Civil War in Libya

[Rahwana]

Are you serious.....?

Rhy: "emirate" is because they want a return of the monarchy. "islamic" is because they want to distance themselves from Ghaddafi's policies, ie. his weird version of political islam.

I admit that Khaddafi had a weird mix of political Islam, but he was the head of the country nonetheless, and his subjects are obliged to obey his rule, or change through democratic or bueraucratic means. Trying to undermine his regime, no matter morally right or wrong is a rebellion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The fact that the protestors have dubbed their new state "The Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" isn't exactly encouraging.

Also, it sounds like the conflict in Libya is more complicated than in Egypt, it seems Libya is less of a coherent nation state, and tribalism has as much to do with deciding loyalties as political ideology does.

If you think about it, Libya meets none of the preconditions for making a healthy democracy (little economic development, no civil society to speak of, etc), so I wouldn't get too optimistic. Likewise for Bahrain.

Egypt and Tunisia on the other hand look much more promising...

I think this is a fair assessment as far as it goes, American enthusiasm notwithstanding, it is unlikely that Libys will produce a stable democracy in the short term. The best we can hope for I would think is a monarchistic/oligiastic state which keeps a lighter hand on the plebs and gives them forums to air their grievences.

however, there is the additional problem that as Gaddafi seems to embody the worst of Tiberius and Nero there is an extreme shortage of capable statesmen to create such a settlement. So we could have another Somalia on our hands, or Libya could fracture into petty-states that eventually get swallowed up by their neighbours.

I admit that Khaddafi had a weird mix of political Islam, but he was the head of the country nonetheless, and his subjects are obliged to obey his rule, or change through democratic or bueraucratic means. Trying to undermine his regime, no matter morally right or wrong is a rebellion.

Basic Greek, Christian and Islamic political theory says that a ruler is only legitimate so long as he is tollerated by his people. A ruler who has lost the support of his people as Gaddafi has no longer has temporal or spiritual authority.

As they say, "Even God has abandoned him".

[Furunculus]

I admit that Khaddafi had a weird mix of political Islam, but he was the head of the country nonetheless, and his subjects are obliged to obey his rule, or change through democratic or bueraucratic means. Trying to undermine his regime, no matter morally right or wrong is a rebellion.

if he is not deemed to be representative and accountable to his people then his rule is not legitimate.

open season, no duty of loyalty owed.

[Hax]

The fact that the protestors have dubbed their new state "The Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" isn't exactly encouraging.

Is there actually any proof for this? Wasn't it Seif al-Islam Ghaddafi that mentioned it for the first time? Wasn't it based on rumours? Didn't the Italian minister of Foreign Affairs pick up on it?

I saw references to this "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" a couple of days back on al-Jazeera, but they were just re-broadcasting the Italian state television. Is it based on rumours? Propaganda? Because you know how Ghaddafi would try to get his support from the west? By pretending there's an Islamic state on the rise. The results when I google "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" on Google News:

In his third address to the nation in five days, Colonel Gaddafi said al-Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden wanted to establish "an Islamic emirate" in Libya. "No sane person" would be part of the battle for Az Zawiyah, he said. While his first address was...

Besides Benghazi, Cyrenaica, Derna, Bayda and Misurata are believed to have fallen to the opposition. On Wednesday Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Khaim told EU ambassadors that members of the al-Qaida terror outfit had set up an Islamic emirate ...

He said there was "an urgent need" for "national reconciliation," underlining he was "extremely concerned about the self-proclamation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Benghazi. "This would be a really serious threat," he said. ...

But then, one post later:

For his part, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Khaim said Al-Qaeda had set up an Islamic emirate in Derna, between Tobruk and Benghazi, headed by a former Guantanamo Bay inmate. But residents in the city told reporters there was no substance to the reports, which they said the Libyan government was sowing to “scare Europe.”

Aaah...no wonder people are so afraid. Come on, look at the posts here: "Well, if there is an Islamic theocracy/emirate/whatever on the rise, maybe Gaddafi isn't so bad after all. To think that we're supposed to be the greatest proponents of democracy in the world. It's embarassing.

EDIT: Ah, the only news source that tries to tell the contrary is "Front Page Magazine". You know, headed by David Horowitz. In the same page, there's an ad calling for Americans to "help us stop Obama's horrendous transformation of America". So yeah. In their defense though, they didn't say so much about the horrendous rising Libyan-born Islamo-fascist caliphate of doom, but rather about the fact that a rebel group had seized a large stash of weapons. Which is a different story.

As for the ex-Guantanamo detainee who's supposed to be heading this "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" stated:

"I am, Abdul Hakeem Al Hasadi, a Libyan citizen and a former political prisoner. I would like to read the following statement in response to lies made by Dictator Gaddafi and his propaganda machine. I tell them that I am one of the participants in the revolution of Feb 17th along with the youth and people of Derna against the corrupt regime of Gaddafi.

"Gaddafi is trying to divide the people of the nation. He claims that there is an Islamist Emirate in Derna and that I am its Emir. He is taking advantage from the fact that I am a former political prisoner."

And then this:

If you think about it, Libya meets none of the preconditions for making a healthy democracy (little economic development, no civil society to speak of, etc), so I wouldn't get too optimistic. Likewise for Bahrain.

Uhuh. Bahrain, the Arab world's fastest growing economy. We're talking about Bahrain, not Somalia. Where did you get your information from again? As for civil society, I'll just quote this little thing:

Bahrain is sometimes described as "Middle East lite" because it combines modern infrastructure with a Persian Gulf identity and, unlike other countries in the region, its prosperity is not solely a reflection of the size of its oil wealth, but is also related to the creation of an indigenous middle class. This unique socioeconomic development in the Persian Gulf has meant that Bahrain is generally more liberal than its neighbours. While Islam is the main religion, Bahrainis have been known for their tolerance, and churches, Hindu temples, Sikh Gurdwara and a Jewish synagogue can be found alongside mosques. The country is home to several communities that have faced persecution elsewhere.

Absolutely no traces of civil society, obviously.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calm yourself Hax, all I said regarding the "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" is what I heard, I didn't claim it was absolutely correct, my post had a pretty cautious tone.

It makes sense what you are saying about Gaddafi spinning things that way, given his rants about the role of Al Qaeda in the uprisings. I noticed the very naming of it "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" was unusual given the role of the apparently more secular young generation in the protests, especially when that pattern for naming a state is (IIRC, from one thread on TWC), the one used by fringe Al Qaeda related groups, eg there is one called the "Islamic Emirate of Gaza" that had a shootout with Hamas, and some Al-Shabab factions believe call their territory the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia". So... idk, never claimed to know either.

As for Bahrain, I stand by what I said. You were somewhat selective in what you quoted from wikipedia, immediately below it notes that there is no recognition for womens or LGBT rights. As for the apparent diversity, that is due to guestworkers, it is typical of oil right states and doesn't prove anything, since they are pretty separate from the general population. Likewise, the existence of religious minorites doesn't really prove anything, Jews still managed not to get pogromed in Iran, doesn't make it a nice regime. And significantly, there are obvious sectarian overtones to the protests, with a Shia population and Sunni rulers...

[Hax]

As for Bahrain, I stand by what I said. You were somewhat selective in what you quoted from wikipedia, immediately below it notes that there is no recognition for womens or LGBT rights.

Are you kidding me? It started to move to improve the situation of women back in 2002 and very openly at that. It's not perfect, but what the hell, it's still the Arab world. Same goes for LGBT rights. Or do you suppose that women and gays are exactly loved in Egypt or Tunisia? No, they're not. Not right now. But that might improve, and democracy might be the best way to get that to improve.

Calm yourself Hax, all I said regarding the "Islamic Emirate of Benghazi" is what I heard, I didn't claim it was absolutely correct, my post had a pretty cautious tone.

Not really. You said "the fact that the protesters have dubbed (etc)". No, they didn't. You thought they did, they didn't, but you posted it as fact. If your post had truly been cautious you'd have taken more care in your wording, or that's what I would have done at least.

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really. You said "the fact that the protesters have dubbed (etc)". No, they didn't. You thought they did, they didn't, but you posted it as fact. If your post had truly been cautious you'd have taken more care in your wording, or that's what I would have done at least.

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

Well, I think it's partly wanting to see the Arab/Islamic powers as crippled as possible, and partly a need to resist our natural inclination to send in the paratroopers to "restore order".

Personally, I think that the best that can be done by the West is to keep completely hands off, aside from freezing the assets of the governments and politicians in question until the end of the conflagurations. The Middle East is so much dry tinder waiting to burn, if we keep trying to use a fire extinguisher then the eventual inferno will be that much hotter. It's hot enough already, I think.

[Hax]

Personally, I think that the best that can be done by the West is to keep completely hands off,

People are being massacred. Hosni Mubarak didn't ask the air force to bomb Cairo. Ben Ali didn't order his armed forces to shoot protesters by the hundreds. I cannot believe how we can stand aside and pretend that it's in our best interest to do nothing. At least decide on a no-fly zone for Tripoli to prevent mercenaries from entering the country.

Is this how we spread democracy?

Well, I think it's partly wanting to see the Arab/Islamic powers as crippled as possible, and partly a need to resist our natural inclination to send in the paratroopers to "restore order".

Why do we want that? Arab now equates with Islamic? Since when? It didn't when Mubarak opened the Suez Canal for Israel or when Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel? Now is the time to turn our backs on the Arab world? We should've done that way earlier.

There's a great possibility for a democratic society to function for the first time ever in the Arab world and you prefer to see it as crippled as possible? Nice.

[rory_20_uk]

No fly zone seems like another great idea on paper.

Who is going to do it?
Who decides to take out the planes - and who deals with the situation when a civilian plane is downed by mistake?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are you kidding me? It started to move to improve the situation of women back in 2002 and very openly at that. It's not perfect, but what the hell, it's still the Arab world. Same goes for LGBT rights. Or do you suppose that women and gays are exactly loved in Egypt or Tunisia? No, they're not. Not right now. But that might improve, and democracy might be the best way to get that to improve.

Kind of my point in bold there, you can't have one standard for the Arab world and one for everyone else, either it has the roots for democracy or it doesn't. You know I don't get enraged about the Islam, Islamic states have every bit as much potential as Christian ones to become democratic. But you only need to read a history book to know that going that route is long and bloody, I don't see why the Arab world should be an exception. Often democratic movements will take on religious overtones, as they did in Britain with Protestantism for example. The same appears to be the case with the Shia protestors in Bahrain, and you have to accept there may well be a sectarian element to things that really limits the development of a liberal democracy as we understand it.

It will vary from country to country. In Egypt and Tunisia the protests have been very secular. Bahrain appears to have a sectarian element. Yemen appears to have a radical Islamist (most protestors I saw were burqa-clad women). Libya appears to have a tribal element, even if Gaddafi tried to foster it for his own ends.

So, things are complicated...

Not really. You said "the fact that the protesters have dubbed (etc)". No, they didn't. You thought they did, they didn't, but you posted it as fact. If your post had truly been cautious you'd have taken more care in your wording, or that's what I would have done at least.

Well, you can't put a disclaimer in front of everything you say, I think it is obvious I am relaying what the news reports say and not claiming to have some sort of unquestionable knowledge on the issue.

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

They are hardly being dramatic, news coverage I have seen has been very much in favour of the demonstrators. I think you're a bit paranoid when it comes to defending Islam, not every criticism of it is due to some sort of reactionary ignorance on the part of 'islamophobes'. It is a religion with a lot of historical baggage, as is Christianity, and it will have to come to terms with that. I think it will, its not like secular movements are anything novel in the Arab world, maybe democracy will be the next big thing after the failure of Arab nationalism...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

There are more north African Arabs in Europe than in Tunisia and Libya combined. Nothing prevents them from leaving Europe to help establish democracy in the Arab world.

All of them staying firmly put in cosy Europe, I'm not sure how one would berate the rest of Europe for inaction.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

As for the politicians - they did help! Sarkozy and Alliot-Marie helped, they offered their staunch support to the last to...Ben Ali.

American diplomacy fared much better. Washington has supported its boy Mubarak for decades. Washington waited to see how events would unfold in Egypt, supporting their man in silence while publicly supporting the protesters. Then jumped ship at just the right moment. Well done to Miss Clinton, that's how diplomacy is done.

I would write how Berlusconi's boys are so busy with sex parties with underage hookers they are making a mess of supporting Italy's puppet Ghadaffi, but that's not so. Instead, Ghadaffi has used his petrodollars to make Italy his puppet. Therefore it ought to be Italians who should be protesting for democracy, who should demand an end to foreign meddling in their internal affairs. An end to Libyans propping up and buying Italian politicians. The going rate for Italian politicians is quite cheap.

[drone]

People are being massacred. Hosni Mubarak didn't ask the air force to bomb Cairo. Ben Ali didn't order his armed forces to shoot protesters by the hundreds. I cannot believe how we can stand aside and pretend that it's in our best interest to do nothing. At least decide on a no-fly zone for Tripoli to prevent mercenaries from entering the country.

Is this how we spread democracy?

This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped.

[Slyspy]

This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped.

My thoughts exactly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's gotta happen by the sheer force of the public, not with any help from any western democracies. Europe and the US have already ruined much of their credibility in being the "freedom" supporters. Hell anyone with an internet connection and access for forums like these would find out in 30 seconds that Mubarak and much of these brutal dictators are still backed by US and European interests secretly (as Louis pointed out) up until the moment they get shot in the streets.

Because we have played our hand by using dictators and kings as puppets, any involvement backing the rebellions going on across the arab world makes it too easy for the real threats (radical Islamic political factions/parties) to spin, propagandize and win over voters, securing control, making another Iran type situation in the middle east.

[Hax]

This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped.

Not at all. But for the love of God, just take a strong stance on what Gaddafi is doing to his people.

There are more north African Arabs in Europe than in Tunisia and Libya combined. Nothing prevents them from leaving Europe to help establish democracy in the Arab world.

All of them staying firmly put in cosy Europe, I'm not sure how one would berate the rest of Europe for inaction.

I was clearly talking about politicians, wasn't I?

Because we have played our hand by using dictators and kings as puppets, any involvement backing the rebellions going on across the arab world makes it too easy for the real threats (radical Islamic political factions/parties) to spin, propagandize and win over voters, securing control, making another Iran type situation in the middle east.

I'm not even talking about backing the protesters, but about at least condemning the murderers. Gaddafi is a criminal that ought to be judged in The Hague. Besides, Iran is an entirely different country with a different history. But for the record, there are very few citizens interested in another theocracy in their country. The chance that another Iran would be born is very slim.


And yet again, it all comes down on "but Islamists!". That's besides the point. If we truly, truly believe in democracy there ought to be some strong statements about what Gaddafi is doing, to hell with the consequences. There are principles we stand for here.

American diplomacy fared much better. Washington has supported its boy Mubarak for decades. Washington waited to see how events would unfold in Egypt, supporting their man in silence while publicly supporting the protesters. Then jumped ship at just the right moment. Well done to Miss Clinton, that's how diplomacy is done.

Yes, and that too is disgustful. Either say nothing, or condemn the government outright. And I'm talking about Mubarak and Ben Ali here, not about Gaddafi, the difference being, as I pointed out before, that Mubarak and Ben Ali didn't massacre the people of Egypt and Tunisia.

I think it ought to be clear that what Gaddafi is doing is inexcusable. I don't believe that anyone here disagrees with me. Well, maybe Sonic, but let's not talk about that.

Kind of my point in bold there, you can't have one standard for the Arab world and one for everyone else, either it has the roots for democracy or it doesn't. You know I don't get enraged about the Islam, Islamic states have every bit as much potential as Christian ones to become democratic. But you only need to read a history book to know that going that route is long and bloody, I don't see why the Arab world should be an exception. Often democratic movements will take on religious overtones, as they did in Britain with Protestantism for example. The same appears to be the case with the Shia protestors in Bahrain, and you have to accept there may well be a sectarian element to things that really limits the development of a liberal democracy as we understand it.

Yes, and you should just have to read a history book to find out that change is gradual. Of course we should stand for LGBT and women's rights. And the protests in Bahrain are not limited to the Shi'ite population, there are more people protesting than just them.

And speaking about Shi'ite theology, I don't think that Shi'a Islam is worse for a liberal democracy (as we understand it) than any other religion. In fact, Shi'ite states have historically been known to be more liberal than any other states. Of course, it might be reversed if they go the way of Iran. But I think it might just be worth it.

And even then, maybe we should accept the fact that our democracy may not be the only democracy. The question is whether it's worth it or not, and if we can talk with an Islamic democracy. And whether it's better for the people. I don't know either.

They are hardly being dramatic, news coverage I have seen has been very much in favour of the demonstrators. I think you're a bit paranoid when it comes to defending Islam, not every criticism of it is due to some sort of reactionary ignorance on the part of 'islamophobes'. It is a religion with a lot of historical baggage, as is Christianity, and it will have to come to terms with that. I think it will, its not like secular movements are anything novel in the Arab world, maybe democracy will be the next big thing after the failure of Arab nationalism...

If you ask me, there are loads of things we should criticise in Islam. I just don't think that we should redirect every proposal for a new government to the dustbin just because it may have Islamic undertones. I cannot disgree with the rest of what you said, though.

[drone]

People are being massacred. Hosni Mubarak didn't ask the air force to bomb Cairo. Ben Ali didn't order his armed forces to shoot protesters by the hundreds. I cannot believe how we can stand aside and pretend that it's in our best interest to do nothing. At least decide on a no-fly zone for Tripoli to prevent mercenaries from entering the country.

Is this how we spread democracy?

This sounds like a cry for the World Police. Something that rarely turns out as well as hoped.

Not at all. But for the love of God, just take a strong stance on what Gaddafi is doing to his people.

That's how it starts. Then a no-fly zone or blockade, and eventually you end up with Kosovo or Somalia.

A victory over Khadaffi without external influence is the best thing for Libya's people, not something handed to them. Which I have no doubt will eventually happen. I'm just happy that out of all the Middle East jokers, the US can't be blamed for keeping this particular madman in power.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not even talking about backing the protesters, but about at least condemning the murderers. Gaddafi is a criminal that ought to be judged in The Hague. Besides, Iran is an entirely different country with a different history. But for the record, there are very few citizens interested in another theocracy in their country. The chance that another Iran would be born is very slim.

And yet again, it all comes down on "but Islamists!". That's besides the point. If we truly, truly believe in democracy there ought to be some strong statements about what Gaddafi is doing, to hell with the consequences. There are principles we stand for here.

Man, I feel you. I wish we could just lock down the area to stop mercs from coming in, dropping supplies, food, maybe guns and ammo in protester controlled towns and hauling everyone in that government off to be tried in The Hauge.

I feel like I should go with you on this, you are probably one of the most knowledgeable people here about the arab world so I don't doubt you when you say that the public doesn't want a theocracy. But no one wants a budget deficit, and yet that's what we have because we keep electing people that ultimately just go down that path.

That last sentence of yours isn't so black and white. If you can get a democracy by just staying out of it or possibly ruining the democracy by going on a PR spree of "Libya loves democracy and American values of freedom!" I mean, you gotta make a choice and it isn't so clear. Our principles are freedom, liberty and democratic forms of government, you can easily say that the important thing is that those principles at the end of the day (year?) have been implemented or planted, ready to grow. Not that we said publicly we stand for them.

I enjoy your passion and your statements considering I dislike everyone who dismisses any sort of arab movement as the next opportunity for taliban 2.0. But we can't dismiss the fact that the threats are real. If you are really disconnected from the human aspect of revolutions, you can make the claim that any real revolution against tyranny has to be paid for with the public's blood. Cue someone bringing up the American revolution and that Thomas Jefferson quote about the blood of patriots.

[Hax]

I enjoy your passion

Heh, I actually surprised myself a couple of times this thread. I'm usually not so heated, but there's just something that triggered me.

nd your statements considering I dislike everyone who dismisses any sort of arab movement as the next opportunity for taliban 2.0. But we can't dismiss the fact that the threats are real. If you are really disconnected from the human aspect of revolutions, you can make the claim that any real revolution against tyranny has to be paid for with the public's blood. Cue someone bringing up the American revolution and that Thomas Jefferson quote about the blood of patriots.

Yeah, that's probably true. Although we're still living in a day and age where genocide isn't really awesome.

That last sentence of yours isn't so black and white. If you can get a democracy by just staying out of it or possibly ruining the democracy by going on a PR spree of "Libya loves democracy and American values of freedom!" I mean, you gotta make a choice and it isn't so clear. Our principles are freedom, liberty and democratic forms of government, you can easily say that the important thing is that those principles at the end of the day (year?) have been implemented or planted, ready to grow. Not that we said publicly we stand for them.

Yeah, I can see that. Good point.

That's how it starts. Then a no-fly zone or blockade, and eventually you end up with Kosovo or Somalia.

True. True. I should probably make some tea or something and relax.

[HoreTore]

I'm just getting sick of Europe doing nothing. I'm getting sick of people being so dramatic about anything related to Islam. Seriously people, is this cowardice or plain opportunism? I'm not talking about any members of the forums here, but about European politicians. It's a disgrace.

I can tell you about someone who does something: my sisters bf's famiy lives in Benghazi, and his family is rather rich... A couple of days after things heated up, his uncle went to egypt and bought AK47's and ammunition for 100.000USD, and distributed it among the population.

A rathere good picture of how determined the Libyan people is to get rid of Daffy, and that they have the resources to make it happen and fight him to the death.

[Cute Wolf]

day to day, those Daffy duckin Libya goes crazier and crazier, Americans need to send Bugs bunny to drag him out and make Libya free

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

True. True. I should probably make some tea or something and relax.

Well, you could do that or go fight as a merc. I think what you're missing Hax is that as far as we can see there is nothing to do. Even creating a no-fly zone will only prolong the war, as Gaddafi will be unable to fly in new mercs and his money will last longer.

The Swiss and British are freezing his assets as they find them, by the way.

[Samurai Waki]

Ten years ago, yeah, I could seen intervention as a possibility; but the fact remains, the US and NATO are tired of war, and I think it would be a hard sell to send American/European boys over to (potentially) die in another conflict that has very little to do with the security of Americans/Europeans. No matter which way you spin it, it would be a really hard sell.

[Cute Wolf]

Ten years ago, yeah, I could seen intervention as a possibility; but the fact remains, the US and NATO are tired of war, and I think it would be a hard sell to send American/European boys over to (potentially) die in another conflict that has very little to do with the security of Americans/Europeans. No matter which way you spin it, it would be a really hard sell.

hmm, the best intervention type?
I'll suggest the US to simply sent an ICBM loaded with nuclear warhead directly toward Khaddafi. No american live will be lost.(ohh, I'm a demon)

[Shaka_Khan]

There are more north African Arabs in Europe than in Tunisia and Libya combined.

Wow! I really didn't know that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well those two countries aren't exactly populous. Between them they have about as many inhabitants as the Netherlands. (~16M.)

[Fragony]

I share Haxie's frustration. Why don't people get that the political islam is really arab nationalism. It's as welcome as the inquisition. Keep a clear eye for sake.

[HoreTore]

Well, you could do that or go fight as a merc. I think what you're missing Hax is that as far as we can see there is nothing to do. Even creating a no-fly zone will only prolong the war, as Gaddafi will be unable to fly in new mercs and his money will last longer.

The Swiss and British are freezing his assets as they find them, by the way.

I'm with Philipvs here. I don't think the world needs to do much, I think the regime is finished. Moral support is probably all that is needed. Bombing an airfield could be nice though, the rebels currently does not have anything to counter his airforce.

But all in all, I cannot see him winning this. It's a question of when.

[PanzerJaeger]

But all in all, I cannot see him winning this. It's a question of when.

I can. We still do not have an accurate picture of how widespread the military defections have been. (Apparently they have not been complete as he still retains control of Tripoli.)

He has demonstrated that he is perfectly comfortable using the military against the people, and at least a portion of the military has complied with his orders. If he still enjoys the loyalty of a majority of the Libyan armed forces, or can supplement the losses to defection with mercenaries, then there is little protests can do against them.

At this point, he is probably weighing the costs (in defections) with the benefits (in deaths and destruction) of a more severe military crackdown, and assessing the loyalty of various military units. He is walking on a proverbial tight rope, but he still has options.

[Prince Cobra]

I can. We still do not have an accurate picture of how widespread the military defections have been. (Apparently they have not been complete as he still retains control of Tripoli.)

He has demonstrated that he is perfectly comfortable using the military against the people, and at least a portion of the military has complied with his orders. If he still enjoys the loyalty of a majority of the Libyan armed forces, or can supplement the losses to defection with mercenaries, then there is little protests can do against them.

At this point, he is probably weighing the costs (in defections) with the benefits (in deaths and destruction) of a more severe military crackdown, and assessing the loyalty of various military units. He is walking on a proverbial tight rope, but he still has options.

I don't think conventional military force (even a mercenary) can stand against a revolution. I doubt he has any authority amongst the tribal chiefs because of using foreign mercenaries and money to bribe support + his obvious weakness. The people obviously hate him and bombing them with airplanes did not change that. In the East the army already defected. It might be poorly armed but it is no way harmless. Within a week or two the only force Gadafi could rely on are the Chadian troops and the mercenaries. He is doomed IMHO. Unless he flees, he won't survive this revolution.

He ran out of options the moment he ordered his own army to bomb the Lybians and his own capital. Like any dictator after a long rule he lost any connection with the real life. What he did was simply a sign that he refused to accept his regime is doomed.

[Hax]

Well, you could do that or go fight as a merc. I think what you're missing Hax is that as far as we can see there is nothing to do. Even creating a no-fly zone will only prolong the war, as Gaddafi will be unable to fly in new mercs and his money will last longer.

The Swiss and British are freezing his assets as they find them, by the way.

That's about right, but as for fighting? That's a no-go, I'm non-violent. It's just frustrating.