Leptis Magna about to be bombed

[Skullheadhq]

Nato has refused to rule out bombing Libya's ancient Roman ruins if Colonel Gaddafi is using them to hide military equipment.

Rebels in the divided country claim the under-pressure Libyan leader could be hiding rocket launchers at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Leptis Magna - which is between the capital Tripoli and rebel-held Misrata.

Wing Commander Mike Bracken, a spokesman for Nato's Libya mission, said it would be a concern for the alliance if Gaddafi and his forces were to violate international law and hide themselves in such a location.

According to CNN, he said: 'If we were to take on any targets we would consider all risks.'

However, he said that Nato could not confirm rebel concerns that weapons might be placed at the heritage site.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003494/Nato-refuses-rule-bombing-ancient-ruins-air-strikes-aimed-taking-Gaddafi.html

It seems the EB city of Lepkis is going to be bombed. I'm absolutely shocked.
Have a quick look (http://www.google.nl/search?um=1&hl=nl&biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Leptis+Magna&oq=Leptis+Magna&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=669l4078l0l15l14l2l9l10l0l219l449l1.1.1) at the monuments, because it might be blasted into oblivion. This remembers me of all the mesopotamic artefacts that were blasted into oblivion by NATO as well, why do they hate classical history?

But seriously, shouldn't it be included in the Geneva convention that it is a war crime to bomb ancient ruins or placing weapons there? Because this is disgusting, all those poor triumphal arches and temples, caught between two barbaric parties, it seems the Vandals have returned to North Africa, this time with bombers!

So, the NATO is ruining my ruins.

[lolpah]

caught between two barbaric parties, it seems the Vandals have returned to North Africa, this time with bombers!

So, the NATO is ruining my ruins.
Yes, because a few historical remains are more important than the freedom of Libyan people:inquisitive: .
Seriously, are you claiming that NATO has no rights to help the opposition? of course they ahve done alot of bad things in the past, but claiming that they are "barbaric" is quite unfair.

Of course it is sad that historical remains are being destroyed, but it is Gaddafi's fault by hiding the military equipment there.

[Skullheadhq]

Yes, because a few historical remains are more important than the freedom of Libyan people:inquisitive: .
It is, I couldn't care less, but I like my ancient ruins so they should steer clear from it. Even if some dictators would eat babies there, they should still NOT drop bombs on cultural heritage. Maybe there are some interesting facts for EBII yet to be found, which could possibly get destroyed.



Of course it is sad that historical remains are being destroyed, but it is Gaddafi's fault by hiding the military equipment there.

You could also, like, not drop bombs on cultural heritage.




PS: don't let this get too backroomish, Ludens wouldn't like it.

[lolpah]

It is, I couldn't care less, but I like my ancient ruins so they should steer clear from it. Even if some dictators would eat babies there, they should still NOT drop bombs on cultural heritage. Maybe there are some interesting facts for EBII yet to be found, which could possibly get destroyed.

You could also, like, not drop bombs on cultural heritage.

PS: don't let this get too backroomish, Ludens wouldn't like it.
If they do not drop bombs there, Gaddafi could quite easily just hide an entire tank brigade in there, or even more. They do not have to bomb the entire area, just the places where there are depots, unlike if they would just let him amass his forces there.

[Skullheadhq]

So you're fine with blowing up cultural heritage as long as it fits your political view then?

[fomalhaut]

at this point let's finish the job of the Taliban and blow up the rest of the buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

There's smart ways to fight a war, especially as the 3rd party who can easily restrain themselves. Thousands of years of history shouldn't be shat on for the whims of a mad man.

[Ludens]

PS: don't let this get too backroomish, Ludens wouldn't like it.

I don't mind political discussion, it just doesn't belong in the EB fora. Since this thread is more about the NATO than EB, I am going to move it to the Backroom.

Moving thread

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

I find it unlikely that these ancient sites would be able to house a decisive amount of <insert military related word here>, and so it should be possible for NATO to win without destroying the old stuff.

[HoreTore]

Stuff gets destroyed as time goes by. Why should I care about this?

[Kralizec]

They said they wouldn't rule it out. That doesn't mean that they'll level an entire Roman ruin when there are only two guys with AK's using it for cover. If they did rule it out alltogether, you can expect Ghadaffi to move half his army there.

[johnhughthom]

So you're fine with blowing up cultural heritage as long as it fits your political view then?

And you're fine with people being oppressed so long as it doesn't interfere with a mod for a computer game?

[Skullheadhq]

Stuff gets destroyed as time goes by. Why should I care about this?

Blergh


And you're fine with people being oppressed so long as it doesn't interfere with a mod for a computer game?

History isn't limited to a mod for me. What would you feel if they blew up the Acropolis because Gadaffi made have made his personal fortress out of it from where he does evil? Purely hypothetical speaking of course.

[Viking]

Stuff gets destroyed as time goes by. Why should I care about this?

Everything is about to get destroyed, really.

[jirisys]

Everything is about to get destroyed, really.

Men and dictators come and go. History doesn't.

Lives are futile to protect. History isn't.

Besides, why don't they simply snipe the damn place if it's so tough.

Though a tank would be hardly beaten with an .50 cal.

~Jirisys ()

[Samurai Waki]

argh.... the sad thing is, Libya sucks compared to the Romans and they'll probably go extinct much sooner and with much less exciting infrastructure to behold...

[TheLastDays]

Everyone who is actually giving some ruins higher priority than human lives is a psychopath, sorry. That's just not sane.

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy history, I am interested in it and I agree that cultural/historical heritage should be protected but not by any means. If there are lives at stake, and bombing it will actually save those lives, bomb it... and that goes for any historical site.


It is, I couldn't care less, but I like my ancient ruins so they should steer clear from it. Even if some dictators would eat babies there, they should still NOT drop bombs on cultural heritage. Maybe there are some interesting facts for EBII yet to be found, which could possibly get destroyed.

Sorry, but this is crazy, I have a hard time believing this isn't a troll attempt...

[Ronin]

don´t think of the bombing as destroying ruins....
think of it as creating new ruins!!

glass half full and all that.

ain´t gonna go into if NATO should be mixed up in this....have done enough of that in the other topic.

[Viking]

Men and dictators come and go. History doesn't.

Lives are futile to protect. History isn't.

Ruins are not history, they are artifacts and will be destroyed in some time. People, too, are part of histories.

[Centurion1]

its sad its unfortunate but i dont really care. It is disappointing to me that gaddafi is hiding weapons in ancient ruins but then again its even more depressing every time I hear supposedly fanatically devout muslims hiding weapons in mosques to take advantage of knowing americans have to jump through tons of hoops to destroy the materiel. The allies bombed the acropolis in ww2 thats far worse than this. you also have to taken into account they arent going to hover an ac-130 over the ruins and destroy every historical artifact there. there are laser guided bombs that can be dropped from thousands of feet up in the air and kill an ant after checking to make sure its the right one (warning: hyperbole)

[jirisys]

Bombs have area impact effect, and since they are ruins...

~Jirisys ()

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone who is actually giving some ruins higher priority than human lives is a psychopath, sorry. That's just not sane.

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy history, I am interested in it and I agree that cultural/historical heritage should be protected but not by any means. If there are lives at stake, and bombing it will actually save those lives, bomb it... and that goes for any historical site.

Sorry, but this is crazy, I have a hard time believing this isn't a troll attempt...

The term you are looking for is "sociopath".

The Americans destroyed Babylon just by building a camp on it, a far greater crime. Generally speaking, if attacking these ruins is not essential to the war effort then they should be left alone, bomb everything around them and hopefully Gadaffi will give up before you have to use anything on those particular vehicals, or he will move them again in order to actually use them.

I doubt he can hide a large part of his remaining military powere there, this is a stunt to goad the Allied powers into an uncivilised action.

[PanzerJaeger]

I must agree with Skullhead. The value of these ruins to mankind as a whole far exceeds the transient and ultimately meaningless lives of the Libyan peasantry and the current NATO mission in the country. Left alone, these ruins will be enriching our shared cultural heritage and understanding of a great civilization long after the inhabitants of the contemporary 'civilization' stop shooting at each other from the backs of trucks. :rolleyes:

That said, Kralizec is correct. This will not happen.

[Samurai Waki]

If it's an absolute necessity, then yes, it's a fair target. But I rue and lament it... and hate this thing called "war".

[TheLastDays]

You know these ruins only exist because the Romans conquered these lands and that there were quite a few wars involved in roman expansion, right?

[Samurai Waki]

You know these ruins only exist because the Romans conquered these lands and that there were quite a few wars involved in roman expansion, right?

That's not the point and you know it. We're not the Romans, and I find pissing on our heritage without :daisy: good reason to be utterly barbaric... just as thuggish as the all the rest of Libya's conquerors.

[Skullheadhq]

I must agree with Skullhead. The value of these ruins to mankind as a whole far exceeds the transient and ultimately meaningless lives of the Libyan peasantry .

There is still enough peasentry left, not more Leptis Magna's around the world Some things are unique and are not to be messed around with, whol would bomb the van Gogh museum to save some lives?



Men and dictators come and go. History doesn't.

Lives are futile to protect. History isn't.



Couldn't agree more. Why not just let the Gadiffi and the rebels fight to the death without getting involved? This is what we did during the Spanish Civil War, so why not just do it again? And if the Nika riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots)would be today, would we bomb Justinian and bring Belisarius in front of an internation tribunal, the ITFB (International Tribunal for the Former Byzantium)? These things are just part of life since 286749856 BC.

[Cute Wolf]

I think, instead of bombing them, NATO should hire sam fisher or agent 47 (kinda like of secret special agent/assassin) to do the works cleanly. History will be saved

[TheLastDays]

whol would bomb the van Gogh museum to save some lives?

I would... well if I had bombs that is. Lives are worth more than a bunch of stones, no matter how beautifully they might have been put atop each other...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Human lives > ancient relics

It might be easy to forget that when there are almost 7 billion of our fragile lives when compared to these rare pieces that have stood throughout a good portion of (civilized) human history, but would you volunteer yourself and your family to be the ones to make the sacrifice?

[Husar]

They're ruins, and ruins per definition are remnants of a destroyed building, in other words it's already been destroyed, so what is there to protect?
Would you cry if they bombed a waste disposal? ~;)

[Skullheadhq]

They're ruins, and ruins per definition are remnants of a destroyed building, in other words it's already been destroyed, so what is there to protect?
Would you cry if they bombed a waste disposal? ~;)

Some are pretty good conserved. This theatre for example:

http://www.theguidetolibya.com/images/sai_sabratha2.jpg

[jirisys]

I would... well if I had bombs that is. Lives are worth more than a bunch of stones, no matter how beautifully they might have been put atop each other...

No they aren't. Would you bomb giza because Mubarak had hid inside it?

Lives are worthless. People die all the time. Does it matter if a little bit more die because one hid there. Bombs cause so much devastation.

And let me remind you, that people would die anyways if the city were to be bombed, since Gaddhaffi and his army is there.

I also support the revolution; but sacrifices must be made, destruction of history isn't a sacrifice; it's an abomination.


Human lives > ancient relics

It might be easy to forget that when there are almost 7 billion of our fragile lives when compared to these rare pieces that have stood throughout a good portion of (civilized) human history, but would you volunteer yourself and your family to be the ones to make the sacrifice?

Human lives < ancient relics.

If it were otherwise, the romans who built them must have been here anyways.

Yes, we all die. 7 million. Why haven't you understood the futility of life? If you die, you die; no matter when, by whom or whence.

I would volunteer myself. And my family. It is not noble to die; but to fight in life for what is right.

It's part of humanity itself. What we once were. Would you bomb the Ziggurat of Urartu because the president of Iran hid there?


They're ruins, and ruins per definition are remnants of a destroyed building, in other words it's already been destroyed, so what is there to protect?
Would you cry if they bombed a waste disposal? ~;)

You are oversimplifying. These ruins are part of us. Part of what we once were. Sure; many didn't make it. So it's even more important. It is like you had your stuff in a hard drive in a computer that doesn't work anymore; and you sell it. You are giving up part of humanity.

Bombs will never protect someone. And who is to blame but the lack of ground support from the NATO? They could just walk right in. Much less damage.

The same argument over the nukes on japan is here.

Should we bomb something important, regardless of what it is.
Or should the ground troops get slaughtered, but protect that which is important.

Once it was the millions of civilians, the city, and the surrounding environment.

Now it's a part of humanity.

I stand in the same position, and would have stood before too.

~Jirisys ()

[Strike For The South]

Isn't the OP the same guy whom had has mind changed after reading one book?

I would expect such drivel from a man who falls in love with prose

I've also seen him post the word Proletarian in a serious manner

Which takes me back to the whole drivel thing

Human life superscedes architecture, not to mention think of all the great Civs that were destroyed by the Romans. I demand those smug bastards be held accountable for the culture rape of the Ibereos! WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT

[Husar]

Some are pretty good conserved. This theatre for example:



It will not cease being a theatre, a theatre of war! Think of the suspense and the drama that will return into it's old walls...
It will leave the world with a bang!

And uhm, if I want to see it, I got that picture.

But seriously, if it's in the way then noone should stop shooting just to conserve it.

[Zim]

Hmmm. I would never have guessed when I saw this thread and clicked the link that there would be a serious discussion on the value of human lives versus historical ruins.

I don't have any idea how to react to that.

[TheLastDays]

Hmmm. I would never have guessed when I saw this thread and clicked the link that there would be a serious discussion on the value of human lives versus historical ruins.

I don't have any idea how to react to that.

Now I don't know which side you're leaning but not having an idea how to react to that was also my first emotion... it doesn't fit into my head...

@jirsyis:

Well, yea, just that the nuclear bombs in Japan killed multitudes of people and made the area uninhabitable... and this here is about ruins... stones... They do not stand above human lives.
Yes, every human dies and every human live ends still each live is more precious than a whole Roman town. In my philosophy that's just not comparable... I'd sacrifice all the historical monuments in the worls if it was to save one human being from death... these monuments hold no actual meaning, the stones themselves speak of nothing they have no lasting value.

[Skullheadhq]

Now I don't know which side you're leaning but not having an idea how to react to that was also my first emotion... it doesn't fit into my head...

@jirsyis:

Well, yea, just that the nuclear bombs in Japan killed multitudes of people and made the area uninhabitable... and this here is about ruins... stones... They do not stand above human lives.
Yes, every human dies and every human live ends still each live is more precious than a whole Roman town. In my philosophy that's just not comparable... I'd sacrifice all the historical monuments in the worls if it was to save one human being from death... these monuments hold no actual meaning, the stones themselves speak of nothing they have no lasting value.

So you think a petty conflict which will be forgotten about in +/- 50 years is worth destroying ancient history for? Anyway, I 100% agree with Jirysis.


Isn't the OP the same guy whom had has mind changed after reading one book?

I would expect such drivel from a man who falls in love with prose

I've also seen him post the word Proletarian in a serious manner

Which takes me back to the whole drivel thing

Human life superscedes architecture, not to mention think of all the great Civs that were destroyed by the Romans. I demand those smug bastards be held accountable for the culture rape of the Ibereos! WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT

Suddenly, ad hominems everywhere.

[Strike For The South]

For something to be an arguement their must be a valid point somewhere in it. A point which can be debated on merit

I see nothing but vapid high brow poppycock. Not surprising given your track record. It is lamentable though.

[PanzerJaeger]

This entire discussion seems to be revolving around a false dichotomy, considering the fact that the only reason NATO would bomb the ruins would be to take human lives. And it is a near certainty that those human lives would not include Kaddafi or his inner circle, but young men and boys coerced into being there in fear of their own lives and those of their families or convinced through a combination of propaganda and reality that they are fighting for the legitimate government of Libya. Somehow those boys are worth less than the ones in the death squads patrolling Benghazi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya_reprisal_killings)? Somehow we should tag every one of Kaddafi's soldiers with the war crimes committed under his name, but pretend like the rebels are innocent of the same (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43239574/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/both-rebels-libyan-forces-committed-war-crimes-un-panel-says/)?

I'm not buying it. The NATO action in Libya is not about human lives, but about political posturing from vulnerable European leaders. There was no genocide taking place, and the promise of one in the future was dubious at best. It is criminal that the European powers that once played colonial chess with Libya have now decided that they will be the arbiters of which Libyan lives are worth something and which are not, and it would be an absolute travesty if their neocolonial mental masturbation led to the destruction of cultural artifacts that have value to the collective human consciousness that transcends such inconsequential third world power struggles.

The truth is that Libyan lives are worth far less than the ruins of a bunch of old Roman buildings. They are not even worth a few extra percentage points worth of support in the next French election. NATO established those facts, and has been killing Libyans for months now over far less noble concerns than the preservation of invaluable cultural artifacts.

[TheLastDays]

No, PJ, you are confusing what this debate really is about...

the OP has taken the current situation as an example but this is not about the legitimacy of the NATO mission in Libya and not even about who the "good guys" in the current conflict are.
This is about the fact that, obviously, there are people who would rather preserve ancient ruins than human lives. I'm not saying that the bombing of that place in Libya will actually save lives, though it might, I don't really think any of us can judge this correctly from our comfortable living rooms... I'm saying that, if I can save human lives by destroying ancient ruins I'd do it...

[Skullheadhq]

For something to be an arguement their must be a valid point somewhere in it. A point which can be debated on merit

I see nothing but vapid high brow poppycock. Not surprising given your track record. It is lamentable though.

I posted this in the EB fora where people appreciate history more, and not here to avoid hostile comments like this one, The only thing I try to say is that war number 3443434356 between desert people is just not worth destroying ancient history for.If this was done in more wars, we would have had no ancient ruins left. Disagree if you like, but please keep it civil.

[Zim]

I'm very strongly on the side that human lives are worth more than objects, even objects with such high intrinsic value as these ruins.

I work in a field where I deal with people with very disturbing priorities, who in many cases have done horrible things (up to and including murder) for rediculous reasons. This thread proves I can still be shocked.

Now, in this specific case I don't know. All we have is a statement that bombing in the area isn't being ruled out, which seems entirely appropriate to me. Surely there's at least one possible situation in which it would be justified, however many there might be where it isn't. It's the argument on principle that "Human lives < ancient relics" that gets me (and you, from what I see).

Only slightly less disturbing is that whenever I see discussions about these types of situations, there often seems to be little anger directed at the guys using ruins as cover/using human shields/hiding and shooting from a hospital or religious building/etc.


Now I don't know which side you're leaning but not having an idea how to react to that was also my first emotion... it doesn't fit into my head...

[Strike For The South]

This entire discussion seems to be revolving around a false dichotomy, considering the fact that the only reason NATO would bomb the ruins would be to take human lives. And it is a near certainty that those human lives would not include Kaddafi or his inner circle, but young men and boys coerced into being there in fear of their own lives and those of their families or convinced through a combination of propaganda and reality that they are fighting for the legitimate government of Libya. Somehow those boys are worth less than the ones in the death squads patrolling Benghazi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya_reprisal_killings)? Somehow we should tag every one of Kaddafi's soldiers with the war crimes committed under his name, but pretend like the rebels are innocent of the same (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43239574/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/both-rebels-libyan-forces-committed-war-crimes-un-panel-says/)?
I've heard this arguement somewhere before....aw yes, I'll take NAZI Germany for 200 Alex.



I'm not buying it. The NATO action in Libya is not about human lives, but about political posturing from vulnerable European leaders. There was no genocide taking place, and the promise of one in the future was dubious at best. It is criminal that the European powers that once played colonial chess with Libya have now decided that they will be the arbiters of which Libyan lives are worth something and which are not, and it would be an absolute travesty if their neocolonial mental masturbation led to the destruction of cultural artifacts that have value to the collective human consciousness that transcends such inconsequential third world power struggles.


Of course this incursion is heavy handed but if these ruins were a certifiable military target why not hit them? You, on one hand shout down the political postruing but one the other demand these ruins be kept beyond reproach even if they are being used for military purposes. So you are a fan of realpolitik until something historic comes into the fray? I've seen you time after time on this forum argue that the US should intervine based on strategic interests. Certainly we've done our fair share of destruction for the same infantile reasons.

Now I am of the opinoin we shouldn't be their in the first place, as always I don't feel counter terrorism is helped when the main course of action is dropping 2 ton bombs on cities. but of course Western leaders have to toe the line of "Not being soft on terrorism" while "Not going through the pain of an actual war"

Of course if we decide to stay and the ruins are being used as a BOP I say bomb the hell out of them if for nothing else the sake of congruncery.

The truth is that Libyan lives are worth far less than the ruins of a bunch of old Roman buildings. They are not even worth a few extra percentage points worth of support in the next French election. NATO established those facts, and has been killing Libyans for months now over far less noble concerns than the preservation of invaluable cultural artifacts.

That may be some peoples truth but it is certainly not mine. An arch is an arch. A person is dynamic


I posted this in the EB fora where people appreciate history more, and not here to avoid hostile comments like this one,


The only thing I try to say is that war number 3443434356 between desert people is just not worth destroying ancient history for.If this was done in more wars, we would have had no ancient ruins left. Disagree if you like, but please keep it civil

And the only thing I am trying to say is that we promised help and to not destroy a verifiable military target simply because a few old bricks were smacked together by a group of people who were simply the best murderers on the block is a slap in the face.

I love it, everyone here extolls the Arab spring but when push comes to shove these sorts of petty things take precedent. That's fine if vaule these things over the mission in Lybia I can understand. Let's be honest it was FUBAR from the get go but to promise these people help and not deliver due to this is unfathomable

[Viking]

Lives are worthless. People die all the time.

History is created all the time, therefore history is worthless. Logic works in mysterious ways.



And it is a near certainty that those human lives would not include Kaddafi or his inner circle, but young men and boys coerced into being there in fear of their own lives and those of their families or convinced through a combination of propaganda and reality that they are fighting for the legitimate government of Libya.

They could shoot their officers, they could run away. They are responsible for what they do, and they do know who they are fighting.


Somehow those boys are worth less than the ones in the death squads patrolling Benghazi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya_reprisal_killings)? Somehow we should tag every one of Kaddafi's soldiers with the war crimes committed under his name, but pretend like the rebels are innocent of the same (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43239574/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/both-rebels-libyan-forces-committed-war-crimes-un-panel-says/)?

There is nothing to indicate that anyone with authority condone the reprisals. The revolutionary forces are largely responsible on an individual/group level, they are an irregular force. Comparison to the regime forces fails on this point. There are also civilians in Benghazi, did you forget?



There was no genocide taking place, and the promise of one in the future was dubious at best.

Not genocide, massacre.


It is criminal that the European powers that once played colonial chess with Libya have now decided that they will be the arbiters of which Libyan lives are worth something and which are not [...]


Once they were colonial powers? What sort of silly argumentation is that? Political leaders in the past did bad things, so now present leaders will be unable to do good things?



[...] that transcends such inconsequential third world power struggles.

"inconsequential third world power struggles" reeks of racism. "inconsequential" to you, perhaps, but why do you matter?


NATO established those facts, and has been killing Libyans for months now over far less noble concerns than the preservation of invaluable cultural artifacts.

Death penalty kills Americans, teh drama. Rhetoric unveiled.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, PJ, you are confusing what this debate really is about...

the OP has taken the current situation as an example but this is not about the legitimacy of the NATO mission in Libya and not even about who the "good guys" in the current conflict are.
This is about the fact that, obviously, there are people who would rather preserve ancient ruins than human lives. I'm not saying that the bombing of that place in Libya will actually save lives, though it might, I don't really think any of us can judge this correctly from our comfortable living rooms... I'm saying that, if I can save human lives by destroying ancient ruins I'd do it...

Yet you cannot separate the debate from its cause. The only reason such sites are destroyed is because they are occupied by the 'enemy', whether it be Leptis Magna, the Acropolis, or Monte Casino. Therefore, the legitimacy of the conflict must be the determining factor in the legitimacy of the target chosen for destruction. The legitimacy of NATO's mission in Libya does not pass the smell test, thus such a site should not be destroyed in the name of it.

[Strike For The South]

Yet you cannot separate the debate from its cause. The only reason such sites are destroyed is because they are occupied by the 'enemy', whether it be Leptis Magna, the Acropolis, or Monte Casino. Therefore, the legitimacy of the conflict must be the determining factor in the legitimacy of the target chosen for destruction. The legitimacy of NATO's mission in Libya does not pass the smell test, thus such a site should not be destroyed in the name of it.

Then we should never have gotten involved in the first place or at the very least leave now. To stay and not destroy this place (hypothetically) is such hypocracisy the world may implode in on itself

[Ice]

https://img221.imageshack.us/img221/541/ilikewherethisthreadisgup.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/ilikewherethisthreadisgup.jpg/)

[PanzerJaeger]

I've heard this arguement somewhere before....aw yes, I'll take NAZI Germany for 200 Alex.

I do not understand. :(



Of course this incursion is heavy handed but if these ruins were a certifiable military target why not hit them? You, on one hand shout down the political postruing but one the other demand these ruins be kept beyond reproach even if they are being used for military purposes. So you are a fan of realpolitik until something historic comes into the fray? I've seen you time after time on this forum argue that the US should intervine based on strategic interests. Certainly we've done our fair share of destruction for the same infantile reasons.

Which faction ultimately ends up in power in Libya is not a vital strategic interest to any NATO member.


Now I am of the opinoin we shouldn't be their in the first place, as always I don't feel counter terrorism is helped when the main course of action is dropping 2 ton bombs on cities. but of course Western leaders have to toe the line of "Not being soft on terrorism" while "Not going through the pain of an actual war

Terrorism?


Of course if we decide to stay and the ruins are being used as a BOP I say bomb the hell out of them if for nothing else the sake of congruncery.

I do not understand. :(


That may be some peoples truth but it is certainly not mine. An arch is an arch. A person is dynamic

If the ruins are destroyed, many persons will be as well. Is the collective value of their lives any less than the lives that will be 'saved', which is a dubious claim in itself?


Then we should never have gotten involved in the first place or at the very least leave now. To stay and not destroy this place (hypothetically) is such hypocracisy the world may implode in on itself

I could not agree more. And if we are going to stay and play gods in Libya - choosing which Libyans are worthy of life and which are not and then delivering our sacred judgment from our untouchable angels of destruction in the sky - such sites should not be destroyed in the process. The trivial and fleeting interests of the European power elites are certainly not worth it.




They could shoot their officers, they could run away. They are responsible for what they do, and they do know who they are fighting.

So could the NATO pilots. Of all the soldiers involved, they are perhaps the least justified in taking Libyan lives.


There is nothing to indicate that anyone with authority condone the reprisals.

Really? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html)


Mustafa Gerhiani, the urbane spokesman for the rebels' provisional government in the east, said there were several hundred government supporters in the city who had formed sleeper cells.

"We know where they live and many have been rounded up. There are people looking for them. A lot have been caught and killed," he said.


The revolutionary forces are largely responsible on an individual/group level, they are an irregular force. Comparison to the regime forces fails on this point.

Yet such a comparison (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324) is becoming more and more obvious.


The rebels of eastern Libya have found much to condemn about the police state tactics of Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi: deep paranoia, mass detentions, secret prisons and tightly scripted media tours.

But some of those same tactics appear to be creeping into the efforts of the opposition here as it seeks to stamp out lingering loyalty to Kadafi. Rebel forces are detaining anyone suspected of serving or assisting the Kadafi regime, locking them up in the same prisons once used to detain and torture Kadafi's opponents.

...

For a month, gangs of young gunmen have roamed the city, rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.

Over the last several days, the opposition has begun rounding up men accused of fighting as mercenaries for Kadafi's militias as government forces pushed toward Benghazi. It has launched nightly manhunts for about 8,000 people named as government operatives in secret police files seized after internal security operatives fled in the face of the rebellion that ended Kadafi's control of eastern Libya last month.

"We know who they are," said Abdelhafed Ghoga, the chief opposition spokesman. He called them "people with bloodstained hands" and "enemies of the revolution."

Any suspected Kadafi loyalist or spy who does not surrender, Ghoga warned, will face revolutionary "justice."

What makes these people's lives more valuable than Kadaffi's boys? Nothing. Therefore, what makes destroying a priceless cultural site by killing certain Libyans to 'save' others a legitimate operation?


Not genocide, massacre.

Hyperbole.


Once they were colonial powers? What sort of silly argumentation is that? Political leaders in the past did bad things, so now present leaders will be unable to do good things?

Who said anything about good things? All I've seen is NATO inflicting death and destruction on young Libyan boys while refusing to target the guy who is supposed to be their evil leader, all the while using just enough force to ensure that Libya remains deadlocked in a protracted civil war that has caused an enormous humanitarian crises but not enough to actually win. It is really quite cruel.


"inconsequential third world power struggles" reeks of racism.

Racism? You'll have to explain that one to me.


"inconsequential" to you, perhaps, but why do you matter?

I don't, and if I were to ever join a rebel faction trying to overthrow my government, I would not support some omnipotent outside power destroying my nation's national treasures just so I don't have to fight my own battles.


Death penalty kills Americans, teh drama. Rhetoric unveiled.

I do not understand. :(

[jirisys]

History is created all the time, therefore history is worthless. Logic works in mysterious ways.

Wrong. History might be created all the time, but the history of yonders ago cannot be created again. We cannot ressurect a person, we cannot rebuild knowledge when it has vanished.



Lives lost in bombing=~500 per day (with unreplaceable colateral damage)
Lives lost without bombing=~200 per day

If you want the raw numbers. If you wish to save lives, you will see what saves the most.

As I said, you can always snipe.

~Jirisys ()

[Populus Romanus]

People in the EB fora must have a high tolerance for bs

So true.

Wrong. History might be created all the time, but the history of yonders ago cannot be created again. We cannot ressurect a person, we cannot rebuild knowledge when it has vanished.Sure, history cannot be recreated. But as you just admitted, neither can a person. So, which do value more: human lives or derelict buildings?

History can be experienced an infinite number of times as long as people remain. But a life can only be experienced once. History can be written down and recorded and therefore absoletely anyone who is interested can know "what happened". But you can't do that with human life, you have to live it to experience it. And in case you didn't notice, you cannot live life if you are dead.

How would you feel if some soldier murdered you because a bureaucrat was too thin skinned to bomb a pile of rocks*?

*rocks that are technically old, but really no older older than any other rocks on the planet, the only distinguishing features of these rocks being that they have not moved in thousands of years and some people feel nostalgic about that.

[jirisys]

So true.

You are one of them. I rarely visit it anymore.


Sure, history cannot be recreated. But as you just admitted, neither can a person. So, which do value more: human lives or derelict buildings?

Buildings.

A human life is like a mosquito's. Valueless. It is from our deeds living that they take value. Who would care about preserving the 7 billion people living today in 350 years? Who wouldn't care about preserving the buildings today in 350 years.


History can be experienced an infinite number of times as long as people remain. But a life can only be experienced once. History can be written down and recorded and therefore absoletely anyone who is interested can know "what happened". But you can't do that with human life, you have to live it to experience it. And in case you didn't notice, you cannot live life if you are dead.

Yes, but do you know how hard it is to recover actual geography from Strabo's Geographika? What if he had laid a map? Same as it would be for a building. Sure, you get pictures today, but heck. It has stood 2000 years defiant of human stupidity, why would it to be destroyed for the petty conflicts of humans.

Yet do you advocate the death of Gaddhafhi's men? Wouldn't that be contradictory. If you want to preserve life, don't freaking bomb it. You save the live of some hundreds. Sure, they be the "Bad Guys". But in the broader picture. Who would care in 2000 years more? They would only care to see the remnants of the culture.


How would you feel if some soldier murdered you because a bureaucrat was too thin skinned to bomb a pile of rocks*?

Oversimplification, ad misericordiam and strawman.

If a soldier were to be defended by historical ruins. I'd be outraged. I would get a .50 cal and shoot him. Instead of leveling the whole damned place.

And even if he would kill me, instead of the place being bombed, I would have regretted that I, myself did not built such lasting wonder, and die hating my fat *** for not being useful enough.


*rocks that are technically old, but really no older older than any other rocks on the planet, the only distinguishing features of these rocks being that they have not moved in thousands of years and some people feel nostalgic about that.

No. The distinguishing feature is is that they were BUILT by men 2000 years ago. Not absentio movitiam. Creatoriat.

Meaning that they carry on the legacy of human achievement. Average joes in uniform with weapons are but a stinking ball of bunny dumpings compared to what they did.

Petty human rivalries are petty, and futile. I would rather see most of mankind extinguished than to destroy all that made us great in the first place.

Most here will split on two sides. One that supports saving lives (whilst in doing so, kill more that would have died without the act).

To these I say: "There was an old spartan man, who said about the proposition of democracy: 'If you want democracy, start with your own family'; I will adapt this to this occasion, thereby reading 'If you want to save lives, start with your enemies''".

There are others who will preserve history over anything. To these I say: "Beware; for without men, or any other form of sentience, our history will die a slow death".

Me? I will say that I understand the futilities of life itself, and that no million people has more importance than what they made and has lasted for years.

Would the greeks had saved the romans from the kelts; but destroy their cities, or would they have not destroyed their cities and let matters go by?

~Jirisys ()

[Populus Romanus]

A human life is like a mosquito's. Valueless. Nomination for Most Evil Member 2011?

[jirisys]

Nomination for Most Evil Member 2011?

What have we, fellow couch potatoes have successfully acomplished in life that will last through generations, besides our own genome? What is our puny and finite life compared to these monuments of human intellect and; most, slavery.

One has to notice that we all are going to die. Some don't even come out of the womb, some don't get to speak, some don't get to walk, some don't get to analyze, some don't get to reproduce, some don't get to work, some don't get to have grandchildren. Most will never really have made much to make themselves memorable.

To look at these testaments to our technology and put them in place of our doomed lives is not evil, but rather; humble, and respectful. For we are not as strong as the mighty rock that they are built with.

Not that I wouldn't save a life if I could. But, heck, more lives are lost to ebola than in the Libyan conflict. Would it really make a difference if one bombs a historic city because of a few men that will die in order to somehow save lives?

For example, the deeds of Nelson Mandela are to be remembered as heroic. Yet his life will eventually end. If he had rather hoped to save lives but remain in apartheid; he would not have succeeded. He knew that some would die, but that their deeds while living served justice for all.

~Jirisys ()

[Banquo's Ghost]

Stay civil, please.

:beadyeyes:

[TheLastDays]

Yet you cannot separate the debate from its cause. The only reason such sites are destroyed is because they are occupied by the 'enemy', whether it be Leptis Magna, the Acropolis, or Monte Casino. Therefore, the legitimacy of the conflict must be the determining factor in the legitimacy of the target chosen for destruction. The legitimacy of NATO's mission in Libya does not pass the smell test, thus such a site should not be destroyed in the name of it.


oh yes, I can, because arumgents like


Human lives < ancient relics

have already seperated the debate from it's cause and this was just one example. We're way past oly discussing the legitimacy of a hypothetical bombing of Leptis Magna in this debate, we are debating the value of a himan live vs. an ancient relic.

[Skullheadhq]

A human life is like a mosquito's. Valueless.

I wouldn't agree, what if there were 5 humans left? Then they would be highly useful.

[seireikhaan]

What have we, fellow couch potatoes have successfully acomplished in life that will last through generations, besides our own genome? What is our puny and finite life compared to these monuments of human intellect and; most, slavery.

One has to notice that we all are going to die. Some don't even come out of the womb, some don't get to speak, some don't get to walk, some don't get to analyze, some don't get to reproduce, some don't get to work, some don't get to have grandchildren. Most will never really have made much to make themselves memorable.

To look at these testaments to our technology and put them in place of our doomed lives is not evil, but rather; humble, and respectful. For we are not as strong as the mighty rock that they are built with.

Not that I wouldn't save a life if I could. But, heck, more lives are lost to ebola than in the Libyan conflict. Would it really make a difference if one bombs a historic city because of a few men that will die in order to somehow save lives?

For example, the deeds of Nelson Mandela are to be remembered as heroic. Yet his life will eventually end. If he had rather hoped to save lives but remain in apartheid; he would not have succeeded. He knew that some would die, but that their deeds while living served justice for all.

~Jirisys ()
Just because everyone dies does not mean we are worthless. It only means that that we have to work with what we're given. Think about it, if people *didn't* die, what would the value of life be? Nothing, nill. There'd be so many people it would boggle the mind, and every person would mean nearly infinitely less. And what would be the impetus to do anything? There'd be none, because you'd have literally forever to do anything important. That we are mortal and may potentially die at any moment is what gives value to human life, what makes us strive to better the existence of ourselves and others. Any responsible person knows and acknowledges our unavoidable demise as an essential part of life.

Are ruins important? Only so much as they help us understand our own existence. Knowledge of history doesn't really mean much if we don't apply it to our own experiences. Knowledge is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't really do much if all one does is revel in it. Do these ruins better the lives of Libyans? Of anyone in Europe? I truthfully don't know, I'm not very familiar with these particular ruins. But I'd encourage a re-evaluation of what exactly history means. Its interesting, and can teach us a lot, but I'd advise avoiding falling into the trap of pursuing something and forgetting the reason or purpose behind it. Dismissing the livelihood of people suffering under an oppressive regime, people who can still put their mark on the world, because of people who's impact on the world has run its course is not, in my opinion, sound.

[Skullheadhq]

Nero was a crazy dictator and we got rid of him without bombing valuable things. Some say America wasn't even involved in ousting Nero, let alone bombers.

[seireikhaan]

Nero was a crazy dictator and we got rid of him without bombing valuable things. Some say America wasn't even involved in ousting Nero, let alone bombers.
:thinking:

Regardless, my point was that history is only as valuable as it aids the present and future. I certainly don't see where I advocated tossing bombs at first whim. The whole point of the original story was that NATO would not rule it out if that was necessary. You may either take them at that value, or you can believe that NATO just really hates the Romans. Or something else, I'm sure. But anyways, what was stated seemed very sound, to me. If NATO deemed a high value, armored/bunkered target was located in the ruins, whose absence would hasten an improvement for many Libyans, that the said result would be more important that the ruins. Of course, NATO could, conversely, do the rather idiotic thing of proclaiming it a holy site which they shan't touch, and give Momo every incentive in the world to move everything of value into the ruins. Wonder how well they'd keep preserved with a military camp parked all over it. Never mind, of course, the inevitable battle which would result to dislodge the forces.

[Skullheadhq]

:thinking:



My point is, dictators can be assasinated or pressed into suicide without bombing?

[seireikhaan]

My point is, dictators can be assasinated or pressed into suicide without bombing?
Can? Broadly speaking, yes. As you may have noticed, Momo isn't very keen on the latter. As far as the former, I'd say its naive to assume they haven't been trying. If there's one thing politicians don't want, its dead troops, so I would say I have serious doubts that they haven't tried or are planning such a maneuver. Especially after the mini-glory parade and roughly 10% popularity bump enjoyed by the current US prez got after Usama went down.

[Viking]

Wrong. History might be created all the time, but the history of yonders ago cannot be created again. We cannot ressurect a person, we cannot rebuild knowledge when it has vanished.

Because it may last, it is valuable? That should make cockroaches pretty valuable as a species. You have so much history to chose from, and which do you chose?

Humans can exist the entire life spans of others, that is all the time for those who live shorter lives - the rest of the time is hypothetical for them.


So could the NATO pilots. Of all the soldiers involved, they are perhaps the least justified in taking Libyan lives.


Oh, but they are very justified in doing what they are doing..



Really? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8401787/Libya-it-wasnt-supposed-to-be-like-this-in-free-Benghazi.html)


Yes really, the text below the bit that you quoted (LOL!):


However, he added that some had been detained for their own protection and that the revolutionary council did not condone mob justice.
"But if they start shooting what can you do?"

Poor research.




What makes these people's lives more valuable than Kadaffi's boys? Nothing. Therefore, what makes destroying a priceless cultural site by killing certain Libyans to 'save' others a legitimate operation?


They are, of course, on the right side. The people they are hunting down are supporters of a brutal dictator that has ruled the country for several decades. But I suppose, you like brutal dictators? Seems to be the only way to make sense out what you're writing!



Hyperbole.

Shall we study what a massacre is? Are our definitions rusty? What does the dictionaries say? Here's one example (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre):

the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

so, if the regime rounds up a considerable amount of people opposed to the regime and shoot them, we have a massacre. Of course, they could also commit the massacre from a distance, by shelling the city and kill trapped civilians, as they were doing in Misrata.



Who said anything about good things? All I've seen is NATO inflicting death and destruction on young Libyan boys while refusing to target the guy who is supposed to be their evil leader, all the while using just enough force to ensure that Libya remains deadlocked in a protracted civil war that has caused an enormous humanitarian crises but not enough to actually win. It is really quite cruel.


I think the jury is still out on whether Gaddafi is being targeted or not. NATO has no intention of prolonging the war, it comes with no benefits. Freedom may come at a price, and that is what happening in Libya. But of course, their "thirld world freedom" is ""inconsequential" - in stark contrast to your own freedom.



Racism? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Some people's wars are inconsequential, and it seems that this happens to be the case if they live in a "thirld world country", which in this case is just another method of dehumanisation. It does not matter where the conflict is.



I don't, and if I were to ever join a rebel faction trying to overthrow my government, I would not support some omnipotent outside power destroying my nation's national treasures just so I don't have to fight my own battles.

You have quite the selfdestructive attitude. Also, not just any government, but a dictatorship. Why did you forget this detail?

Regarding Leptis Magna, there does not appear to be any major justification for bombing the place at present. It will probably survive this conflict virtually unharmed.



I do not understand. :(

It's not uncommon to not understand one's own rhetorics, so I'll lend you a helping hand: you use the word 'Libyan' as a way of disguising the fact that you are talking about perpetrators of atrocities: rapes, intended killing of civilians - all for the sake of one mad dictator. That's "Libyans" for you; just as you could refer to an American paedophile as an American only, but never as a paedophile.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, but they are very justified in doing what they are doing..

I don't think there is any justification for Western military powers intervening on behalf of UN declared war criminals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13622965) - now or ever. :shrug:


Yes really, the text below the bit that you quoted (LOL!):

Poor research.

You seem to have missed the story directly under that quote that fills in the gaps - 'revolutionary justice' and all. Poor reading comprehension?

This (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,754035-2,00.html) might help clear things up.


'We Know Where They Are'

It is said that 8,000 people in Benghazi were government spies -- the rebels found their names in files kept by the secret police. Armed young men roam the streets at night, arresting regime supporters, but private acts of revenge take place as well.

Salah Sharif, a former prison guard, was found dead with half his head blown off. Officially, it was labeled suicide. "Of course he was killed," says a man who spent seven years in prison and suffered at Sharif's hands. "He specialized in torturing and interrogating people. Especially Islamists."

Around 100 regime loyalists have recently been imprisoned. Armed young men are searching houses and also arresting sub-Saharan Africans, anyone they assume to be mercenaries and all those they simply refer to as spies, locking them up in the same prisons once used to hold opposition members. They are then shown off to busloads of journalists. The prisoners sit in dark cells that stink of feces and urine. They say they're from Mali, Chad, Sudan, that they're construction workers and were dragged out of their houses.

The rebels' mood, exuberant and lighthearted in the beginning, has shifted. Their rhetoric is becoming increasingly tense and they dismiss any criticism as propaganda. One former air force commander -- now "spokesman for the revolutionary armed forces" -- says, "anyone who fights against our revolutionary army is fighting against the people and will be treated accordingly."

Another man, also a member of the National Council, talks about "enemies of the revolution" and declares that anyone who doesn't join the rebel side will get a taste of revolutionary justice: "We know where they are and we will find them."

These are the same threats, word for word, that Gadhafi uses to scare his opponents.




They are, of course, on the right side. The people they are hunting down are supporters of a brutal dictator that has ruled the country for several decades.

Are you freaking serious? Spit out the Kool Aid and open your eyes to what you're supporting.

The people the Libyan rebels are hunting down are poor black immigrant workers (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04/world/la-fg-libya-mercenaries-20110305). And when they find them, they drag them out of their homes and businesses before they burn them down, beat the hell out of them, torture them, and then kill them if they're lucky enough to be put out of their misery.


Across eastern Libya, rebel fighters and their supporters are detaining, intimidating and frequently beating African immigrants and black Libyans, accusing them of fighting as mercenaries on behalf of Kadafi, witnesses and human rights workers say.

In a few instances, rebels have executed suspected mercenaries captured in battle, according to Human Rights Watch and local Libyans.

The rebel-led provisional government in Benghazi denies mistreating suspected mercenaries, though it acknowledges that it is detaining some for questioning. It says it has given human rights representatives access to detainees.

But rebel fighters and bands of gunmen who looted government weapons depots are reportedly instigating their own detentions and beatings.

Kadafi has long used mercenaries, many of them from sub-Saharan Africa, to help enforce his rule.

As the country has descended into violence in recent weeks, witnesses in the capital,Tripoli, and other cities have reported mercenaries suppressing protests and indiscriminately shooting at civilians.

But Libya also is home to thousands of immigrant laborers as well as black Libyans. In their zeal, human rights officials and witnesses say, rebel fighters in some cases have arbitrarily killed some mercenaries and in others cases failed to distinguish between them and non-combatants.

In the eastern city of Beida and in other areas under rebel control, several accused mercenaries have been killed recently, said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director for Human Rights Watch in Libya. There have been "widespread and systematic attacks" on Africans and black Libyans by rebels and their supporters as they attempt to root out suspected mercenaries, he said.

"Thousands of Africans have come under attack and lost their homes and possessions during the recent fighting," Bouckaert said in an interview Friday in Benghazi. "A lot of Africans have been caught up in this mercenary hysteria."


This is your 'revolution' - innocent families drug out of their homes by racist thugs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA8z5G-Xmk&feature=player_embedded

And those were the lucky ones. Here's a boy who wasn't so lucky.

Warning: extremely graphic.

EDIT: Too graphic for the rules, I'm afraid. Removed under the injunction against showing death or bodies. BG


But I suppose, you like brutal dictators? Seems to be the only way to make sense out what you're writing!

I suppose you support violent racism and extrajudicial killings? Seems to be the only way to make sense out of what you're writing!



Shall we study what a massacre is? Are our definitions rusty? What does the dictionaries say? Here's one example (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre):

the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

so, if the regime rounds up a considerable amount of people opposed to the regime and shoot them, we have a massacre. Of course, they could also commit the massacre from a distance, by shelling the city and kill trapped civilians, as they were doing in Misrata.

Show me the massacre. I see a government responding the way any government would if the citizens of a particular region stormed military bases and armories and declared war. We had such an incident here in the States back in the 1861. A historically rebellious region declared its independence from the government, took over arsenals, and attacked government facilities. The government then spent the next four years putting them down with extreme prejudice.




I think the jury is still out on whether Gaddafi is being targeted or not.

You might want to talk to NATO about that...



NATO has no intention of prolonging the war, it comes with no benefits. Freedom may come at a price, and that is what happening in Libya. But of course, their "thirld world freedom" is ""inconsequential" - in stark contrast to your own freedom.

One would have to hold an extraordinarily narrow definition of 'freedom' to claim that the Libyan rebels represent it.


Some people's wars are inconsequential, and it seems that this happens to be the case if they live in a "thirld world country", which in this case is just another method of dehumanisation. It does not matter where the conflict is.

And that has to do with race how? I'm the one in this discussion sticking up for Libya's racial minority. You know, the one that is being slaughtered in the streets in the name of freedom?

You, on the other hand, seem to be either a) blissfully unaware of their plight or b) so mentally invested in rebel propaganda that you're willing to ignore it. I'm not sure which is worse. :shame:



Regarding Leptis Magna, there does not appear to be any major justification for bombing the place at present. It will probably survive this conflict virtually unharmed.

I agree.



It's not uncommon to not understand one's own rhetorics, so I'll lend you a helping hand:

I hope that felt good.


you use the word 'Libyan' as a way of disguising the fact that you are talking about perpetrators of atrocities: rapes, intended killing of civilians - all for the sake of one mad dictator. That's "Libyans" for you; just as you could refer to an American paedophile as an American only, but never as a paedophile.

So who are the real Libyans - the ones who shoot their countrymen because they are rebelling against the government or the ones who shoot their countrymen because they're black?

Give me a ******** break. We've seen this all before - revolutionary councils, racial and ethnic litmus tests, extrajudicial killings, revolutionary 'justice'. The horrors committed under the banner of 'revolution' have been some of the worst in history. :no:

[Noncommunist]

Show me the massacre. I see a government responding the way any government would if the citizens of a particular region stormed military bases and armories and declared war. We had such an incident here in the State's back in the 1861. A historically rebellious region declared its independence from the government, took over arsenals, and attacked government facilities. The government then spent the next four years putting them down with extreme prejudice.

But whenever that occurred, the Confederates were rebelling against a democratic authority who they could have had the power to vote out peacefully had they the votes in a few other states. With Gaddafi on the other hand, there is no other means to remove him from office and he himself came to power by rebellion.

[CaesarAugustus]

I can see no good reason why to bomb the ruins of Leptis Magna. Why not just step up the air patrols around the ruins, destroying everything that leaves or attempts to enter them? I am of the opinion that NATO should not be there in the first place, but since they are, is the protection of the world's best preserved Roman ruins not worth the extra effort/ money of patrolling around the ruins?

[Jolt]

UN World Heritage? Send the blue berets to occupy Leptis Magna, boot/destroy Gaddafhi's equipment and declare it a UN-neutral zone.

[Beskar]

UN World Heritage? Send the blue berets to occupy Leptis Magna, boot/destroy Gaddafhi's equipment and declare it a UN-neutral zone.

Indeed, then no one will bomb it unless they declare war on the world.

[Populus Romanus]

Has it been bombed yet?

[Skullheadhq]

Here's a funny blog about Leptis Magna about to be bombed.
http://endiscomingblog.com/?tag=leptis-magna

[Viking]

I don't think there is any justification for Western military powers intervening on behalf of UN declared war criminals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13622965) - now or ever. :shrug:

Rhetoric. One side is systematic in its abuses, the other side is sporadic. Sporadic in atrocities is what any army is, or should I have to list up recent atrocities commited by the U.S. army? Or perhaps should I say individuals in the U.S. army?


You seem to have missed the story directly under that quote that fills in the gaps - 'revolutionary justice' and all. Poor reading comprehension?

No, not at all - you are still not backing up what you are supposed to: that revenge is condoned by authorities. The article that you first quoted stated the opposite.

The second of your quotes reads Any suspected Kadafi loyalist or spy who does not surrender, Ghoga warned, will face revolutionary "justice." Threatening to kill enemies that does not surrender in a civil war, not particularly shocking.



This (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,754035-2,00.html) might help clear things up.


We know where they are and we will find them.

Another man, also a member of the National Council, talks about "enemies of the revolution" and declares that anyone who doesn't join the rebel side will get a taste of revolutionary justice: "We know where they are and we will find them."

This does still not mean that he condones revenge killing, you'll have to find better evidence.



Are you freaking serious? Spit out the Kool Aid and open your eyes to what you're supporting.

The people the Libyan rebels are hunting down are poor black immigrant workers (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/04/world/la-fg-libya-mercenaries-20110305). And when they find them, they drag them out of their homes and businesses before they burn them down, beat the hell out of them, torture them, and then kill them if they're lucky enough to be put out of their misery.

Your "freaking" article does not back up your claims. I am sure innocent people get caught up in this, but I am also sure that many of them are not at all that innocent.


This is your 'revolution' - innocent families drug out of their homes by racist thugs.

I suppose you support violent racism and extrajudicial killings? Seems to be the only way to make sense out of what you're writing!

You call that evidence of racism? They were targeted because they were foreigners, and thus suspected of being mercenaries. This is not evidence of racism, it is evidence of poor judgement and an expected breakdown of law and order after a violent revolution.

If things were as bad you claim them to be, the survival of the thousands of sub-Saharan migrant workers that for weeks were stuck at the port of the besieged city of Misrata would take no less than a miracle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxbtpMaakOY



Show me the massacre.

The shelling of Misrata was one, slowly carried out by regime forces. If it was captured, we should expect a lot more of executions without trial; as with any other city in opposition control.


I see a government responding the way any government would if the citizens of a particular region stormed military bases and armories and declared war. We had such an incident here in the States back in the 1861. A historically rebellious region declared its independence from the government, took over arsenals, and attacked government facilities. The government then spent the next four years putting them down with extreme prejudice.

How much legitimacy does a government have that sees its civilian population take up arms against it; willing to risk their lives in the process. Can not be much. The Gaddafi regime is a desperate dictatorship - if it had won, the aftermath would not have been pretty. Do you honestly believe otherwise? A dictatorship is always at war with its people.



One would have to hold an extraordinarily narrow definition of 'freedom' to claim that the Libyan rebels represent it.

Not at all, the Gaddafi-free areas has not been more free for decades. There is freedom of expression (http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=4931619&sponsor=) in Eastern Libya (there are, of course, dozens of stories telling you the same).


BENGHAZI, Libya — Freedom of speech is the name of the game in Revolution Square in the Libyan rebel capital of Benghazi, where new publications have blossomed and women recite poetry in public.

"When the revolution started, I had three choices: become a soldier, or a journalist, or stay at home and sleep," said Abdallah, brimming with enthusiasm. "I'm a journalist!"

With the insurgency against Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi came free speech in a country stifled by 42 years of dictatorship.

Dozens of young Libyans like Abdallah, of both sexes, have since turned to journalism or poetry.

The revolt has inspired a flurry of new newspapers and public speaking, often in the form of poems recited in Revolution Square.

Abdallah's newspaper has the Berber name of "Tamort," or Homeland, and publishes six Arabic pages and two in English each week.

The latest issue honours the memory of King Idriss, who was overthrown by Gadhafi in 1969, and features an interview with the new Italian consul, sent by Rome to the rebel capital.

The questioning is direct and the interview competent, even if they forgot to name the consul, Guido de Sanctis.



And that has to do with race how? I'm the one in this discussion sticking up for Libya's racial minority. You know, the one that is being slaughtered in the streets in the name of freedom?

You, on the other hand, seem to be either a) blissfully unaware of their plight or b) so mentally invested in rebel propaganda that you're willing to ignore it. I'm not sure which is worse. :shame:

I am well aware of their plight, which is caused by the civil war - an intense war-time situation. Once it is over, things can return to normal - and the word 'mercenary' will no longer make people as uneasy. The greatest plight in this conflict is not that of the migrant workers, however, but that of the native Libyan population. Thousands of people have lost members of their families and friends, and all that you can manage to do is to point to a few unfortunate incidents to discredit the people's yearning for greater freedom. Imagine that you fought against a dicatorship in your own home country, your focus would be pretty different then.



I hope that felt good.

But I am serious. We all use rhetorics without knowing it.



So who are the real Libyans - the ones who shoot their countrymen because they are rebelling against the government or the ones who shoot their countrymen because they're black?

The 'goverment' in this case is a dictatorship. The people that have been attacked are migrant workers, not native Libyans. Gaddafi has history of pan-Africanism and has hired a lot of sub-Saharans for his army, and this has created the unfortunate incidents.


Give me a ******** break. We've seen this all before - revolutionary councils, racial and ethnic litmus tests, extrajudicial killings, revolutionary 'justice'. The horrors committed under the banner of 'revolution' have been some of the worst in history. :no:

A lot of bad things happen in war and violent revolutions, it is to be expected. This is a unique chance for a Libyan democracy, and one would have to be silly not to grab it.

[Major Robert Dump]

I would destroy any artifact of history to save lives of most people, and I have no qualms destroying people to save innocent people. Your reasoning dumbfounds me

Also, I find it laughable that you think a Geneva rule preventing someone from hiding military equipment in historical ruins would stop Ghadafi from doing just that. If I recall, there is also a rule against using people as human shields. How's that working out for us?

I sense troll

[Populus Romanus]

I do not think Libya signed the Genava Convention.:laugh4:

[Slyspy]

It would be a crying shame to see the ruins bombed, but the world turns and nothing is forever.

[jirisys]

I would destroy any artifact of history to save lives of most people, and I have no qualms destroying people to save innocent people. Your reasoning dumbfounds me

Also, I find it laughable that you think a Geneva rule preventing someone from hiding military equipment in historical ruins would stop Ghadafi from doing just that. If I recall, there is also a rule against using people as human shields. How's that working out for us?

I sense troll

So... Destroy what has lasted for thousands of years for lives that will either end in another battle, or in a few years.

Nothing is forever? Much less life, at least the ruins are a vision to our past, the lives of thousands who dwelled and built it. Yet now we are sacrificing it for the lives of hundreds who kill other people? It's tiring to hear these ad misercordia so much.

These people are as much innocent as we are, or even the rebels. Do you think they would really support Gadhaffi if they lived in Uzbekistan? If they hadn't enrolled, or had their minds swung to one side? What is the difference between a soldier and a rebel? May I tell you that in civil war, people are levied, it's not their choice, but it's kill people so they might live, or die.

You never lived through a civil war, have you? Me neither, but my parents did, my cousins did, my uncles did. And trust me, it's grayer than the sky when it's raining. To the folk who supported the revolution, the government was a threat, and they should stop messing with them. To those who supported the government, the rebels were nothing more than anarchists, comunists who wanted to **** things up and kill people.

What of those who didn't want anything to do? Their sons were levied by both sides, they were killed by both sides, they had to feed both sides, they had to leave both in their houses for shelter. For them, both sides were only murderers.

Now you understand, you may think Gadhaffi is a tyrant, and his soldiers could be nothing more than levied men, forced to fight, same with the rebels. Now tell me, how do you distinguish a man that fights for his life, with a man that fight for his life?

If you want to end it, kill Gadhaffi and his unrescuable crew. Not the sons and brothers of others.

~Jirisys ()

[Major Robert Dump]

You're not talking to someone who is a blind supporter of this war. I hate what we are doing in Libya, and it offends me that we are heeding the beck and call of the Arab League and they are barely lifting a finger to help, and are hyper-critical of everything we do as if they could do it so much better. It's retarded.

But war is war. He is hiding equipment and personnel inside an important structure with quite a history. Those personnel and equipment will be used to kill people, both guilty and innocent. The same could be said for the "rebels."

If this thing is destroyed its Ghadafis fault. But not taking the decisive measure of ending that equipment and personnel will result in the war prolonged and more people dying in the future. Hiding inside of structures/areas that are historically important to others is a key characteristic that the enemy is desperate but willing to use whatever means they can. Not attacking them there sets a poor precedent and they will continue to do similar things. The obvious exception to this is the use of human shields.

[jirisys]

You're not talking to someone who is a blind supporter of this war. I hate what we are doing in Libya, and it offends me that we are heeding the beck and call of the Arab League and they are barely lifting a finger to help, and are hyper-critical of everything we do as if they could do it so much better. It's retarded.

But war is war. He is hiding equipment and personnel inside an important structure with quite a history. Those personnel and equipment will be used to kill people, both guilty and innocent. The same could be said for the "rebels."

If this thing is destroyed its Ghadafis fault. But not taking the decisive measure of ending that equipment and personnel will result in the war prolonged and more people dying in the future. Hiding inside of structures/areas that are historically important to others is a key characteristic that the enemy is desperate but willing to use whatever means they can. Not attacking them there sets a poor precedent and they will continue to do similar things. The obvious exception to this is the use of human shields.

Aren't bombs really necessary? Why can't an assault team land? Why can't anyone do anything else but drop a bomb. Certainly firearms will make much less collateral damage than bombs.

~Jirisys ()

[Centurion1]

I don't want to waste my sides lives. And as an addendum no I do not consider the rebels guys on my side. I don't even apply the the enemy of my enemy clause. I apply the I don't give a crap clause. That being said I am going to minimize risk to my side while maximizing damage to theirs. I am not going to ask an assault team no matter how well trained to assault armor.