya. The US, UK and France would do well to set up a working group with Turkey as the lead nation, with the former supplying necessary security guarantees and monetary investment (since we are likely to be the beneficiaries of the oil deals) but political direction and guidance coming from Turkey - a moment to bring that nation deeply into a strong regional role. One would hope that the Libyan NTC would be keen on such an offer.

Yes, I read that too. I am in two minds, while I take his point I think the counter argument is stronger, namely that the generally population need to take ownership of Libya before the fighters become entrenched as the new rulers. Already the Misratans are demanding their commander by Prime Minister, and the Zintans want the Ministry of Public Works for the bribes. The NTC has been generally impressive, but for just the reasons we find them so the revolutionaries and desert fighters are decidedly unimpressed.

What is needed as a matter of Urgency is a replacement for General Younis, someone who can be placed in overall command and be tied to the government whilst having the respect of the blooded fighters.

Noncommunist

10-23-2011, 16:01

Come now, you know as well as I do that Kings are not Tyrants, for all sorts of reasons, shiefly because they have managed to make themselves generally popular and align themselves with their people's wishes in general. It's interesting to note that both Saudi and Bahrain monarchs are less popular now because they are starting to give their people more rights and freedoms, not less.

That's probably because people are more wiling to say that they dislike their monarchs, not because they dislike their own rights.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-23-2011, 16:47

That's probably because people are more wiling to say that they dislike their monarchs, not because they dislike their own rights.

A king is a "monarch" a tyrant is a "monarch". Take a look at the Arab countries that have NOT suffered mass revolts, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... all Kingdoms, and that is crucial, because Kings are something entirely different from Tyrants or Dictators.

In Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain there have been protests, but in all three the focus has been on asking the King to enact reforms, not to remove him.

rory_20_uk

10-23-2011, 17:07

A king is a "monarch" a tyrant is a "monarch". Take a look at the Arab countries that have NOT suffered mass revolts, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... all Kingdoms, and that is crucial, because Kings are something entirely different from Tyrants or Dictators.

In Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain there have been protests, but in all three the focus has been on asking the King to enact reforms, not to remove him.

So, either the populace is scared to even think of deposing their monarch (Saudi Arabia / Bahrain) or who think that this is a reasonable way forward (Jordan). Saudi Arabia even was helpful enough to send their troops into other countries to help settle things down. Coupled with their appalling human rights at the best of times and state of the art firepower (curtesy of the Defenders of the Free) I don't imagine that their populations are keen on the wholesale slaughter that would most likely occur; that and the Saudis are astute enough to bribe their populations with non-jobs and cash from time to time.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-23-2011, 17:53

So, either the populace is scared to even think of deposing their monarch (Saudi Arabia / Bahrain) or who think that this is a reasonable way forward (Jordan). Saudi Arabia even was helpful enough to send their troops into other countries to help settle things down. Coupled with their appalling human rights at the best of times and state of the art firepower (curtesy of the Defenders of the Free) I don't imagine that their populations are keen on the wholesale slaughter that would most likely occur; that and the Saudis are astute enough to bribe their populations with non-jobs and cash from time to time.

~:smoking:

Gadaffi had/did all the things the Saudis do, but he suffered mass protests and ultimately full revolt [i]before[/i[ NATO intervention, so did Saddam. Take another look at Saudi Arabia, yes it's oppressive but in the majority of the country the royal family is quite popular. The clue is in the name, the country only exists, and is a regional power, because of the House of Saud.

Bahrain is more complicated, but if you look at the medium term and the short term prior to the protests this spring you will again see a generally upwarded trajectory, and (again) the ruling family is deeply embedded in the identity of the country.

PanzerJaeger

10-23-2011, 19:00

Not only did he gear up for massacres, he actually carrried them out, such as the warehouse massacre outside Tripoli.

Are you refering to the August 29 discovery of 53 bodies at a warehouse that was used by the 32nd Brigade?

Show me an innocent hanging from a lamppost.

Sure. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1mw7rbckUA) (WARNING: Content is what you would expect.)

Try thinking of all the Libyan prisoners murdered by Gadaffi in the last few months.

Like many in the press, I'm just trying to find them (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/africa/skirmishes-flare-around-qaddafi-strongholds.html?pagewanted=all). For a genocidal regime bent on death and destruction, there have been shockingly few executions of prisoners or civilians, both in areas controlled by the government and those retaken, and even fewer that can be even tangentially linked to the regime proper as opposed to individual actions at lower levels.

TRIPOLI, Libya — Where are all the dead?

Officially, according to Libya’s new leaders, their martyrs in the struggle against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi should number 30,000 to 50,000, not even counting their enemies who have fallen.

Yet in the country’s morgues, the war dead registered from both sides in each area so far are mostly in the hundreds, not the thousands. And those who are still missing total as few as 1,000, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Those figures may be incomplete, but even if the missing number proves to be three times as high, and all are dead, the toll would be far short of official casualty totals.

...

The new authorities say the confirmed death toll will rise with the discovery of mass graves where the Qaddafi government hid its victims, both during its final months and as it collapsed and fled Tripoli and other population centers.

Mass graves of recent vintage have indeed been found — 13 of them confirmed by the Red Cross, or “about 20” found by the government, according to the Transitional National Council’s humanitarian coordinator, Muattez Aneizi. More are being found “nearly every day,” Mr. Aneizi said.

“Mass” is slightly misleading, however, because the largest actual grave site found so far, in the Nafusah Mountains of western Libya, had 34 bodies. In many of the others, the victims numbered only in the single digits. Many are not even graves, but rather containers or buildings where people were executed and their bodies left to rot.

The Red Cross counted only 125 dead from the 13 sites it confirmed, with 53 of those found in a hangar near Tripoli’s airport. While the rebels may not have died in the numbers their side has claimed, there is no doubt that many were killed, often horribly, after having been taken prisoner. As the Qaddafi government collapsed and its die-hards fled from Tripoli and other strongholds, such war crimes happened in many well-documented cases. They just did not happen in many thousands of cases, judging from the available evidence.

There has been no explanation of the basis for either the council’s tally of 30,000 to 50,000 dead, or the number preferred by the new government’s minister of health, Naji Barakat, a more modest 25,000 to 30,000.

Exageration, not fabrication, and we now know that the Gadaffi loyalists were enacting a "scorched earth" policy with regards to prisoners, the NTC has already requested international help in identifying the occupants of several mass graves that number in the dozens to the hundreds. This is a regime that regularly indulged in summary execution and mass extermination.

Dozens or hundreds? That's a big discrepency. Also, can you highlight this effort in 'mass extermination'? :dizzy2:

In any event, claims of mass graves in Libya, like all information coming from the NTC, have been greatly exagerated (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/06/v-fullstory/2442311/six-weeks-after-gadhafis-fall.html).

TRIPOLI, Libya — Libya's interim rulers were busy this week: They cheered the imminent fall of Moammar Gadhafi's hometown, ordered trigger-happy revolutionary fighters out of the capital, formed a new caretaker Cabinet and announced the discovery of 900 corpses in two mass graves.

Only problem was, all those moves turned out to be premature, exaggerated or patently false.

The National Transitional Council, the interim body recognized by the United States and most U.N. members as Libya's highest authority, suffers serious credibility problems. Political grandstanding and the lack of clear military command have fueled a pattern of disinformation that exposes cracks in the council's veneer of leadership.

...

And then there's the issue of mass graves. Tripoli security officials passed out surgical masks and brought a forensics expert Wednesday on a bus tour for journalists to one of the supposed gravesites in Tripoli. The site consisted of long ditches in a normal cemetery. The trenches were empty, with not a corpse in sight and no sign that any had ever been there.

Officials explained that locals had reburied the bodies in other plots in the cemetery because of the stench; they produced grisly photos of rotting bodies that they said were snapped by Libyan locals who wanted to document the scene. That, however, was a lie. At least some of the photos were shot by a New York Times photographer, and from totally different sites.

When confronted with the discrepancy, officials changed their version, saying the bodies were from various "mass graves" — one with 35 bodies, another with 98, and so on. The math did not add up to the stated figure of 900. They promised to look into the source of the photographs.

The security forces also urged skeptical journalists to check out another purported gravesite, in Tajoura, on the outskirts of Tripoli.

"That one has 300," one official said. "Definitely."

Gadaffi makes Saddam Hussain look almost palatable by comparison.

I can forgive the misplaced faith in the early media hysteria over this event, but now you're operating in fantasyland. You see, Hussein actually engaged in ethnic cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign). Not imaginary genocide, but real, documented genocide. The only thing resembling his actions in the Libyan war so far has been on the rebel side (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/13/123999/empty-village-raises-concerns.html) towards the black population.

TAWERGHA, Libya — This town was once home to thousands of mostly black non-Arab residents. Now, the only manmade sound is a generator that powers a small militia checkpoint, where rebels say the town is a "closed military area."

What happened to the residents of Tawergha appears to be another sign that despite the rebel leadership's pledges that they'll exact no revenge on supporters of deposed dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's new rulers often are dealing harshly with the country's black residents.

According to Tawergha residents, rebel soldiers from Misrata forced them from their homes on Aug. 15 when they took control of the town. The residents were then apparently driven out of a pair of refugee camps in Tripoli over this past weekend.

"The Misrata people are still looking for black people," said Hassan, a Tawergha resident who's now sheltering in a third camp in Janzour, six miles east of Tripoli. "One of the men who came to this camp told me my brother was killed yesterday by the revolutionaries."

On Tuesday, Amnesty International issued a report on human rights issues in Libya that included claims that the rebels had abused prisoners, conducted revenge killings and removed pro-Gadhafi fighters from hospitals.

Dalia Eltahawy, an Amnesty researcher, said the Tawerghis "are certainly a very vulnerable group and need to be protected." She called on the rebel leadership to "investigate and bring people to justice" for those abuses "to avoid a culture of impunity."

But rebel leaders, in their response, made no mention of Tawergha, though they promised to "move quickly ... to make sure similar abuses are avoided in areas of continued conflict such as Bani Walid and Sirte."

"While the Amnesty report is overwhelmingly filled with the horrific abuses and killings by the Gadhafi regime, there are a small number of incidents involving those opposed to Gadhafi," the rebels' ruling National Transitional Council said in a statement. "The NTC strongly condemns any abuses perpetrated by either side."

There's no doubt that until last month, Tawergha was used by Gadhafi forces as a base from which to fire artillery into Misrata, which lies about 25 miles north.

Misratans say, however, that Tawergha's involvement on Gadhafi's side went deeper: Many of the village's residents openly participated in an offensive against Misrata that left more than 1,000 dead and as many missing, they say.

"Look on YouTube and you will see hundreds of Tawerghi men saying, 'We're coming to get you, Misrata,'" said Ahmed Sawehli, a psychiatrist in Misrata. "They shot the videos themselves with their cellphones."

The Tawerghis do not deny that some from the town fought for Gadhafi, but they say they are victims of a pre-existing racism in Libya that has manifested itself violently during the revolution.

The evidence that the rebels' pursuit of the Tawerghis did not end with the collapse of the Gadhafi regime is visible, both in the emptiness of this village and that of the camps to which the residents fled.

At one, in a Turkish-owned industrial complex in the Salah al Deen neighborhood of southern Tripoli, a man looting metal from the complex simply said that the Tawerghis had "gone to Niger," the country that borders Libya on the south where some Gadhafi supporters, including the deposed dictator's son Saadi, have fled.

Abandoned blankets and mattresses littered the area, and laundry still hung drying. Aside from some extinguished cooking fires and piles of trash, there was little else to suggest human habitation.

Lafy Mohammed, whose house is across the road from the complex, said that on Saturday a group of revolutionary militiamen from Misrata, 120 miles east of Tripoli, had come to the camp and evicted its tenants.

"They arrested about 25 of the men," Mohammed said. "They were shooting in the air and hitting them with their rifle butts."

"They took the women, old men and children out in trucks," he said.

Mohammed said that it was not the first time the revolutionaries from Misrata had come after the people in the camp.

"A week ago they were here, but (the people in the neighborhood) begged them to leave them alone," Mohammed said.

Mohammed said some of the Tawerghis may have been taken to another nearby camp, in a Brazilian-owned industrial complex. On Tuesday, that camp was empty as well, with the gate locked.

Reached by phone at the camp in Janzour, Hassan, who did not want his last name used, said he had escaped from the Brazilian company camp on Saturday, when it, too, was raided. He said about 1,000 Tawerghis were now at the Janzour camp.

"They arrested 35 men, but they let me go because I was with my family," Hassan said. He blamed a brigade of fighters from Misrata.

In Tawergha, the rebel commander said his men had orders not to allow any of the residents back in. He also said that unexploded ordnance remained in the area, though none was readily apparent.

Most homes and buildings in the area appeared to have been damaged in the fighting, and a half-dozen appeared to have been ransacked. The main road into the village was blocked with earthen berms. Signs marking the way to the village appeared to have been destroyed.

On the only sign remaining "Tawergha" had been painted over with the words "New Misrata."

On one wall in Tawergha, graffiti referred to the town's residents as "abeed," a slur for blacks.

Viking

10-23-2011, 19:29

Are you refering to the August 29 discovery of 53 bodies at a warehouse that was used by the 32nd Brigade?

Yes.

The only thing resembling his actions in the Libyan war so far has been on the rebel side (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/13/123999/empty-village-raises-concerns.html) towards the black population.

Displacement of a town's population does not resemble genocide.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-23-2011, 19:38

Are you refering to the August 29 discovery of 53 bodies at a warehouse that was used by the 32nd Brigade?

Sure. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1mw7rbckUA) (WARNING: Content is what you would expect.)

Like many in the press, I'm just trying to find them (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/africa/skirmishes-flare-around-qaddafi-strongholds.html?pagewanted=all). For a genocidal regime bent on death and destruction, there have been shockingly few executions of prisoners or civilians, both in areas controlled by the government and those retaken, and even fewer that can be even tangentially linked to the regime proper as opposed to individual actions at lower levels.

Dozens or hundreds? That's a big discrepency. Also, can you highlight this effort in 'mass extermination'? :dizzy2:

In any event, claims of mass graves in Libya, like all information coming from the NTC, have been greatly exagerated (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/06/v-fullstory/2442311/six-weeks-after-gadhafis-fall.html).

I can forgive the misplaced faith in the early media hysteria over this event, but now you're operating in fantasyland. You see, Hussein actually engaged in ethnic cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign). Not imaginary genocide, but real, documented genocide. The only thing resembling his actions in the Libyan war so far has been on the rebel side (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/13/123999/empty-village-raises-concerns.html) towards the black population.

In a country of just 6 million people a few hundred dead is pretty good going.

Still, do you have concrete evidence of mass extermination of blacks? Or is it just that they have all fled out of fear? The two are not the same.

Like all things in war, these issues are extremely murky, that does mean that the new Libya now emerging will not be better than the old, or that it was not worth dying for.

Fragony

10-23-2011, 20:06

Displacement of a town's population does not resemble genocide.

It kinda does resemble just that, you mean they have been found?

Viking

10-23-2011, 20:12

It kinda does resemble just that, you mean they have been found?

They can be found in Tripoli and Benghazi, among other places. Just check PJ's last quoted article.

Ronin

10-23-2011, 21:04

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-23-2011, 21:23

New Libyan state to be more 'pious' (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/world/africa/revolution-won-top-libyan-official-vows-a-new-and-more-pious-state.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto)

well..that was quick
can we have the Colonel back now???

Mr Jalil:

“We are an Islamic country. We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government. The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion.”

Meh

Random American politicain:

“We are a Christian nation. We hold the Christian religion as the core of our government. The constitution is based on our Christian heritage.”

See the non-difference?

Saying, "We are Islamic" does not mean "we are a bunch of beardy fundamentalists."

Hax

10-23-2011, 22:09

Phillipvs makes an excellent point. Additionally, other Arab states have incorporated Islam in their legal frameworks, even "secular" states such as Nasser-era Egypt.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-24-2011, 00:17

Phillipvs makes an excellent point. Additionally, other Arab states have incorporated Islam in their legal frameworks, even "secular" states such as Nasser-era Egypt.

Quite, that being said neither Nasser nor Mubarak were particular friends to the Copts or Jews in Egypt. There is undeniably a potential for things to get very ugly in Libya very fast, and I am concerned about the Misratan fighters, the tone of their commanders has been mardely different than the other units from Trippoli, Benghazi or Zintan, These men definately want their dues for withstanding a three month siege and they are not above exacting retribution for the destruction Gadaffi's forces brought down upon them.

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 11:21

Mr Jalil:

“We are an Islamic country. We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government. The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion.”

Wait, wait - does Jalil have the right to decide about that? Is the new constitution already written? Have their been free elections yet?

No, no, and no. This is typical, I am afraid. Even before there is a new political constellation, the leadership is already pandering to religous groups and trying to 'get them on board'. Not a good omen at all. Look at Egypt where the army supports the Brotherhood. Or Tunesia (where islamists are physically attacking anyone who doubts their views).

'Arabian Spring' my foot.

AII

PanzerJaeger

10-24-2011, 11:25

Yes.

Interesting, as there is no solid evidence of what happened there, who ordered it, or even who those people were. Considering that the rebels have a history of burning real or imaginary loyalists alive (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.44_AUV.pdf) and then claiming them as martyrs (http://observers.france24.com/content/20110222-charred-bodies-found-barracks-Benghazi-libya-Gaddafi) that were killed by other loyalists for not attacking civilians, I'm not sure how you can make the assertion that it was a Gaddafi ordered massacre with any degree of certianty.

Five charred bodies were found Monday in military barracks in Benghazi, the second-largest city in Libya and a stronghold of anti-Gaddafi protesters. According to one of our Observers, the bodies were those of soldiers savagely massacred for refusing orders to fire against Libyan civilians protesting in the African nation.

The Commission received several accounts of attacks on migrant workers carried out by armed opposition groups. […] Another case reported to the Commission related to the extra-judicial killing of five Chadian nationals who had been arrested on the basis of their nationality, and taken to the military barracks in Benghazi. Dozens of armed persons either in military style or civilian clothing were said to have poured kerosene on their bodies and burned them to death on 21 February.

Displacement of a town's population does not resemble genocide.

That depends. Simply telling a group of people to move somewhere else is not genocide. Reprisals, violence, torture, killings, forced separations, and imposing restrictions based on ethnicity and in an effort to destroy said ethnicity is genocide according to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Amnesty International reports:

Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) must do more to protect black Libyans, Amnesty International said today, after allegations that members of the Tawargha tribe were detained, threatened and beaten on suspicion of fighting for Gaddafi forces.

Some Tawarghas who’ve been detained in Tripoli are said to have been made to kneel facing the wall and then been beaten with sticks and whips. Others have simply vanished after being arrested at checkpoints or taken from hospitals by armed revolutionaries (thuwwar).

...

Most residents of the Tawargha region, about 25 miles from Misratah, fled their homes last month before the arrival of the thuwwar. Tens of thousands are now living in different parts of Libya - unable to return home as relations between the people of Misratah and Tawargha remain particularly tense. Residents of makeshift camps near Tripoli, where displaced people from Tawargha are sheltering, told Amnesty they would not go outside for fear of arrest. They told how relatives and others from the Tawargha tribe had been arrested from checkpoints and even hospitals in Tripoli.

On 29 August, Amnesty delegates saw a Tawargha patient at the Tripoli Central Hospital being taken by three men, one of them armed, for "questioning in Misratah". The men had no arrest warrant. Amnesty was also told that at least two other Tawargha men had vanished after being taken for questioning from Tripoli hospitals.

One 45-year-old flight dispatcher and his uncle were arrested by armed thuwwar while out shopping in the al-Firnaj area of Tripoli on 28 August. They were taken to the Military Council headquarters at Mitiga Airport just east of the capital. The men told Amnesty they were beaten with the butt of a rifle and received death threats. Both were held for several days in Mitiga and are still detained in Tripoli.

Even in the camps, the Tawarghas are not safe. Towards the end of last month, a group of armed men drove into the camp and arrested about 14 men. Amnesty spoke to some of their relatives; none knew of their fate or whereabouts. Another woman at the camp said her husband has been missing since he left the camp to run an errand in central Tripoli, about a week ago. She fears he might be have been detained.

One woman, who has been living in the camp with her husband and five children for about a week, told Amnesty that she was terrified of going home:

"If we go back to Tawargha, we will then be at the mercy of the Misratah thuwwar.

"When the thuwwar entered our town in mid-Ramadan [mid-August] and shelled it, we fled just carrying the clothes on our backs. I don't know what happened to our homes and belongings. Now I am here in this camp, my son is ill and I am too afraid to go to the hospital in town. I don't know what will happen to us now."

In addition to Tawarghas, other black Libyans including from the central Sabha district as well as sub-Saharan Africans, continue to be at particular risk of reprisals and arbitrary arrests, on the basis of their skin colour and widespread reports that al-Gaddafi forces used "African mercenaries" to repress supporters of the NTC.

And, to requote what I posted (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/13/123999/empty-village-raises-concerns.html) earlier:

The residents were then apparently driven out of a pair of refugee camps in Tripoli over this past weekend.

“The Misrata people are still looking for black people,” said Hassan, a Tawergha resident who’s now sheltering in a third camp in Janzour, six miles east of Tripoli. “One of the men who came to this camp told me my brother was killed yesterday by the revolutionaries.”

The evidence that the rebels’ pursuit of the Tawerghis did not end with the collapse of the Gadhafi regime is visible, both in the emptiness of this village and that of the camps to which the residents fled.

At one, in a Turkish-owned industrial complex in the Salah al Deen neighborhood of southern Tripoli, a man looting metal from the complex simply said that the Tawerghis had “gone to Niger,” the country that borders Libya on the south where some Gadhafi supporters, including the deposed dictator’s son Saadi, have fled.

It is worth noting that to get to Niger, any refugees would hav ehad to make an extremely hazardous journey to Sabha first. From there it would have been a further weeks journey by bus into Niger, across the Sahara: another very dangerous journey which it is highly unlikely any of the refugees would have even attempted let alone survived.

...

Lafy Mohammed, whose house is across the road from the complex, said that on Saturday a group of revolutionary militiamen from Misrata, 120 miles east of Tripoli, had come to the camp and evicted its tenants.

“They arrested about 25 of the men,” Mohammed said. “They were shooting in the air and hitting them with their rifle butts.”

“They took the women, old men and children out in trucks,” he said.

Mohammed said that it was not the first time the revolutionaries from Misrata had come after the people in the camp.

“A week ago they were here, but (the people in the neighborhood) begged them to leave them alone,” Mohammed said.

Mohammed said some of the Tawerghis may have been taken to another nearby camp, in a Brazilian-owned industrial complex. On Tuesday, that camp was empty as well, with the gate locked.

Reached by phone at the camp in Janzour, Hassan, who did not want his last name used, said he had escaped from the Brazilian company camp on Saturday, when it, too, was raided. He said about 1,000 Tawerghis were now at the Janzour camp.

“They arrested 35 men, but they let me go because I was with my family,” Hassan said. He blamed a brigade of fighters from Misrata.

In Tawergha, the rebel commander said his men had orders not to allow any of the residents back in. He also said that unexploded ordnance remained in the area, though none was readily apparent.

Most homes and buildings in the area appeared to have been damaged in the fighting, and a half-dozen appeared to have been ransacked. The main road into the village was blocked with earthen berms. Signs marking the way to the village appeared to have been destroyed.

On the only sign remaining “Tawergha” had been painted over with the words “New Misrata.”

On one wall in Tawergha, graffiti referred to the town’s residents as “abeed,” a slur for blacks.

Other reports (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/12/2451208/libyan-rebels-abuse-torture-prisoners.html) are no less disturbing:

Even black Libyans have experienced such race-based retaliation, most notably with the near-total cleansing of the majority-black town of Tawergha, where some residents fought alongside Gadhafi forces in devastating attacks on the neighboring city of Misrata.

Revolutionary brigades from Misrata continue to carry out collective punishment against the residents of Tawergha, which has been informally renamed "New Misrata."

Anti-Gadhafi fighters are razing homes and seizing properties despite the council's admonitions against such practices, which are designed to prevent the displaced residents from returning to Tawergha. A McClatchy reporter who visited the town noticed racial slurs among graffiti on the walls.

At least one Tawergha resident, Saleh Ahmed Abdullah Haddad, 21, had died in rebel custody after being beaten and trampled by his jailers, the Amnesty International report said.

"According to his cellmates, several days after beatings left him paralyzed from the waist down, he started vomiting blood and he died shortly after being taken to the hospital," the report said.

And (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/23/libya-what-will-happen-when-the-honeymoon-ends.html):

Because the color of the Libyan revolution is white. Or at least as fair as the skin of Arabs and Berbers along the Mediterranean coast. Despite Libya’s having a significant black population, no blacks are represented in its current transitional government, and there are no blacks among the economic or cultural elite. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both reported cases of arbitrary arrests, torture, and execution of blacks in detention, not least blacks from Mabruk’s hometown. Tawergha had more than 30,000 inhabitants, but is now ethnically cleansed. The buildings stare vacantly out toward the deserted streets. Corpses of dogs and cats lie next to laundry hung out to dry on the day the inhabitants fled. The National Transitional Council seems to employ classic Gaddafi methods. If this tolerance for revenge remains as pervasive as it is today, Libya’s new leaders have already lost the struggle to obtain a better image than their predecessor.

And finally (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-libya-displaced-idUSTRE79G2CY20111017):

(Reuters) - After weeks on the run, thousands of black Libyans driven from their homes during the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi have resurfaced across the country, finding refuge in a squalid camp they hope is only temporary.

Once residents of Gaddafi's stronghold of Tawergha, the families now wander a dusty compound ringed with garbage and staffed by a handful of volunteers from the city of Benghazi struggling to prevent the spread of disease as numbers swell.

The group's eastward flight began last summer, when anti-Gaddafi forces overran Tawergha and vengeance-seeking crowds ransacked it, leaving a ghost town behind.

"They chased us with guns and knives," said Ibrahim Med Khaled, a 24-year-old taxi driver recently arrived at the former construction site after spending weeks dodging hostile crowds across the country's west before being captured by armed men.

"They brought me to a house and beat me with electrical cable to make me confess I worked for Gaddafi, even though I told them I never carried a gun," he said, lifting his shirt to reveal shoulders criss-crossed with fresh wounds from flogging.

Throughout the uprising against Gaddafi's 42-year rule, his opponents have accused him of hiring fighters from neighboring African countries which led to reports of mistreatment of blacks, including Libyans.

The camp has grown since opening from 400 to nearly 3,000 people in just two weeks, despite disrepair and lack of sufficient sanitation and electricity evidenced by raw sewage pooling behind some of the housing blocks.

Aid workers say overcrowding is forcing hundreds to set up makeshift settlements near by.

Some of the men at the camp, guarded by troops loyal to the interim government which ousted Gaddafi, still wear camouflage trousers they may have donned last summer in support of Gaddafi.

One little girl could be seen eating spilled food off the ground.

Now, none of this would be considered genocide unless it was clearly aimed at destroying the Tawergha as a people.

On that, we have the new Libyan Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril quoted (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903532804576564861187966284.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews) as saying:

"Regarding Tawergha, my own viewpoint is that nobody has the right to interfere in this matter except the people of Misrata.”

“This matter can’t be tackled through theories and textbook examples of national reconciliation like those in South Africa, Ireland and Eastern Europe,” he added as the crowd cheered with chants of “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is greatest.”

Now, rebels have been torching homes in the abandoned city 25 miles to the south. Since Thursday, The Wall Street Journal has witnessed the burning of more than a dozen homes in the city Col. Gadhafi once lavished with money and investment. On the gates of many vandalized homes in the country’s only coastal city dominated by dark-skinned people, light-skinned rebels scrawled the words “slaves” and “negroes.”

“We are setting it on fire to prevent anyone from living here again,” said one rebel fighter as flames engulfed several loyalist homes.

The rebel commanders in the area were even more direct:

Nearly four-fifths of residents of Misrata’s Ghoushi neighborhood were Tawergha natives. Now they are gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.

...

Ibrahim al-Halbous, a rebel commander leading the fight near Tawergha, says all remaining residents should leave once if his fighters capture the town. "They should pack up," Mr. Halbous said. "Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata."

Other rebel leaders are also calling for drastic measures like banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.

And further (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903532804576564861187966284.html):

Regarding Tawergha, my own viewpoint is that nobody has the right to interfere in this matter except the people of Misrata," said Mahmoud Jibril, the NTC's prime minister and one of the chief interlocutors with U.S. and European leaders, during Monday's town hall meeting. "This matter can't be tackled through theories and textbook examples of national reconciliation like those in South Africa, Ireland and Eastern Europe," he added as the crowd cheered with chants of "Allahu Akbar," or "God is greatest."

Rebel leaders in Misrata appear to have already decided how to punish Tawergha's people, whom rebels accuse of pillaging homes and raping women during an assault on Misrata in March. Though the rape allegations have been difficult to prove, they have fueled immense hatred.

Now, rebels have been torching homes in the abandoned city 25 miles to the south. Since Thursday, The Wall Street Journal has witnessed the burning of more than a dozen homes in the city Col. Gadhafi once lavished with money and investment. On the gates of many vandalized homes in the country's only coastal city dominated by dark-skinned people, light-skinned rebels scrawled the words "slaves" and "negroes."

"We are setting it on fire to prevent anyone from living here again," said one rebel fighter as flames engulfed several loyalist homes.

Every house, shop, school and public building in Tawergha has been ransacked since the Misrata rebels chased out pro-Gadhafi soldiers. At the time, hundreds of families also fled, fearing reprisals. Rebels slaughtered some of the livestock left behind, the carcasses of which are still rotting in the yards of abandoned homes.

Misrata's rebels are also preventing Tawergha residents from coming back and have tracked down and arrested dozens of male Tawergha natives taking refuge in Tripoli, bringing them back to Misrata from the capital for detention and interrogation.

"The revolution was supposed to give people their rights, not to oppress them," said Hussein Muftah, a Tawergha elder who fled to Tripoli last month, referring to the Feb. 17 uprising.

...

Tawergha's fate could be an ominous portent of what is to come.

About two years ago, Col. Gadhafi made the impoverished rural community a personal pet project, residents said. He lavished investment and money on the town of some 20,000. Empowering weaker and poorer tribes and regions was one of Col. Gadhafi's favorite ruling devices to counter the influence of the country's traditional power centers.

His attention gave a much-needed boost to Tawergha's economy, which depends on dusty farmland and providing cheap labor to wealthier, more fair skinned and cosmopolitan neighbors in Misrata.

When the uprising erupted on Feb. 17, Misrata was one of the cities that waged the fiercest struggle against Col. Gadhafi. Neighboring Tawergha, Bani Walid and Zlitin were transformed into garrison towns for Col. Gadhafi's forces as they waged a brutal monthslong siege of the city that included near-constant barrages of rocket and artillery fire.

As the rebels gained momentum toward the end of summer, Misrata's rebels attacked Tawergha in early August. Residents and pro-regime soldiers fled.

On the Misrata-Sirte highway, Misratan rebels have scratched out signs pointing toward Tawergha and written "New Misrata" in its place. Many Misrata residents seem more willing to reconcile with loyalists in predominantly lighter-skinned towns like Bani Walid and Zlitin, but not Tawergha. Misrata's military council has declared Tawergha a closed military zone. The city's leaders have decreed that its residents won't be allowed back.

"Tawergha is no more," said a senior Misratan rebel leader, Mohammed Ben Ras Ali.

NTC officials have tiptoed around the issue. Misratans' scrappy fight against Col. Gadhafi's forces earned them an iconic status in the rebel effort and any rebel leader speaking out against them now would likely pay a steep political price. There is also a broad perception that the city, which arguably suffered more than any other Libyan city, is somewhat justified in taking such extreme measures against Tawergha.

Misratans' pursuit of their neighbors has followed the city's scattered residents to hospitals and refugee camps in Tripoli. On Saturday, Misratan rebels allegedly dragged off 65 Tawerghan residents from refugee camps and hospital beds in the capital, according to Tawergha leaders.

Now, does this constitute genocide? I don't know. Does it resemble genocide? A little bit, yeah. Ethnic cleansing certainly, but genocide is a tougher hurdle to jump. I suppose it would depend on whether all the killing, torture, reprisals, detentions, separations, and destruction is simply an effort to 'punish' the Tawergha or more directly aimed at 'thinning' their numbers and destroying their ethnic cohesion as to eliminate a possible future enemy of the revolution. It is certainly not a Holocaust-type industrial event, but it does in some ways resemble the Armenian genocide, where much of the killing was done by driving people out of their homes and exposing them to the elements with no supplies. We'll see if the Tawergha continue to languish in disease-ridden concentration camps in post-war Libya, or if efforts will be made to remedy the neglect and abuse - especially in comparison to other light skinned Arab communities that were also perceived to have been loyal to the Colonel.

In any event, there indeed seems to be a concerted effort by rebel military leadership that has been tacitly endorsed by the political leadership to destroy the Tawergha tribe. This goes beyond simple displacement as they have been ceaselessly tracked down, thrown in concentration camps scattered around the nation, and relentlessly abused in those camps.

My point, though, was to demonstrate just how ridiculous the Hussein and 'mass extermination' comments were. As I said: 'The only thing resembling his [Hussein's] actions in the Libyan war so far has been on the rebel side towards the black population.'

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 12:13

My point, though, was to demonstrate just how ridiculous the Hussein and 'mass extermination' comments were. As I said: 'The only thing resembling his [Hussein's] actions in the Libyan war so far has been on the rebel side towards the black population.'

Good point, and well documented as regards Tawergha. Some of our friends on this forum find it hard to accept that not .everything is hunky-dory in 'liberated' Libya. Well, you force them to swallow a porcupine - and to swallow it whole :mellow:

Tawergha probably qualifies as a war crime, but the present authority appears to be in no position to prosecute or even examine. Even more disappointing is the fact that Mr Jalil didn't even want to interfere and stated more or less literally that this was none of his business.

And now we have his declaration that Libya is going to have an islamic constitution. I wonder how long the western media coverage of the new Libyan authorities is going to remain predominantly benign.

AII

rory_20_uk

10-24-2011, 12:13

For a country to be unified, often nasty things need to happen.

At the end of WW2 there were massive displacements of Germans from Poland for example - Poland was largely ethnically cleansed; the Cossacks were also cleansed. For a country to be unified, the easiest way is to get rid of dissenters. A country has to be very secure before it can tolerate a large amount of internal dissent, lest it fractures into pieces.

Is the West supposed to get involved in this one example of this behaviour, or are we going to be doing this in every other part of the world where it is occurring? It's not like Ethnic genocide is a new feature in Africa.

~:smoking:

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 12:15

For a country dictatorship to be unified, often nasty things need to happen.

Fixed it! :smug:

AII

rory_20_uk

10-24-2011, 12:43

Fixed it! :smug:

AII

As existing countries all came together purely due to the peaceful will of the people? :dizzy2:

Look at the dear EU - referendums refused wherever possible, and repeated where required.

Dictatorship is probably a better term, but in the West we prefer to airbrush some pretence of democracy on top as a safety valve.

~:smoking:

Major Robert Dump

10-24-2011, 13:25

Well it's good to see one of the first issues the interim government tackles is one of very high importance for Sharia: making polygamy legal again. Typical.

Vladimir

10-24-2011, 14:10

I really don't understand why everyone's so upset about Libya basing their new government off Sharia law. What else did they have? Did you expect them to base their government off Western law?

Every government, especially English and American, is based on the foundations established prior to its creation. The key is how it is implemented.

What alternative is there?

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 15:01

Did you expect them to base their government off Western law?

No, for God's sake. They have Western weapons, cars, computers, medicine, engineering and all the rest, including Western computers and the Internet. But when it comes to politics there can be only one source of wisdom and knowledge for Libyans: the thousand year old mumblings of some guy in a cave.

AII

rory_20_uk

10-24-2011, 15:56

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 16:34

It wasn't a thousand years ago, and there were lots of others who help "interpret" what was said and even what wasn't said to form the current laws - although these initially fluid appear to have ossified as of late.

~:smoking:

Yes, yes, I know all that. I'm pretty well-read in the Big Q and the Hadith. But for the sake of argument I stressed the ossification of thought.

AII

Ronin

10-24-2011, 16:57

I really don't understand why everyone's so upset about Libya basing their new government off Sharia law. What else did they have? Did you expect them to base their government off Western law?

no I do not....this was what I expected to happen.
I´m just trying to understand...why did NATO put it's finger on one side of the scale on what was....a civil war.
Some European NATO countries basically took it upon them-selfs to decide which side was gonna win....what is the net gain exactly?
Excuse me if I don´t see it, but I don´t recognize the advantage to Europe here.

PanzerJaeger

10-24-2011, 17:21

For a country to be unified, often nasty things need to happen.

That may be, but does the West need to be involved, especially under a mandate to protect civilians?

Is the West supposed to get involved in this one example of this behaviour, or are we going to be doing this in every other part of the world where it is occurring? It's not like Ethnic genocide is a new feature in Africa.

~:smoking:

Considering the indirect - and in the case of Tarwegha, direct (NATO surveillance and bombardment aided in the capture of the city) - role the West has played in this affair, I do not see how the nations involved do not share in the responsibility and are not obligated to 'get involved'.

Human rights groups have documented the abuses and the UN has at least issued a statement of condemnation, but the Western nations directly involved in the conflict - those that have the most sway over the NTC - have said precious little and done even less, not only in regard to the Tarwegha situation but also the greater suffering of black Africans in Libya.

Viking

10-24-2011, 17:52

Interesting, as there is no solid evidence of what happened there, who ordered it, or even who those people were.[...]

I have seen no ambiguity in the media coverage of this event; it seems pretty clear that loyalists did it, and this shows what they (a disciplined force) were capable of: merciless mass-slaughter.

Good point, and well documented as regards Tawergha. Some of our friends on this forum find it hard to accept that not .everything is hunky-dory in 'liberated' Libya. Well, you force them to swallow a porcupine - and to swallow it whole :mellow:

I can only ever speak for myself, but I have at no point, what so ever, claimed that everything is fine and dandy in Tawergha. I have resented the comparison of what happened there to genocide, since there is no evidence for this at present. That is all.

Even more disappointing is the fact that Mr Jalil didn't even want to interfere and stated more or less literally that this was none of his business.

That would be Jibril, who resigned on saturday, IIRC.

Well it's good to see one of the first issues the interim government tackles is one of very high importance for Sharia: making polygamy legal again. Typical.

Legal, as it is in Iraq, by the way.

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 18:15

That would be Jibril, who resigned on saturday, IIRC.

True, but he spoke on behalf of the transitional council.

AII

Viking

10-24-2011, 19:36

True, but he spoke on behalf of the transitional council.

AII

Doubt that; that is no rule of law. Here's a quote from a Reuters article (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-libya-displaced-idUKTRE79G2CY20111017)on the matter:

While the NTC favors the return of Tawargha's residents, it admits this will take time. But resolving the issue remains a test of its leadership to come. Much of the city lays in ruins and people in neighboring Misrata say tensions are still too high to allow a return that could spark more violence.

the source from the NTC is not mentioned.

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 21:34

Doubt that; that is no rule of law. Here's a quote from a Reuters article (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-libya-displaced-idUKTRE79G2CY20111017)on the matter:

the source from the NTC is not mentioned.

Oh, but the source has been mentioned all over the place, for instance in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903532804576564861187966284.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews):

"Regarding Tawergha, my own viewpoint is that nobody has the right to interfere in this matter except the people of Misrata," said Mahmoud Jibril, the NTC's prime minister and one of the chief interlocutors with U.S. and European leaders, during Monday's town hall meeting. "This matter can't be tackled through theories and textbook examples of national reconciliation like those in South Africa, Ireland and Eastern Europe," he added as the crowd cheered with chants of "Allahu Akbar," or "God is greatest."

AII

Fragony

10-24-2011, 21:36

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-24-2011, 21:59

no I do not....this was what I expected to happen.
I´m just trying to understand...why did NATO put it's finger on one side of the scale on what was....a civil war.
Some European NATO countries basically took it upon them-selfs to decide which side was gonna win....what is the net gain exactly?
Excuse me if I don´t see it, but I don´t recognize the advantage to Europe here.

Europe needs actual African Allies and friends, not dictators we prop up. If Libya becomes a (relatively) tollerant Islamic democracy it will be no worse than the US a (relatively) tollerant Christian democracy. Actual practical progress in the Arab world will also help to ease up the religion as they bleed of all the angst from having boots on their necks for the last several hundred years.

On another note, every time I hear something bad about Libya it is usually followed by "Misrata"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8845636/Libya-Human-Rights-Watch-calls-on-NTC-to-probe-mass-executions-as-53-bodies-are-found.html

Adrian II

10-24-2011, 22:06

On another note, every time I hear something bad about Libya it is usually followed by "Misrata"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8845636/Libya-Human-Rights-Watch-calls-on-NTC-to-probe-mass-executions-as-53-bodies-are-found.html

Indeed, and it's getting tiresome in a way, the horror of it all not withstanding. I see no news yet about the 'milllions of blacks smothered in blood' or the ghost Red Cross statements about 'fourty thousand' civil war casualties.

AII

Fragony

10-24-2011, 22:38

Number varies no there is a lot to count, new interim minister of health says at least 30.000 dead and 20.000 seriously wounded.

Ronin

10-24-2011, 23:07

Over 200 billion in the possesions that have been confiscated, pure plunder

if that's the game can we keep the cashola that the Colonel had in our main bank? it would sure come in handy right about now.

Europe needs actual African Allies and friends, not dictators we prop up. If Libya becomes a (relatively) tollerant Islamic democracy it will be no worse than the US a (relatively) tollerant Christian democracy. Actual practical progress in the Arab world will also help to ease up the religion as they bleed of all the angst from having boots on their necks for the last several hundred years.

last time I checked we didn´t prop him up...but that doesn´t mean it's our business to take him down either....specially with no clear net gain from it.
with everything that has been going wrong lately Europe has it's plate more than full....an X factor right now in northern Africa is not a big advantage over the status quo in this case in my perspective
is it better for the Libyan people? maybe, maybe not, too soon to tell, but the concerns of the Libyan people in my list of concerns come in on page 34, right after "are we eating too much garlic as a people?" so whatever

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-24-2011, 23:58

Indeed, and it's getting tiresome in a way, the horror of it all not withstanding. I see no news yet about the 'milllions of blacks smothered in blood' or the ghost Red Cross statements about 'fourty thousand' civil war casualties.

AII

I expect the NTC are finding them migraine-inducing. With regard to the Red Cross and Black mercenaries, I maintain the line I always have - factually true but numerically overinflated

Worth considering that it appears Misratans shot Gadaffi and his son too, very un-Islamic if nothing else.

last time I checked we didn´t prop him up...but that doesn´t mean it's our business to take him down either....specially with no clear net gain from it.
with everything that has been going wrong lately Europe has it's plate more than full....an X factor right now in northern Africa is not a big advantage over the status quo in this case in my perspective
is it better for the Libyan people? maybe, maybe not, too soon to tell, but the concerns of the Libyan people in my list of concerns come in on page 34, right after "are we eating too much garlic as a people?" so whatever

Political Capital, we bought some by dropping bombs on Libya, Desert Storm's was pretty much all used up. Until we stop supporting Israel we will continue to need to periodically "do some good" in the Arab world in order to have remotely normal relations with these people because, after all, it's only really about Israel.

tibilicus

10-25-2011, 01:28

Speaking of Misrata.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/misrata-fighters-hardened-by-siege-of-their-city-took-out-fury-on-gadhafi-in-the-end/2011/10/24/gIQATyfBDM_story.html

Fragony

10-25-2011, 19:57

'if that's the game can we keep the cashola that the Colonel had in our main bank? it would sure come in handy right about now.'

We can apparantly, I have absolutely no idea on why it is ok to do it

Sarmatian

10-26-2011, 09:56

Ronin

10-26-2011, 10:35

'if that's the game can we keep the cashola that the Colonel had in our main bank? it would sure come in handy right about now.'

We can apparantly, I have absolutely no idea on why it is ok to do it

the line given by the media around here is that the money would have to be returned to the Libyan government, whatever that comes to mean.
but if not, then that would be very good news right now, given our budget situation.

After long, careful and unbiased deliberation I decided I am now for the intervention in Libya...errrr.....carry on.

rory_20_uk

10-26-2011, 12:00

They can have the money back, after they've paid for the intervention that overthrew the Colonel cost.

~:smoking:

Shaka_Khan

10-26-2011, 14:59

I hope the Sharia laws in Libya don't hurt the women.

Vladimir

10-26-2011, 16:23

Sharia laws "protect" women.

Major Robert Dump

10-30-2011, 14:23

I hope the Sharia laws in Libya don't hurt the women.

HAHAHAHAHA

And on a similar note, in the early part of the initial capture video where Ghadafi is being led off, you can clearly see one of the "rebels" coming up behind the captive and jamming a knife/bayonet into his butt, after which Ghadaffi immediately drops to his knees and the camera moves around to the front. Keep it classy, savages.

Banquo's Ghost

10-30-2011, 16:23

And on a similar note, in the early part of the initial capture video where Ghadafi is being led off, you can clearly see one of the "rebels" coming up behind the captive and jamming a knife/bayonet into his butt, after which Ghadaffi immediately drops to his knees and the camera moves around to the front. Keep it classy, savages.

I'm in no way condoning what happened, but do you really think that had a bunch of armed New Yorkers got hold of Osama bin Laden (rather than professional soldiers) they wouldn't have done as bad or worse before they killed him?

rory_20_uk

10-30-2011, 17:26

I'm in no way condoning what happened, but do you really think that had a bunch of armed New Yorkers got hold of Osama bin Laden (rather than professional soldiers) they wouldn't have done as bad or worse before they killed him?

The professional soldiers killed him although he was unarmed, the Lybians didn't do that

The Rodney King incident shows what some police will do to a suspect, so yes, I imagine the only difference between what the Lybians did and what the New Yorkers would have done was opportunity.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-30-2011, 20:46

I'm in no way condoning what happened, but do you really think that had a bunch of armed New Yorkers got hold of Osama bin Laden (rather than professional soldiers) they wouldn't have done as bad or worse before they killed him?

Yes, well I for one would not have wanted to be a Loyalist American Officer during the Revolution facing New York's Liberty Boys.

Banquo's Ghost

10-30-2011, 22:01

The professional soldiers killed him although he was unarmed, the Lybians didn't do that

Whilst no fan of extra-judicial killings, one would expect that extraction of that individual would have proven difficult, especially since they had lost a helicopter and the element of surprise. I feel relatively sure that it would have proven politically inconvenient to have released him on police bail.

Yes, well I for one would not have wanted to be a Loyalist American Officer during the Revolution facing New York's Liberty Boys.

And I lost a good friend to the tender mercies of the IRA when his cover was blown. The point being that it's not specifically a Libyan or American or British failing to inflict suffering on a captured enemy especially when that person is the perpetrator of wickedness. We're all a tortured sister from being "savages".

One can certainly hope for better behaviour, but we in the West have rather let the side down as exemplars in recent times.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-30-2011, 22:37

And I lost a good friend to the tender mercies of the IRA when his cover was blown. The point being that it's not specifically a Libyan or American or British failing to inflict suffering on a captured enemy especially when that person is the perpetrator of wickedness. We're all a tortured sister from being "savages".

One can certainly hope for better behaviour, but we in the West have rather let the side down as exemplars in recent times.

Yes, it's worth pointing out that certain "violent men" who were once considered permenantly unclean are now politicians or even elder statesmen, and I am not thinking just of Ireland.

Major Robert Dump

10-31-2011, 12:14

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-31-2011, 13:41

Ah, yes, bring Bin Laden into it. I'm sure he was sodomized as well.

My point is that these movements we all watch, and support (either directly or indirectly) have a very ugly side that shows what things are to come. I realize it does not necessarily reflect the people of the region as a whole, but it's not like they didn't know the rest of the world wanted to see the man put on trial. He could have been a bastion of information. Even Saddam Husseins execution turned out to be a tacky debacle. I seem to recall a blonde tv reporter who was sexually assualted in Egypt by jubilant savages for no reason other than being an uncovered female and a "jew." That movement is turning out great, by the way.

The people who did that to ghadafi were savages. Insterting a blade into the rectum of a wounded man you just captured ensures nothing will change my mind about that.

You're wrong about one important thing, the violence of a few revolutionaries does not indicate the direction of a revolution, that depends on the vision and force of personality at those at the top. During your revolution Patriots lynched, butcherd and tortured Loyalists on a regular basis, not just combatants but Colonial officals as well. America has a selective historical memory because its present does not reflect that past.

Banquo's Ghost

10-31-2011, 14:13

Ah, yes, bring Bin Laden into it. I'm sure he was sodomized as well.

We'd make more progress in the discussion if you actually read my post. I made the distinction between the execution of bin Laden by professional soldiers and the likely treatment he would have received if captured by a mob of New Yorkers. I doubt if the latter situation would have seen bin Laden handed over to the International Criminal Court.

My point is that these movements we all watch, and support (either directly or indirectly) have a very ugly side that shows what things are to come. I realize it does not necessarily reflect the people of the region as a whole, but it's not like they didn't know the rest of the world wanted to see the man put on trial. He could have been a bastion of information.

I don't disagree with your view, but rather take some exception to the characterisation of these people as "savages". Undisciplined mobs will usually seek rough justice against a hated dictator and whilst this may well be savagery, there are few men who would withstand the urge for summary vengeance. I don't think the rest of the world did want to see Gaddafi put on trial, particularly the politicians - it would have been a long trial of multiple embarrassments for them. His tawdry death served more than just an atavistic justice. We shall see whether Saif al-Islam makes it to trial from Niger.

The people who did that to ghadafi were savages. Insterting a blade into the rectum of a wounded man you just captured ensures nothing will change my mind about that.

I sometimes wonder what I would have done to the man who murdered my daughter had I been given the chance. Savage might have described it. Gaddafi did a lot worse, and to a lot more people. Of course I would wish the rules of law had applied, but I can understand why it did not.

Major Robert Dump

10-31-2011, 14:21

I'm very well aware of America's selective memory, perhaps more than most. That does not mean I necessarily approve of what happened to Ghadaffi, or Bin Laden, or Hussein for that matter. It does not also mean I am unaware of or approve of bad things done by other militaries, including my own.

The rebels F'd up. Bad. Now we will never get to hear Ghadaffi's legal defense, which may have very well unearthed skeletons from the rebels closets as well. It shouldn't have happened. He should still be alive.

rory_20_uk

10-31-2011, 14:36

The rebels did a damn good job. The ensured that there was no blowback, rather like how I am almost certain those after Bin Laden were given "Kill, no capture" orders. Who wants to hear stories of CIA backing Bin Laden from an American court? The Rebels don't have the ability or funds to stick him in an off site prison with no access to media or lawyers.

~:smoking:

PanzerJaeger

10-31-2011, 23:35

Pretty interesting clip from an old BBC peice on Qaddafi from 1976. Specifically, skip to 8:00 to hear his thoughts on foreign intervention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIiRvbC3Tb4&feature=related

Vladimir

11-01-2011, 13:34

We'd make more progress in the discussion if you actually read my post. I made the distinction between the execution of bin Laden by professional soldiers and the likely treatment he would have received if captured by a mob of New Yorkers. I doubt if the latter situation would have seen bin Laden handed over to the International Criminal Court.

Of course he would have. There was a $25 million bounty on his head. He may have looked a little like Richard Reed when he got there though.

PanzerJaeger

02-16-2012, 03:17

Not that anyone cares, but the amount of blood on NATO's hands continues to grow (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/amnesty-int-libyan-militias-commit-war-crimes-15652150).

Armed militias now rule much of Libya, Amnesty International said Wednesday, accusing them of torturing detainees deemed loyal to the ousted regime of Moammar Gadhafi and driving entire neighborhoods and towns into exile.

Amnesty International quoted detainees as saying "They had been suspended in contorted positions; beaten for hours with whips, cables, plastic hoses, metal chains and bars, and wooden sticks and given electric shocks with live wires and taser-like electroshock weapons."

At least 12 detainees had died since September after torture, Amnesty said. "Their bodies were covered in bruises, wounds and cuts and some had had nails pulled off," the group said.

The report is a fresh blow to Libya's new government, the National Transitional Council, which helped lead the anti-Gadhafi uprising that broke out one year ago this week and spiraled into a brutal, eight-month civil war.

Since the war's end with the capture and killing of Gadhafi last October, the NTC has struggled to extend its control over the vast desert nation. It has largely failed to rein in the hundreds of brigades that fought in the war, many of which now run their own detention centers for those accused of links to Gadhafi's regime.

Amnesty said it visited 11 detention camps in central and western Libya in January and February, and found evidence of torture and abuse at all but one.

"Nobody is holding these militias responsible," Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty International, told The Associated Press by telephone from Jordan on Wednesday, a day after she left Libya.

The U.N.'s top human rights official, and Amnesty International, have urged Libya's government to take control of all makeshift prisons to prevent further atrocities against detainees.

"There's torture, extrajudicial executions, rape of both men and women," U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said on Jan. 27.

Some of the militia reprisals are against dark-skinned Libyans and African contract workers who the Gadhafis had brought in for jobs ranging from construction to security and riot control, leading to attacks on so-called "mercenaries" during the uprising.

"African migrants and refugees are also being targeted and revenge attacks are being carried out," Amnesty said. "Entire communities have been forcibly displaced and authorities have done nothing to investigate the abuses and hold those responsible to account."

The violence took on an ethnic twist. "It's hunting down 'the other,'" Rovera told the AP. "They're wreaking havoc in the community."

Amnesty said that militias from Misrata "drove out the entire population of Tawargha, some 30,000 people, and looted and burned down their homes in revenge for crimes some Tawargha are accused of having committed during the conflict."

"Thousands of members of the Mashashya tribe were similarly forced out of their village by militias from Zintan, in the Nafusa Mountains. These and other communities remain displaced in makeshift camps around the country," Amnesty said.

And if you thought they couldn't be more brutal:

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders suspended its work in prisons in Misrata in late January because it said torture was so rampant that some detainees were brought for care only to make them fit for further interrogation and abuse.

Hooray for freedom... :shrug:

rvg

02-16-2012, 04:07

Not that anyone cares, but the amount of blood on NATO's hands...

I care, and I'm getting a serious case of buyer's remorse right about now...

Tuuvi

02-16-2012, 05:24

It makes me mad that they begged for us to intervene to save them from Ghadafi, just so they could turn around and act even worse.

Fragony

02-16-2012, 05:56

Oh geez I'm amazed

Viking

02-17-2012, 00:07

rvg

02-17-2012, 00:23

So, for the time being, we went from torture before to torture after. Blood on their hands? You should have a job at a royal court.

One big tyrant replaced with a dozen smaller ones. Sorta like an anti-trust legislation.

PanzerJaeger

02-17-2012, 02:11

So, for the time being, we went from torture before to torture after. Blood on their hands? You should have a job at a royal court.

Do you mind explaining what you mean by that?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-17-2012, 02:38

I care, and I'm getting a serious case of buyer's remorse right about now...

We backed the right horse, it just didn't win the face.

Fragony

02-17-2012, 06:54

So, for the time being, we went from torture before to torture after. Blood on their hands? You should have a job at a royal court.

You forgot ethnic cleansing, foreign militias and various tribes acting independently killing randomly. All the experts who don't get asked by the -still high on their own invention called the arab spring- quality media warned this would happen

a completely inoffensive name

02-17-2012, 08:36

gaelic cowboy

02-17-2012, 11:06

The Arab spring was never what the news media led you to believe it was, really it just happened that some educated students and unemployed young people had the same goal as many government insiders.

However to back the old horses would have not worked either, so the docket didnt win just have to check the form again.

Ronin

02-17-2012, 12:01

rory_20_uk

02-17-2012, 12:06

We got to test live fire weaponry, destroy loads of stockpiles of weapons including chemical weapons for low to no loss - and were thanked for it. That's a win in my book.

Who cares what the Libyans do after that? Europe took advantage of something and made its back yard slightly safer. If they want to kill each other, so be it. They're a sovereign state.

~:smoking:

Ronin

02-17-2012, 12:09

rory_20_uk

02-17-2012, 12:15

The former I don't think we had any casualties in the conflict, and I am making the assumption that our troops are out of the area. In this conflict, there was no chance for Americans to inflict friendly fire casualties as so few were on the ground.
The latter, seeing as how Libya in the past gave Semtex to the IRA things will be safer - for us. As long as they are busy squabbling and killing each other they'll be kept busy.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-17-2012, 13:38

Is it ignorant to suggest that many islamic countries just are not advanced/enlightened enough to build themselves up at this point in time?

I don't necessarily feel that way, but the arab spring has turned out be one big dud from what I can tell. How do you go from fighting tyranny to supporting genocide?

Well, firstly, I would agree with this:

The Arab spring was never what the news media led you to believe it was, really it just happened that some educated students and unemployed young people had the same goal as many government insiders.

However to back the old horses would have not worked either, so the docket didnt win just have to check the form again.

Secondly, I think it's naive and plain wrong to be thinking about this issue in terms of advanced/enlightened, or not. What we really mean by "enlightened" is "Westernised" but Islamic thought was and remains more complex and "advanced" in some areas.

Thirdly, what we are seeing in Libya is the natural endgame for Civil War once the dictator has been overthrown. There are more peacable, more honourable, and more democratically inclined people in the country but they will need time to get a grip on things over there. This will happen provided there is local support, even Somalia is dragging itself back up to the light finally.

Fourthly, Syria is doeing worse right now, has had more people die, but will still end up in the same place as Libya after all is said and done.

Vladimir

02-17-2012, 13:45

So, basically nothing's changed.

Fragony

02-17-2012, 13:53

Hax

02-17-2012, 14:19

So I was actually writing a pretty lenghty response when I hit backspace and everything was erased. Brilliant move. In any case, I'm just going to point at some things that have really stunned me when I was reading this thread. I've seen three words used kind of interchangeably:

1) Arab Spring
2) Islam
3) Libya

My first question is why, ACIN, are you talking about Islam? Although the Muslim Brotherhood and the al-Nour party currently hold a majority in the Egyptian parliament and the al-Nahda party is currently the largest party a hung parliament in Tunisia, Islam itself played a very small role in the initial revolts. We're talking about socio-economic problems here. Despite Ayatollah Khamenei saying otherwise, the revolts were not an "Islamic Awakening". So no, Islam has very little to do with the actual events.

On this subject, people often point to the supposition (because it's not a fact) that Mubarak protected the Christian minority; Magdi Khalil makes some interesting observations about Mubarak's dealing with Islamist persecution of the Coptic minority, such as refusing to try people who abducted and raped Coptic girls and ordering police to stay put during the Nag Hammadi massacre that resulted in the death of six Copts. From what pro-Islam leftist church government-funded dhimmitude website stated this?

The Middle-East Forum. That's right (http://www.meforum.org/2599/egypt-persecution-of-copts), Daniel Pipes' website aimed at "promoting American interests in the Middle East and protect the Constitutional order from Middle Eastern threats". The same guys defending Geert Wilders. The summary was written the 26th of February 2010, a year before the Egyptian people went to the streets of Tahrir.

So tell me, was Mubarak's government really that good for the stability of Egypt? I don't think so. I'm not saying the situation of the Copts improved (as I simply don't know, but might make for an interesting research), but to suggest that it was any better under Mubarak? I don't think so.

Secondly, why are we using Libya as the example for the Arab spring? Why aren't we talking about Yemen or Tunisia? The first was successful in terms of ousting Saleh, but the full effects of his departure we still have to witness. In Tunisia, Ben ‘Ali's government was completely dissolved, elections were held, a moderate Islamist party came out on top, and an ex-communist is now the president. We haven't even touched upon the subjects of Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Morocco, all of which knew some degree of protests over the last year.

So basically, this airmchair specialism is starting to annoy me. How many people here know Arabic, Arabs or ever visited an Arab country? I think that if anyone of you read anything about the mukhabarat I don't think anyone would express their support for Gadaffi. Nobody is denying that at the time that he came to power, he was an incredibly intelligent colonel who had some very good ideas. Over time though, he went totally insane.

As a final note, I'm really sorry to say it, but really, anger towards the west is not only understandeable, it's completely justified. People were living rotten lives dominated by a corrupt bureaucracy that systemetically humiliated the people, and all the time, we supported these people. And now we're seeing the results. I don't think that anyone here doubts my support for secular democracy, but okay, let the Islamists come to power in Syria, Egypt or Yemen. Let them run the country for a while and see what happens. The only reason why they gained massive amounts of support is because these secular governments repressed them.

Let's just face it; we sacrificed the freedom of the Arab people for the notion of global security. And they're not taking it anymore.

P.S. I saw a great movie called Microphone, hosted by my professor of contemporary history of the Middle East, about the graffiti and music scene in Alexandria, called Microphone, highlighting exactly the kind of humiliation people underwent in Egypt. If you'd just see that film, I think we'd get at least some kind of insight in what exactly motivated the Arabs.

Centurion1

02-17-2012, 14:21

all this showed me was that amerca lost a little more money and the european military complex is so pathetic it cannot even supply its own forces with munitions.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-17-2012, 14:34

So, basically nothing's changed.

Well, not not quite. Now there is a space where things might change, where as if we had done nothing the wholesale slaughter would just have gone on.

Fragony

02-17-2012, 14:52

'My first question is why, ACIN, are you talking about Islam?'

Calling it islamic countries is just demography, just like east and west is

rory_20_uk

02-17-2012, 16:05

all this showed me was [...the] european military complex is so pathetic it cannot even supply its own forces with munitions.

This came as a shock/?

Certainly the MOD in the UK appears to be more about serving itself and supporting indigenous manufacturers than getting the font-line troops good equipment on time, as otherwise we'd be either purchasing off the shelf or licensing mainly American arms. We might even have the luxuary of aircraft carrier and planes at the same time! The tired arguments are either that we need to be self sufficient in arms (not true for over 100 years) or that we need to have the best and that means developing in-house (due to cost overruns and time overruns this rarely is the case).

~:smoking:

Hax

02-17-2012, 16:10

Calling it islamic countries is just demography, just like east and west is

Yeah, and everyone living there probably likes eating rice and kebab. That doesn't have to do anything with it, right?

If we define an "Islamic country" as having a majority of Muslims, would you call Turkey an Islamic country? How about Albania? Or Azerbaijan?

Fragony

02-17-2012, 16:20

Yeah, and everyone living there probably likes eating rice and kebab. That doesn't have to do anything with it, right?

If we define an "Islamic country" as having a majority of Muslims, would you call Turkey an Islamic country? How about Albania? Or Azerbaijan?

If I call it arab-culture you are also upset

Hax

02-17-2012, 16:32

Did you even read my post?

Fragony

02-17-2012, 16:49

Yes I did, why

Vladimir

02-17-2012, 18:29

If we define an "Islamic country" as having a majority of Muslims, would you call Turkey an Islamic country? How about Albania? Or Azerbaijan?

Turkey is considered an Islamic country.

a completely inoffensive name

02-17-2012, 19:50

Apologies to everyone for my terrible terminology. Obviously, I don't know what I am really talking about with this subject. Imma shut up and lurk this thread from now on.

Hax

02-17-2012, 21:48

Why? Because the majority of its population adheres to Islam?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2012, 01:29

Why? Because the majority of its population adheres to Islam?

More because it has a culture heavily influenced by Islam, with a veneer of secularism on top.

PanzerJaeger

02-18-2012, 01:34

Well, not not quite. Now there is a space where things might change, where as if we had done nothing the wholesale slaughter would just have gone on.

How many times must the same tired propaganda be corrected in the same thread?

There was no wholesale slaughter going on in Libya. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html)

Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

Now there is.

Everything we were told about what was going on in Libya was part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign (http://www.cf2r.org/images/stories/news/201106/libya-report.pdf) meant to garner Western public sympathy and support for intervention. It was all lies.

(My apologies for the rough pdf conversions.)

The image portrayed of Misrata is as the last bastion of rebellion in the Tripolitana, there was continued resistance for two months against the Libyan armed forces, thanks to regular deliveries by sea of food and medicine, arms and ammunition. Little by little the town appeared in the eyes of the world 'free' like a Libyan version of Sarajevo. The rebels of Benghazi hoped that a humanitarian crisis in Mistrata would persuade the coalition to deploy ground troops by reason of saving the population.

In April, Human Rights Watch published relevant casualty numbers concerning Misrata, which were contrary to claims by the international media that ' Gaddafi's army' was 'massacring civilians'. Misrata has a population of approximately 400,000. In almost two months of fighting only 257 people - fighters - died. Among the 949 injured, only 22 - les than 3% - are women. If the Libyan army had deliberately attacked civilians women would represent about half of the casualties.

It is thus now obvious that Western leaders — first and foremost, President Obama — have grossly exaggerated the humanitarian risk in order to justify their military action in Libya.

In Libya, the Arab channels (Al Jazeera and Al-#‐ Arabia) are more watched than the Libyan channels, which are seen as staid and formulaic. The coverage of the events in Libya by the satellite channels is subject to some critical observations. Until the end of February the towns of the West of Libya had encountered strong tensions and some attacks-#‐ those were less in the East-#‐ but these events were subject to exaggeration and disinformation pure and simple. For example the international media broadcast claims that the regime airforce had bombed Tripoli, which is wrong; no Libyan bomb fell on the capital, even if some clashes took place in some areas on the ground.

The same error was deliberately made when the Arab media and the West stated that the regime was firing on its own population. This delegation was there and did not find any evidence of this. Al Jazeera was in Tripoli, its reporters, often Westerners, travelled without hindrance by the regime.

The consequence of this misinformation is clear; the UN resolution 1973 was voted in, on the basis of this misinformation from the press, and without any commission of enquiry first investigating the facts. It is no exaggeration to say that Al Jazeera created the ‘event’ that influenced the UN. The media hype around this situation is astonishingly similar to what happened in the Balkans in 1991, to the detriment of Serbia.

You and Viking seem to be content in the knowledge that we have traded one bad situation for another, slaughter for slaughter, but things might get better. Apart from the rather disturbing lack of concern for the fact that we now share responsibility for the slaughter, the equivalence is false. Gaddafi was not a very nice man, but there was no wholesale torture and slaughter going on in Libya before or during the protests. There were certainly a small number of political prisoners held and abused, but the idea that the average Libyan was in daily peril from a vicious regime is farcical. In fact, things were changing for the better in Libya.

During the last few years, conscious of the changes in the socio economic situation and Libya’s outdated institutions, Gaddafi, under the influence of his son Saif al Islam, decided to make changes to the regime previously stuck in its authoritarianism, notably with the formation of the “Gaddafi Foundation for Development”. Saif al Islam has appeared since 2003 as a modernist embodying the hopes of those for an opening into democracy.

The public relations campaign was entrusted, between 2000-#‐2008, to an American company, Monitor Group, in order to let people know that the regime wanted to change and develop. Libya then needed help to develop its institutions and modernize its economy. After decades of isolation, those in business, citizens, the government and intellectual elites looked to deepen their knowledge of ideas and modern practices in the world.

Also in 2006 Saif al Islam freed almost two thousand Islamic political prisoners. In 2006, at the same time, the regime gave a number of proofs of its willingness to establish new relationships in partnership with Western countries.
With regards to migratory flows the agreements made with Italy bore fruit, because the arrival of migrants on the shores of the peninsula diminished by 90%. Notably thanks to the reinforcement of maritime means of control, with small ships, given to Tripoli by Rome.

Gaddafi also proceeded to destroy his weapons of mass destruction, renounced terrorism indemnified victims of such acts, attributed to the regime, and finally released the Bulgarian nurses.

Moreover he developed a strong cooperation with the West in the fight against Al Qaeda. According to a report in 2008 by the State Department, ‘the Libyan government has continued to cooperate with the United States and the international community to fight against terrorism and its financing’ ...the intelligence services hope to lend their assistance to Libya with reference to counterterrorism during the years, 2010 and 2011’.

In 2009 Libyan Intelligence and the CIA, within the scope of an agreement negotiated by Moussa Koussa, put in place a joint programme on counterterrorism. The American agents therefore trained some professionals in the Libyan Intelligence. These practical measures of cooperation do not normally happen except with intelligence services between whom there is total confidence. Moreover, the Libya intelligence accepted, in response to a request from MI5 and MI6, to infiltrate agents into the Islamic fundamentalists in London, this sealed the reconciliation.

Finally the project of establishing a Constitution, breaking radically with the precepts of the Green book was underway, directed with the help of eminent foreign individuals, members of the Gaddafi Foundation; the professors Joseph Nye (USA) Francis Fukuyama (USA) Benjamin Barber (USA) and Tony Giddens (UK).
So the regime, despite it dubious past, was ready to evolve. Gaddafi was about to announce the new reforms when the ‘revolution’ interrupted everything.
As if in a carefully prepared move, the ‘revolutionary’ movement was started on the 12th to 13th February 2011. Realising the danger, the government announced as of the 17th February, several measures to calm things down, for example by offering money to the population, and sent many representatives to different areas.
On 2nd March Gaddafi announced his reforms which gave a greater place to civic society, he relaxed the legislative law and the Supreme Court published a declaration of principles. But the uprising did not diminish.

TNC propaganda

The insurgents at all levels denounced the excesses of the Tripoli regime, and it is not necessary to repeat that the nature of the regime is dictatorial. No one denies Gaddafi is an autocrat, nor that Libyan people have suffered. This is the main reason why the West supported him. On the other hand the systematic exaggeration which the TNC shows in its denunciation of the misdeeds of the regime, lends it less credibility. We give below some examples:

-#‐ ‘Sarkozy’s intervention saved more than a million humans (sic) the total population of
Benghazi’.

-#‐ In Tripoli you can’t even go out in the street. There is no life, the population is afraid and only goes out surreptitiously to get food.

-#‐ Gaddafi has hired agents who in turn hired agents to organise provocations

-#‐ At Misrata and Ajdabiya, Gaddafi gave Viagra and condoms to his troops. There are many rapes and missing women.

-#‐ Gaddafi wants NATO to intervene on the ground, he does not want peace nor to put out the fires. He wants foreign troops; he wants more victims.

-#‐ A vehicle of the Algerian army was seen at Brega.

-#‐ The Algerian army re-#‐supplies Gaddafi with helicopters’.

At the end of April, the leader of the insurgents, on a visit to Kuwait, again accused Algeria of supporting the Gaddafi regime and of supplying him with material to assist the entry into Libya of mercenaries. This statement is totally denied by Dr Salah-#‐ ed Din el Bechiri, a member of the foreign affairs committee at the heart of the TNC and ex ambassador to Malaysia. He stated to our delegation that there had not been an official statement from the TNC concerning ‘Algerian mercenaries’. This is obviously false but these assertions were echoed by the international press and the TNC seized the Arab League about this "affair".

In parallel certain Libyans in Egypt were accused of destabilising Eastern Libya. The head of the TNC demanded that the government of Cairo intervene.

Otherwise, the members of the TNC produced a speech that was unequivocally designed to seduce and reassure Western representatives (elections, multi party, rights of women, end of tribalism, and even the recognition of Israel). They all appeared to have received training and instructions and their statements were obviously rehearsed. This parroting is astonishing on the part of men and one woman who aspire to more transparency and democracy, though these observations allowed the delegation to see that there were numerous gaps between the commitments given to the West and the reality on the ground.

At the end the representatives of the TNC like those in the government in Tripoli gave us a number of documents and videos, these claiming to be attacks on demonstrations by the forces of law and order. Since no document was properly referenced as to its source, it is impossible to examine them objectively.

The entire narrative was a complete fabrication. There were no wholesales slaughters, no mercenaries brought in to kill civilians, no fighter jets and helicopters used against them, no mass rapes and executions. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that violence against protesters was very small and limited to independent police actions out of the control of the government by officers in fear of their lives. There is significant evidence that throughout the conflict the Gaddafi regime tried to diffuse the situation and placate the protestors. The regime had the means to actually engage in wholesale slaughter and held back, only engaging armed resistors.

4. THE EVENTS

The Uprising

The movement started the 12th and 13th February 2011. The Libyan uprising-#‐ inspite of its popular appearance at the outset-#‐ does not represent the majority of the population and is made up of diverse individuals with different, often contradictory, interests: on the one hand, an element of popular and democratic desire, tired of the dictatorship of Gaddafi; on the other hand the Eastern clans, annoyed at the unequal sharing of the country’s riches; finally the Islamists.

Even more surprising, this movement is lead by ex ministers of the regime (Mustapha Abdu Jalil and Abdul Fatah Younis), who in the past violated human rights and who seem to be motivated mainly by their desire to gain power.
If the Tunisian and Egyptian ‘revolutions’ were ‘unarmed revolts’, in the case of Libya, the revolt quickly challenged the military forces and rapidly developed into an insurgency and then into a civil war.

In all the towns visited, all the symbols of the Government regime were wrecked, police stations, law courts, town halls, barracks, prisons, etc. In contrast little damage or looting to urban buildings was found. For reasons of revenge, summary public executions were carried out by the rebels.

Faced with this situation the Libyan government could legitimately respond with force. It tried therefore to slowly retake control, without decisive action. The ‘local militias’ of the regime had never before experienced being under fire and were slow to react to a revolt which spread quickly.

The Libyan government finally managed to organise a counter offensive against the insurgents. The rebels, mostly young men with no military experience and badly armed, were chased out of the town centres. Contrary to what the media announced, our visits to the towns did not show signs of intense fighting, due perhaps to a holding back of the army or the weakness of the opposing, armed rebels.

The unfolding of the revolution was very different in the East -#‐ where it was all over in a few days and where the forces of law and order fled quickly -#‐ in the West, the rebel attacks lasted longer before being brought under control.

Events in the East

In Benghazi, on February 12th, the people’s uprising was led and directed by a lawyer. After his arrest by Libyan police, the populace, egged on by three to four hundred activists, emerged again on the 15th February -#‐two days before the demonstrations named by social media -#‐ and started to attack the police stations, the barracks and the public buildings.

Two professors of the University of Benghazi,-#‐ met fortuitously in Djerba -#‐ told us that they saw surge out of the University ‘students’ whom they had never before seen and who led the demonstration. These ‘students’ threatened and assaulted the professors who would not take part in their actions and did not approve of their slogans.

These professors, deeply concerned for their safety, did not want to give us to publish their names.

From the start of the demonstrations, Islamists and criminals took advantage of the situation by attacking the high security prisons on the outskirts of Benghazi where their friends were locked up. After the freeing of these men, the mob attacked the police stations and the official buildings, and the inhabitants of the town woke to see the bodies of police officers hanging by the neck from bridges.

Many abuses and assaults also took place on black Africans who were all accused of being ‘mercenaries’, evictions, murders, imprisonment, and torture. These terrible actions and the fact that Gaddafi had helped their countries in the past were the reasons why many African countries strongly supported him.

During the first few days the efforts to regain control were carried out without using excess force, subsequently the forces of law and order fired over the heads of the mob and on the next day shot at them. There were some deaths and a number of wounded, as the French doctors working in the hospital there were able to confirm.

Tobruk -#‐ 4th largest town of the country, with around 170,000 inhabitants -#‐ an Islamic fiefdom, was taken over quickly, a few days after the start of the action in Benghazi. Traces of fire fights are minimal.

On the 17th February a spontaneous, at first, demonstration took place, started by some youths who were following the movement in Benghazi. This grew stronger on the second day. The police fired on the demonstrators (3 to 4 victims) then a general revolt took place with the demonstrators firing shotguns. In view of the attitude of the locals and the local tribes, the heads of the police and security forces decided to flee, leaving their men and arms behind (the local garrison was mainly staffed by locals who did not fire on the crowd). Before leaving those loyal to Gaddafi blew up the munitions depots.
If the younger people (20-#‐40 years old) were in at the start of the events, then the control was quickly taken back by the older men. The chiefs of the tribes of Toubruk met soon and took over the town and played a central role; creating local committees for security, emergencies, for women, the young, etc.

Very few volunteers left Tobruk to fight against the forces loyal to Gaddafi, even though it is said that the inhabitants of this town, all of Bedouin origin, are more courageous than the citizen of Benghazi.

At Derna - approximately 90,000 inhabitants, the main Islamic fiefdom of Cyrenaica - on the 15th February, as in Tobruk, about 25 students from the university decided to demonstrate. The professors tried to dissuade them but to no avail. The local members of the TNC we met during the course of our visit-#‐ amongst them three French professors at the university-#‐ claimed that Facebook played a central role in the outbreak of the events.

From the second day of demonstrations, the police opened fire, killing five and wounding ten. The revolt then immediately increased. Faced with the size of the opposition the police fled. The demonstrators then seized the police station and other public buildings and set fire to them.

After the takeover of the town, the inhabitants organised themselves into committees as in Tobruk. Then a group of students and teachers left to fight with the insurgents.

Our hosts took us to visit the community room, within the walls of the mosque at Derna, dedicated to the ‘victims of Gaddafi’. However this exhibition also includes victims of the fighting in Chad, (80’s) the American bombing of 1986 and the previous revolts against the regime, in 1996, and the events of February 2011.
Finally, we noted in the town many mural graffiti - well drawn with very clichéd comments-#‐ definitely not spontaneous, aimed at foreign visitors, or journalists, written in French, English and Turkish.

Events unfolded -#‐ again -#‐ according to the same scenario, in Al Baida, a town of 90,000 inhabitants, with a Prefecture of 200,000. On Wednesday 16th February, about fifteen youths from school and some students started a demonstration against the government, during the continuing events in Benghazi. On the 17th there was a march joined by various participants from the poorer quarters, chanting for the departure of Gaddafi. The police opened fire and two youths were killed. In response a sit in was organised.

Prior to Friday prayers, reinforcements from the army arrive in the town. The forces of law and order start to fire rubber bullets first and later real ones. It is thought 17 died, men from age 17-#‐40. The inhabitants of Al Baida claim they saw African mercenaries within the army forces.

The youth were later joined by police offers and soldiers who defected. These armed the demonstrators against the ‘mercenaries’. On Friday they arrived at Sharat, an air base and garrison town, to besiege it. The loyalist troops resisted, thanks to reinforcements from Al Baida. The fighting went on for two days until the insurgents won and took the barracks. The region was taken over on the 20th February.
There are no figures on the loss of life for the army or police, but we know that 272 soldiers were there. According to the TNC they were well treated, thanks to tribal intervention. The dead and the military prisoners were sent to their families. The arms seized were sent to Benghazi.

The revolt in Al Baida lasted six day from 15th to 20th February, three days of fighting. There were 64 dead amongst the insurgents during those days. Afterwards the TNC claimed they did not see any spying or attempts at destabilisation from the government in Tripoli.

Events in the West

Until the end of February, in Tripolitana, the insurgency enjoyed favourable conditions: not only did they take Misrata, which is 220 kilometres from Tripoli, but it grew in the cities of Zouara and Ziaouia (also known as Zawiya).

However in the Tripolitana the rebellion was only supported by a minority of the population.

The insurgency in Ziaouia -#‐ located less than 50 kilometers from the capital -#‐ was planned and co-#‐ordinated, and was neither peaceful not spontaneous from the outset.
The ‘active’ demonstrators were only about 300-#‐500, the majority Libyans -#‐ amongst them a number returned from abroad -#‐ but also according to the Police, Tunisians and Egyptians. From the start of the events, they entered the town and immediately occupied the centre, taking hostage some of the citizens with them. They installed their HQ in the Mosque.

During three weeks, the police received written orders not to do anything against the insurgents, not to shoot, not to confront them. The police also had to evacuate their own buildings due to the attacks of the rioters.

The government, surprised at the escalation of the insurgency, did not want to start a blood bath, so as not cut themselves off from the tribes, nor to create the problem of vendetta (revenge). It is not inconceivable that the interior minister (Abdul Fatah Younis) deliberately gave orders to do nothing, so the insurgency could take hold, from the perspective of his imminent departure for Benghazi.

During those three weeks, all the public buildings were looted, ransacked and burnt; police stations, offices of the security department, court houses, town hall, prisons, etc . Everywhere there was destruction and looting, (guns, money, documents) without any trace of fighting, which confirms the statements of police officers. Some shops and pharmacies were looted and the drugs stolen.

There was also vicious attacks on the population, (women raped, some lone police officers killed) and other civilian deaths during these three weeks when the town was in the hands of the insurgents; the victims were killed in the method of the GIA Algerian terrorists, (throats cut, eyes gouged out, arms and legs chopped off, bodies burnt).

The local authorities and the police complained openly about the absence of orders from Tripoli during those three weeks, and did not understand why. But the obedience of the police to the orders of the regime was complete. There were no ill considered actions, the orders were respected.

At the end of three weeks the army received order to regain control of Ziaouia. The fighting lasted three days and was not so intense, as can be seen by inspecting the visible damage. About 100 to 150 armed men tried to resist by acting as urban guerrillas. Most of them fled towards the mountains, the other were killed. A few were taken prisoner.

Other civilian victims were of the fighting were mourned, and during this time the refinery at Ziaouia was allegedly set on fire and damaged (the delegation did not see this).

First Lessons

The Libyan ‘revolution’ is therefore not a peaceful uprising. The movement did not start in the capital and does not have any socio economic basis. Its epicentre is situated in the East of the country, in Cyrenaica, a region traditionally opposed to the central power. The movement quickly became an armed insurgency.

There is also growing evidence that, unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the Libyan rebels sought from the begining to sieze armories and engage in open combat with the government. This was not a legitimate protest movement as was portrayed in the media, but an open rebellion from the start.

It is not necessary to repeat the critical aspects of the authoritarian regime imposed since 1969 by M Gaddafi on his citizens. There are plenty of examples that the international media broadcast widely. However it is also that negative context which tends to diminish any positive aspects of the regime and thus the truth is not best served. Nothing is more legitimate than the aspiration for more freedom and democracy. The authors of this report are convinced of the sincerity of Libyan democrats opposed to the regime and who wish to put an end to the authority of Gaddafi.

Nonetheless a study of the facts leads us to conclude that the ‘revolution’ is neither spontaneous nor democratic. We are witnessing an organised, armed uprising from the East of the country driven by revenge and revolt. This uprising has been mainly encouraged and supported by overseas countries. One only has to see the number of French, American, Qatari flags in the street of towns in Cyrenaica to see the lack of ‘national’ character of this ‘revolution’. More over it is a revolution where the leaders hide themselves. The situation therefore is in no way comparable to the events in Egypt and Tunisia.

If one wished for the end of the current regime, then it is important, in all fairness to voice some reserves on the topic of the TNC. The Transitional Council is a coalition of disparate elements with divergent goals, whose only common aim is their opposition to the current regime. The real democrats are only a minority, almost hostage to those who wish the return of the monarchy or the imposition of radical Islam and new converts from the regime. These three factions have understood they need to put forwards statements to reassure, not scare off the Western powers. History has shown us that the defenders of liberty rarely emerge victorious with a ‘forward strategy’ in which other players co-#‐exist, armed and determined.

The TNC therefore does not offer any guarantee, apart from the good will of the few democrats, since the ex members of the regime, the monarchists and the Islamists are in the majority and know how to steer the council in the direction of their aims.
Libya is the only country of the ‘Arab spring’ in which a civil war has taken hold -#‐ with a real risk of partition-#‐ and where the Islamic fundamentalist risk has increased. It is probable that if the hard core of the TNC takes power in Cyrenaica we will be helping in the radical Islamicisation of the country. The Jihadists were unable to do this in Algeria, but they could do this in Libya. The consequences will be therefore catastrophic for the Western world.

It seems therefore that the Western powers have demonstrated a shameful adventurism by involving themselves in this crisis, unless it results from a completely cynical Machiavellianism. That which was supposed to be an easy victory has turned into a semi-#‐ failure that only the media conceal, because of the inconsistency of the rebels. The stalemate of the actions of the insurgents leaves the western nations only two possibilities; an inglorious retreat or an intensified involvement in the conflict, that involves sending in ground forces.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2012, 01:44

How many times must the same tired propaganda be corrected in the same thread?

There was no wholesale slaughter going on in Libya. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html)

No, but there is in Syria and Gadaffi was working up to it. Certainly, he had started employing snipers and mercs to incite terror.

PanzerJaeger

02-18-2012, 05:01

No, but there is in Syria and Gadaffi was working up to it. Certainly, he had started employing snipers and mercs to incite terror.

Certainly? What you claim is hardly certain, and, in fact, runs contrary to what has been reported by independent sources on the ground. Even after the fall of Tripoli and the capture of government and military buildings, no evidence has emerged that Gaddafi ordered the killing of any protestors or civilians. The only verifiable deaths of protestors came at the hands of local police, many of them acting in self defense.

What you're repeating is most likely based on reports such as this (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/unicef-snipers-targeting-children-in-misrata-libya/).

"What we have are reliable and consistent reports of children being among the people targeted by snipers in Misrata," UNICEF spokeswoman Marixie Mercado told reporters in Geneva.

Terrible stuff, if true. You'll note in the very next paragraph, UNICEF (a branch of the very same organization that authorized military intervention based on a complete fabrication) gave itself an excuse to say pretty much whatever it wanted.

The information was based on local sources, Mercado said. She was unable to say how many children have been wounded or killed in this way.

This kind of 'reporting' was characteristic of the conflict from the very beginning. Gut-wrenching stories were dispensed through all too willing media organizations to the Western public, usually with the same caveats as above. 'Local sources', 'unconfirmed reports', 'eyewitness accounts' - it's all bullshit straight from the rebels without any independent confirmation. The limited efforts at confirming this crap have yielded one carefully crafted lie after another and a level of Western government distortion on a scale similar to the WMD fiasco.

It is important to realize how quickly the 'protest' movement militarized. The idea that the regime could orchestrate a complex sniper and mercenary campaign to 'incite terror' betrays the reality on the ground. The rebellion took the regime completely by surprise. Communication with many cities and entire regions was lost, and command and control in the opening stages from Tripoli was negligible at best even in those areas where the regime held some nominal control. Even as the full extent (and military threat) of the rebellion was realized, orders from Tripoli consistently urged restraint as the regime tried to diffuse the situation and maintain relations with local tribes. Police were ordered not to fire on civilians and cede large areas to the rebels, and the military was ordered to take care not to engage civilians in reclamation operations. Hence the extremely small and disproportionately male casualties in places like Misrata, Bani Walid, and Zawiya. (Compare those numbers to what occurred when the rebels took Tawergha.)

We were lied to - again - by our governments in order to curry favor for another war. And now people are being tortured and killed across Libya because of what our governments and our militaries did in our names all under the auspices of freedom and democracy.

Strike For The South

02-18-2012, 05:26

The reason radical Islam is taking hold post Arab spring is becuase radical islam is the only organized group between Tunisa and Pakistan

Sucks

Kralizec

02-18-2012, 10:12

PJ, if it was known that the reports of violence in Libya were exagerated or fabricated, why did Russia and China agree to let the UNSC resolution pass?

Fragony

02-18-2012, 11:24

PJ, if it was known that the reports of violence in Libya were exagerated or fabricated, why did Russia and China agree to let the UNSC resolution pass?

Because especially China has a shitload of dollars, and Gaddafi wanted to switch to gold. Bad for the dollar, bad for the euro.

PanzerJaeger

02-18-2012, 11:45

PJ, if it was known that the reports of violence in Libya were exagerated or fabricated, why did Russia and China agree to let the UNSC resolution pass?

As was recently made clear in regard to the Syrian situation, Russia and China act in the same manner as the other members of the council; that is to say, they act in their best interests and not with what could honestly be considered altruistic intentions. Put simply, a case was made that those interests would be better served in a world without Gaddafi.

Hax

02-18-2012, 12:26

More because it has a culture heavily influenced by Islam, with a veneer of secularism on top.

I don't mean to relativate everything, but what is Islam? Turkish Islam is not at all the same as Egytian Islam, for example. You have to be very careful in slapping this "Islamic" label on something, because it kinda implies that Islam is the major factor when it comes to internal affairs. The AKP party is trying to do that right now, but Turkey is still a staunchly secular nation right now. That's also why I mentioned Albania and Azerbaijan. Would you call them Islamic countries?

The thing is that bringing Islam into this is very misleading as the revolts had nothing to do with religion.

The reason radical Islam is taking hold post Arab spring is becuase radical islam is the only organized group between Tunisa and Pakistan

In my opinion, that's a bit of an unfair view of the Muslim Brotherhood. They're definitely Islamists, but they're not radicals.

Fragony

02-18-2012, 12:49

Hax

02-18-2012, 13:06

No, you're being misleading. Talk about Arabs when you mean Arabs, talk about Islamists when you mean Islamists.

Fragony

02-18-2012, 13:28

No, you're being misleading. Talk about Arabs when you mean Arabs, talk about Islamists when you mean Islamists.

When I call it either you will bring up the other, I can at least have the absolute certainty it's neither at all time I guess. But there is still something deeply wrong in the muslim world. I can understand why you are being so defensive mind you, not all critisism is fair. But then again a lot actually is.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2012, 14:38

I don't mean to relativate everything, but what is Islam? Turkish Islam is not at all the same as Egytian Islam, for example. You have to be very careful in slapping this "Islamic" label on something, because it kinda implies that Islam is the major factor when it comes to internal affairs. The AKP party is trying to do that right now, but Turkey is still a staunchly secular nation right now. That's also why I mentioned Albania and Azerbaijan. Would you call them Islamic countries?

Is Turkey a "staunchly secular" nation? The reports we have been getting the past few years indicate that there is a gulf of opinion between the Ataturkist elite and the large rural population, who are far more traitional in their views. The reason they had a ban on Islamic headscarves is because they have a large segment of the population who think women should be forced to wear them. Turkey may be more secular than other Eastern nations but Christians and Jews are still treated badly and only a paltry few denominations are recognised under law and given protection. The fact is, Turkey is a rather more totalitarian regime than France (its model) because it has to be to maintain the status quo.

The thing is that bringing Islam into this is very misleading as the revolts had nothing to do with religion.

Well, that depends on whether you call Britain a "Christian Country", or even Norway. We may have a vague grip on our religion at best but in times of national tragedy we still flock to our churches and the historical context is what infuses our public life. Islam is not Christianity, so it follows that even a "post" Islamic country will have more in common with an "islamic" one than a "post Christian" one.

In my opinion, that's a bit of an unfair view of the Muslim Brotherhood. They're definitely Islamists, but they're not radicals.

The question is whether they are for demoncracy for its own sake or to create an Islamic state. These aren't German Christian Democrats either.

Kralizec

02-18-2012, 17:57

As was recently made clear in regard to the Syrian situation, Russia and China act in the same manner as the other members of the council; that is to say, they act in their best interests and not with what could honestly be considered altruistic intentions. Put simply, a case was made that those interests would be better served in a world without Gaddafi.

If they wanted Ghadaffi gone, they would simply have voted along with the USA, France etc. Futhermore they wouldn't have criticized the other countries for aiding the rebels so much - because that does nothing to increase their popularity with the new Libyan leaders.

It seems much more plausible that they, too, believed that widespread reprisals against civilians were imminent and that they allowed the resolution to pass furthermore because they didn't have significant interests in keeping friendly relations with Ghadaffi.

Viking

02-18-2012, 18:32

Do you mind explaining what you mean by that?

At no point does it give more blood on your hands if it turns out that an intervention made no difference in a certain area. That's a completely absurd statement to make. And that's ignoring that the ties to the government of the current torturers are vague at best, and that torture's position in a near-future Libya is largely unknown.

You forgot ethnic cleansing, foreign militias and various tribes acting independently killing randomly. All the experts who don't get asked by the -still high on their own invention called the arab spring- quality media warned this would happen

I forgot nothing at all, you are setting up strawmen. I suggest that you read what you quoted again.

[...] Viking seem to be content [...]

But is not at all. What I am content about, is that a dictatorship has been toppled by a popular armed revolt, much thanks to NATO's help. That's mission success.

Regarding massacres or not (and killing of civillians), one can make a case for them; but since this had nothing to do my decision to support the intervention, I cannot be bothered.

Noncommunist

02-18-2012, 22:24

Certainly? What you claim is hardly certain, and, in fact, runs contrary to what has been reported by independent sources on the ground. Even after the fall of Tripoli and the capture of government and military buildings, no evidence has emerged that Gaddafi ordered the killing of any protestors or civilians. The only verifiable deaths of protestors came at the hands of local police, many of them acting in self defense.

Where are you getting your sources?

PanzerJaeger

02-19-2012, 04:19

If they wanted Ghadaffi gone, they would simply have voted along with the USA, France etc. Futhermore they wouldn't have criticized the other countries for aiding the rebels so much - because that does nothing to increase their popularity with the new Libyan leaders.

It seems much more plausible that they, too, believed that widespread reprisals against civilians were imminent and that they allowed the resolution to pass furthermore because they didn't have significant interests in keeping friendly relations with Ghadaffi.

Russia and China did not want Gaddafi gone. Considering the fact that their official positions were against intervention, I'm not sure how plausible it is that they believed or cared that civilian reprisals were imminent. Russia and especially China have a long history of absention (http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/abstention_games_on_the_security_council). It can be interpreted as principled opposition and practical acquiescence, due to an interest in avoiding a diplomatic row, geopolitical horse trading, avoiding public outcry, or some combination of the three. A concern for human rights does not factor into that equation. Considering both nations had not insignificant interests in Libya, I would hazard a guess that assurances were made that they would be put in a better position after Gaddafi's ouster. Remember that what is said and done in public often has very little to do with the actual motivations of the council members.

I would be extremely skeptical of the notion that Putin's Russia and a nation with China's human rights record felt genuine compassion for the Libyan people and an urgent need to avoid imminent slaughter. Instead, it is far more plausible that they calculated that allowing the Western coalition a free hand would benefit them in some way or at least avoid world condemnation, a calculation they clearly did not make (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/09/world/asia/syria-china-florcruz/index.html?hpt=hp_mid) in the Syrian situation.

There is not much that can be read into Russia and China's abstention, as it was fairly common practice. What was more telling, though, were the abstentions of Brazil and India. If there was a genuine belief that slaughter was imminent in the capitals of the world (instead of an obvious power play by Europe), why did those two modern, liberal democracies abstain instead of throw their full support behind the measure?

At no point does it give more blood on your hands if it turns out that an intervention made no difference in a certain area. That's a completely absurd statement to make. And that's ignoring that the ties to the government of the current torturers are vague at best, and that torture's position in a near-future Libya is largely unknown.

We must have very different conceptions of what responsibility entails. I would submit that the Gadaffi regime was actually moderating and that the level of violence, especially towards non-political and immigrant communities, was nothing like what has been documented by human rights groups in today's Libya. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the level of violence before and after the intervention is exactly the same - that we traded torture for torture, that no real difference was made.

What was going on in Libya before the intervention was the responsibility of the Gaddafi regime and the Gaddafi regime alone. What is going on today in Libya is the responsibility of the direct perpetrators and their enablers - the NATO nations that pushed for and executed the regime change. Libyan blood spilled before the intervention was on Gaddafi's hands, and now it is on ours.

I would not think that that is a particularly difficult concept to grasp, but I'll use a recent example to make it crystal clear. As an American, can I use Iraq's pre-war situation to absolve myself and my government of any responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people after the 2003 intervention? Can I credibly wash my hands of the Iraqi blood spilt during that period because things were nasty in Iraq before the war - because American intervention simply made no net difference in the people's suffering? 'Oh well, that didn't quite work out, but life sucked for the Iraqis anyway so no harm, no foul.'

But is not at all. What I am content about, is that a dictatorship has been toppled by a popular armed revolt, much thanks to NATO's help. That's mission success.

Regarding massacres or not (and killing of civillians), one can make a case for them; but since this had nothing to do my decision to support the intervention, I cannot be bothered.

Good to know. :thumbsup:

Where are you getting your sources?

Formatting those PDF copy/pastes was so tedious, and no one even read them. ~:(

Tuuvi

02-19-2012, 04:52

Formatting those PDF copy/pastes was so tedious, and no one even read them. ~:(

I read them, even though I didn't comment.

What do you think about the situation in Syria? Is there a real humanitarian crisis going on there or is it just propaganda like what happened with Libya?

PanzerJaeger

02-19-2012, 09:37

I read them, even though I didn't comment.

:bow:

What do you think about the situation in Syria? Is there a real humanitarian crisis going on there or is it just propaganda like what happened with Libya?

I think the two situations are completely different. The rebellion in Libya was in many ways a very unique case within the greater Arab Spring movement in that it was highly orchestrated and militarized from the outset. To quote another report (http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/North%20Africa/107%20-%20Popular%20Protest%20in%20North%20Africa%20and%20the%20Middle%20East%20V%20-%20Making%20Sense%20of%20Libya.pdf):

At the same time, much Western media coverage has from
the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of
events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful
and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security
forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators
who presented no real security challenge.21 This
version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest
movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on.
While there is no doubt that many and quite probably a
large majority of the people mobilised in the early demonstrations
were indeed intent on demonstrating peacefully,
there is also evidence that, as the regime claimed,
the demonstrations were infiltrated by violent elements.22
Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational
reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything
remotely warranting use of the term “genocide”.23

The Libyan affair resembled a regional civil war far more than a genuine protest movement similar to others in the Arab Spring. Within the first few days of the protests, security forces were attacked, government buildings were razed, and arsenals were targeted, all in the absense of a true government crackdown. Small protests started on Febuary 15 and 16, with the more violent ones dealt with with water cannons, rubber bullets, and live fire into the air. On the 17th, a 'Day of Rage' was planned similar to that of other Arab Spring protests. These protests proved even more violent, and a small number of both 'protestors' and security forces were killed. The 'protestors' claim the government opened fire indiscriminantly on the protests, while the government claims armed groups deliberately targeted security and military installations. Contrary to media reports at the time that relied exclusively on rebel accounts, there is no evidence to support which side fired the first shots. The facts that strategic military installations and aresenals were immediately taken in carefully planned operations and Benghazi had completely fallen to armed groups just three days later suggests a level of organization that tends to support government assertions. CF2R found similar 'violent elements' in the protest movement from the outset as I quoted earlier:

In Benghazi, on February 12th, the people’s uprising was led and directed by a lawyer. After his arrest by Libyan police, the populace, egged on by three to four hundred activists, emerged again on the 15th February -#‐two days before the demonstrations named by social media -#‐ and started to attack the police stations, the barracks and the public buildings.

Two professors of the University of Benghazi,-#‐ met fortuitously in Djerba -#‐ told us that they saw surge out of the University ‘students’ whom they had never before seen and who led the demonstration. These ‘students’ threatened and assaulted the professors who would not take part in their actions and did not approve of their slogans.

These professors, deeply concerned for their safety, did not want to give us to publish their names.

From the start of the demonstrations, Islamists and criminals took advantage of the situation by attacking the high security prisons on the outskirts of Benghazi where their friends were locked up. After the freeing of these men, the mob attacked the police stations and the official buildings, and the inhabitants of the town woke to see the bodies of police officers hanging by the neck from bridges.

Many abuses and assaults also took place on black Africans who were all accused of being ‘mercenaries’, evictions, murders, imprisonment, and torture. These terrible actions and the fact that Gaddafi had helped their countries in the past were the reasons why many African countries strongly supported him.

During the first few days the efforts to regain control were carried out without using excess force, subsequently the forces of law and order fired over the heads of the mob and on the next day shot at them. There were some deaths and a number of wounded, as the French doctors working in the hospital there were able to confirm.

Further, the fortuitous emergence and unique make up of the NTC suggests that the rebellion was anything but a people's movement. Constituted in large part by former regime members, their media savvy propaganda campaign and business dealings betrayed a level of sophistication not seen in other Arab Spring movements. These guys were setting up a central bank and oil companies within weeks of the 'liberation' of Benghazi. They had delegations in the capitals of Europe not long after. These were hardly the 'people's councils' of Egypt and Syria.

In short, powerful elements within Eastern Libya co-opted the organic protests of February 15 and 16 to take advantage of media sympathy for the greater Arab Spring movement in order to quickly and violently attack the apparatus of the state under the facade of peaceful demonstrations while at the same time feeding the media a steady stream of manufactured propaganda to engender Western sympathy and support. The entire narrative of peaceful protestors being slaughtered by a ruthless regime using mercenaries, anti-aircraft guns, planes and helicopters, was a carefully crafted and brilliant fabrication. It is ironic and slightly suspicious that Libya is the place the West chose to actively support the Arab Spring.

Contrast that to Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, where the disparate protest movements were far more organic and disorganized and far less violent than those in Libya. Each of those nascent movements, barring Tunisia iirc, endured prolonged periods of government repression while remaining largely peaceful. I am sure there is propaganda coming out of Syria, but simply by virtue of the length of the protests there is a far more substantial case for a real and carefully orchestrated government crackdown as opposed to Libya where genuine protests, if they ever existed, lasted nary a day before they militarized.

That being said, I think the recent move to embrace violence in Syria, while understandable, was a serious mistake. The unique power of peaceful protests is that they deny repressive governments their traditional means of asserting control. Violence against such protests creates negative externalities that far exceed any temporary gains. Engaging in armed revolt legitimizes the regime's use of force and puts the movement in a position it cannot win without outside intervention. In Syria, though, it can at least be said that they gave peaceful protest an earnest try.

Fragony

02-19-2012, 13:35

'I forgot nothing at all, you are setting up strawmen. I suggest that you read what you quoted again.'

Oh really. I suggest you reread the thread and kindly admit I was right about just about everything from the start

Viking

02-20-2012, 22:57

We must have very different conceptions of what responsibility entails. I would submit that the Gadaffi regime was actually moderating and that the level of violence, especially towards non-political and immigrant communities, was nothing like what has been documented by human rights groups in today's Libya. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the level of violence before and after the intervention is exactly the same - that we traded torture for torture, that no real difference was made.

What was going on in Libya before the intervention was the responsibility of the Gaddafi regime and the Gaddafi regime alone. What is going on today in Libya is the responsibility of the direct perpetrators and their enablers - the NATO nations that pushed for and executed the regime change. Libyan blood spilled before the intervention was on Gaddafi's hands, and now it is on ours.

I would not think that that is a particularly difficult concept to grasp, but I'll use a recent example to make it crystal clear. As an American, can I use Iraq's pre-war situation to absolve myself and my government of any responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people after the 2003 intervention? Can I credibly wash my hands of the Iraqi blood spilt during that period because things were nasty in Iraq before the war - because American intervention simply made no net difference in the people's suffering? 'Oh well, that didn't quite work out, but life sucked for the Iraqis anyway so no harm, no foul.'

There is little to indicate that the NATO intervention has led to more torture. NATO has never encouraged torture in Libya, nor inteniontally enabling it.

But that is just the start. The people with the blood on their hands are always the ones carrying out the misdeeds, those enabling them as well as those supporting them. Trying to blame NATO for it is to place moral blame where it is the most convenient for you, and it is to dillute moral responsibility.

If rescuing your best friend would lead a guy to shoot 10 other people instead, some people would put blame on you; but all of the real blame rests with the shooter.

'I forgot nothing at all, you are setting up strawmen. I suggest that you read what you quoted again.'

Oh really. I suggest you reread the thread and kindly admit I was right about just about everything from the start

Quite the opposite. A couple of pages back you promised us a new civil war within a week or two of Gaddafi's death. We're still waiting.

PanzerJaeger

02-21-2012, 06:07

There is little to indicate that the NATO intervention has led to more torture. NATO has never encouraged torture in Libya, nor inteniontally enabling it.

That is a rather dubious statement. Analysts were predicting reprisals and sectarian violence well before the intervention began. And NATO's silence on the matter speaks volumes. There is not much that can be done at this point, but the virtually nonexistent response certainly allows the NTC to ignore the human rights groups and is especially hypocritical considering the alliance's hyperbolic reaction to a bunch of made up atrocities when the Gaddafi regime was purportedly committing them.

But that is just the start. The people with the blood on their hands are always the ones carrying out the misdeeds, those enabling them as well as those supporting them. Trying to blame NATO for it is to place moral blame where it is the most convenient for you, and it is to dillute moral responsibility.

It is not at all convenient for me, which is kind of the point. It would be much more convenient for me to regret this violence without feeling a shared responsibility for it.

I do not mean to drag the discussion off topic, but that is quite an extraordinary line of reasoning and I would like to explore it a bit further. It may help to explain some of the differences expressed in this thread.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that NATO (or really any democratic nation or group of nations) can remove a non-democratic foreign government from power and take no responsibility for any of the fallout from such an intervention aside from its direct actions. That NATO can select a winning faction, arm it, supply it, fight for it, and place it in power and then completely disassociate itself from any of the actions that faction takes? We are not talking about some bad thing some future leader does ten or fifteen years down the road, but the direct consequences of such an action. If a black immigrant family is dragged out of their home, beaten, raped, and strung up from the nearest tree by forces that NATO ushered into power, forces that were only able to take such actions directly and solely because of NATO, as long as it was not NATO soldiers carrying them out, the alliance has no responsibility?

I can understand your position much better now. In your eyes, NATO has done a great thing by removing a dictator. Whatever negative externalities that are caused by that action have absolutely nothing to do with the alliance. Wash, rinse, repeat in Syria or wherever else.

I have a difficult time wrapping my head around that. To return to my previous example, I do not regret the Iraqi intervention because no WMDs were found. If America had replaced a dictator with a representative government in a smooth, relatively bloodless transition than I would have little concern about them. What I regret, and feel a shared responsibility for, was the resulting vicious sectarian war that US forces were not prepared to contain. Life is rarely pleasant under an autocratic government, but thousands of Iraqi civilians lost their lives directly due to American intervention. Even if that violence was not our government's intent, it was still directly linked to it. I cannot come away from that conflict feeling good about what was done in Iraq simply because a dictator was removed because the responsibility for those lives lost hangs heavy over it. Had America chosen some Shiite faction and ushered it into power while taking down the Iraqi government, the shared responsibility for their immediate actions would carry no less weight.

What made NATO's actions particularly egregious in my eyes was the clear example Iraq presented to the West. The violence that has clearly been document in post-Gaddafi Libya should have been no surprise to anyone with any understanding of the region. But it seemed that all the wrong lessons were learned. At least in Iraq, there were American soldiers on the ground actively trying to protect the civilian population from the various violent factions. Thousands lost their lives trying to contain that violence. The new model for Western intervention seems to be to support a faction, destroy the sitting government from the air, and let that chosen faction commit any manner of abuse while Western leaders celebrate the end of a dictator and the press moves on to the next big thing.

I cannot separate the fall of the Iraqi government from the resultant sectarian war that took place, just as I cannot mentally separate NATO's removal of Gaddafi from the resultant atrocities being committed by our chosen faction going on in Libya as I type this response. It just seems morally bankrupt in the extreme.

If rescuing your best friend would lead a guy to shoot 10 other people instead, some people would put blame on you; but all of the real blame rests with the shooter.

This would be more like giving a gun to a complete stranger and then claiming no responsibility when he shoots a bunch of people.

Fragony

02-21-2012, 10:22

Quite the opposite. A couple of pages back you promised us a new civil war within a week or two of Gaddafi's death. We're still waiting.

Just about everything isn't everything, never called it civil war as far as I remember, said this is far from over. And it isn't.

Kralizec

02-21-2012, 10:22

Russia and China did not want Gaddafi gone. Considering the fact that their official positions were against intervention, I'm not sure how plausible it is that they believed or cared that civilian reprisals were imminent. Russia and especially China have a long history of absention (http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/abstention_games_on_the_security_council). It can be interpreted as principled opposition and practical acquiescence, due to an interest in avoiding a diplomatic row, geopolitical horse trading, avoiding public outcry, or some combination of the three. A concern for human rights does not factor into that equation. Considering both nations had not insignificant interests in Libya, I would hazard a guess that assurances were made that they would be put in a better position after Gaddafi's ouster. Remember that what is said and done in public often has very little to do with the actual motivations of the council members.

I would be extremely skeptical of the notion that Putin's Russia and a nation with China's human rights record felt genuine compassion for the Libyan people and an urgent need to avoid imminent slaughter. Instead, it is far more plausible that they calculated that allowing the Western coalition a free hand would benefit them in some way or at least avoid world condemnation, a calculation they clearly did not make (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/09/world/asia/syria-china-florcruz/index.html?hpt=hp_mid) in the Syrian situation.

There is not much that can be read into Russia and China's abstention, as it was fairly common practice. What was more telling, though, were the abstentions of Brazil and India. If there was a genuine belief that slaughter was imminent in the capitals of the world (instead of an obvious power play by Europe), why did those two modern, liberal democracies abstain instead of throw their full support behind the measure?

I'm not suggesting that they felt compassion for the Libyan people, but that they believed that the western SC members wanted to intervene for this reason. If Russia and China believed that the resolution's actual aim was to advance western geopolitical interests by invading an independent country, they'd have vetoed it in a heartbeat.

We must have very different conceptions of what responsibility entails. I would submit that the Gadaffi regime was actually moderating and that the level of violence, especially towards non-political and immigrant communities, was nothing like what has been documented by human rights groups in today's Libya. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the level of violence before and after the intervention is exactly the same - that we traded torture for torture, that no real difference was made.

I would not think that that is a particularly difficult concept to grasp, but I'll use a recent example to make it crystal clear. As an American, can I use Iraq's pre-war situation to absolve myself and my government of any responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people after the 2003 intervention? Can I credibly wash my hands of the Iraqi blood spilt during that period because things were nasty in Iraq before the war - because American intervention simply made no net difference in the people's suffering? 'Oh well, that didn't quite work out, but life sucked for the Iraqis anyway so no harm, no foul.'

With some qualifiers, I'd agree to this line of reasoning. Provided that the military intervention itself is for a valid reason (1), attempts are made to improve the human rights situation (2) and at the very least, the human rights situation does not deteriorate despite this (3) I'd say that you can't consider the abuses to be the moral responsibility of the intervening power.

IMO it would be absurd to blame the US or NATO for most of the stuff that goes on in Afghanistan. The case of Iraq would already fail on account of (1), while (2) is also dubious because of how poorly the occupation was handled initially.

Viking

02-22-2012, 20:12

That is a rather dubious statement. Analysts were predicting reprisals and sectarian violence well before the intervention began. And NATO's silence on the matter speaks volumes. There is not much that can be done at this point, but the virtually nonexistent response certainly allows the NTC to ignore the human rights groups and is especially hypocritical considering the alliance's hyperbolic reaction to a bunch of made up atrocities when the Gaddafi regime was purportedly committing them.

You expect retribution from the fallout of any conflict. Sectarian violence in Libya is not that very likely considering how religiously homogeneous the country is compared to other countries in the region.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that NATO (or really any democratic nation or group of nations) can remove a non-democratic foreign government from power and take no responsibility for any of the fallout from such an intervention aside from its direct actions. That NATO can select a winning faction, arm it, supply it, fight for it, and place it in power and then completely disassociate itself from any of the actions that faction takes?

No. The crucial thing is that not only must the motive be good, but there must also be a reasonable probabilty that the mission must be a success more or less overall. Supporting a true faction can be troublesome, but when one "faction" seems to generally consist of the general population, the choice is much easier.

Moral judgement must not be passed on the result, but what the intent was and how the actor weighed the probabilities of the different outcomes, etc.

I can understand your position much better now. In your eyes, NATO has done a great thing by removing a dictator. Whatever negative externalities that are caused by that action have absolutely nothing to do with the alliance. Wash, rinse, repeat in Syria or wherever else.

We did not just remove a dictator, we supported a popular armed revolt. Sure, not every city was equally eager, but most of the major ones were (and as long they would not expect to be massacred or anything like that, saying "screw them" can be most appropriate). Syria is a more complicated case; sectarian violence akin to what we see in Iraq is considerably more likely to happen in Syria.

This would be more like giving a gun to a complete stranger and then claiming no responsibility when he shoots a bunch of people.

You did something good (rescuing your friend), but you knew something bad would come out of it (random people would be shot instead). But there was no true physical connection between you the murders; they only came about because the shooter wanted it that way. He never had to shoot anyone, yet he did. That way, he is the only one carrying moral responsibility. If you gave a stranger a gun for no reason, you would have a physical connection to any murder in the sense that you provided the murder weapon; and you never had to give him a gun.

InsaneApache

03-02-2012, 12:03

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present our glorious Libyan allies....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbK5OY44cl0&feature=player_embedded#!

That is all.

rvg

03-02-2012, 14:03

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present our glorious Libyan allies....
That is all.

Brave warriors of Allah have dealt a crushing defeat to infidel gravestones!

Sarmatian

03-02-2012, 15:32

C'mon NATO, send these democratic forces some steel plated shoes so they can finish the job and bomb the dictatorial graves...

gaelic cowboy

03-02-2012, 15:46

Summit to do with this book burning fiasco apparently, as usual a bunch of idiots are incapable or prevented from using rational thought.

Vladimir

03-02-2012, 18:29

Huh. Evidence of a breakdown of law and order following a revolution. I'm sure this is just an Islamic thing. :rolleyes:

rory_20_uk

03-02-2012, 18:58

Erm, they're destroying Christian and Jewish graves, apparently. They're not destroying all graves.

And seeing as they're desecrating the dead, which I find far more offensive than burning any number of books, can we all go and firebomb some Muslim related stuff, to show how annoyed we are?

~:smoking:

Vladimir

03-02-2012, 19:03

Yea, they're desecrating graveyards. Kinda normal during a breakdown in law and order. If they're still doing it in a year I'll be concerned. Right now I just see a bunch of ignorant people making an ass out of themselves. I'll see something similar on my drive home today. :shrug:

Not trying to slight you, of course. It's sad to see.

Brenus

03-02-2012, 20:28

Erm, that is the Graves of the Commonwealth Soldiers fallen during WW2. I am sure that the actual SAS who help them are happy of this.