Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 27333435363738 LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,110 of 1125

Thread: Civil War in Libya

  1. #1081
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

    1) Arab Spring
    2) Islam
    3) Libya

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    P.S. I saw a great movie called Microphone, hosted by my professor of contemporary history of the Middle East, about the graffiti and music scene in Alexandria, called Microphone, highlighting exactly the kind of humiliation people underwent in Egypt. If you'd just see that film, I think we'd get at least some kind of insight in what exactly motivated the Arabs.
    Last edited by Hax; 02-17-2012 at 14:23.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  2. #1082
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

  3. #1083
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir View Post
    So, basically nothing's changed.

    Well, not not quite. Now there is a space where things might change, where as if we had done nothing the wholesale slaughter would just have gone on.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  4. #1084
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

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

  5. #1085
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion1 View Post
    all this showed me was [...the] european military complex is so pathetic it cannot even supply its own forces with munitions.
    This came as a shock/?

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

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  6. #1086
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Calling it islamic countries is just demography, just like east and west is
    Yeah, and everyone living there probably likes eating rice and kebab. That doesn't have to do anything with it, right?

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

  7. #1087
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    Yeah, and everyone living there probably likes eating rice and kebab. That doesn't have to do anything with it, right?

    If we define an "Islamic country" as having a majority of Muslims, would you call Turkey an Islamic country? How about Albania? Or Azerbaijan?
    If I call it arab-culture you are also upset

  8. #1088
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Did you even read my post?
    This space intentionally left blank.

  9. #1089
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Yes I did, why

  10. #1090
    Enlightened Despot Member Vladimir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In ur nun, causing a bloody schism!
    Posts
    7,906

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    If we define an "Islamic country" as having a majority of Muslims, would you call Turkey an Islamic country? How about Albania? Or Azerbaijan?
    Turkey is considered an Islamic country.


    Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
    How do you motivate your employees? Waterboarding, of course.
    Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
    Down with dried flowers!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  11. #1091

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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


  12. #1092
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Why? Because the majority of its population adheres to Islam?
    This space intentionally left blank.

  13. #1093
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    Why? Because the majority of its population adheres to Islam?
    More because it has a culture heavily influenced by Islam, with a veneer of secularism on top.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  14. #1094

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    Well, not not quite. Now there is a space where things might change, where as if we had done nothing the wholesale slaughter would just have gone on.
    How many times must the same tired propaganda be corrected in the same thread?

    There was no wholesale slaughter going on in Libya.

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

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

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

    Everything we were told about what was going on in Libya was part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign meant to garner Western public sympathy and support for intervention. It was all lies.

    (My apologies for the rough pdf conversions.)

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

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

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

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

    The consequence of this misinformation is clear; the UN resolution 1973 was voted in, on the basis of this misinformation from the press, and without any commission of enquiry first investigating the facts. It is no exaggeration to say that Al Jazeera created the ‘event’ that influenced the UN. The media hype around this situation is astonishingly similar to what happened in the Balkans in 1991, to the detriment of Serbia.
    You and Viking seem to be content in the knowledge that we have traded one bad situation for another, slaughter for slaughter, but things might get better. Apart from the rather disturbing lack of concern for the fact that we now share responsibility for the slaughter, the equivalence is false. Gaddafi was not a very nice man, but there was no wholesale torture and slaughter going on in Libya before or during the protests. There were certainly a small number of political prisoners held and abused, but the idea that the average Libyan was in daily peril from a vicious regime is farcical. In fact, things were changing for the better in Libya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    At the end the representatives of the TNC like those in the government in Tripoli gave us a number of documents and videos, these claiming to be attacks on demonstrations by the forces of law and order. Since no document was properly referenced as to its source, it is impossible to examine them objectively.
    The entire narrative was a complete fabrication. There were no wholesales slaughters, no mercenaries brought in to kill civilians, no fighter jets and helicopters used against them, no mass rapes and executions. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that violence against protesters was very small and limited to independent police actions out of the control of the government by officers in fear of their lives. There is significant evidence that throughout the conflict the Gaddafi regime tried to diffuse the situation and placate the protestors. The regime had the means to actually engage in wholesale slaughter and held back, only engaging armed resistors.

    4. THE EVENTS

    The Uprising

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Events in the East

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Events in the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    First Lessons

    The Libyan ‘revolution’ is therefore not a peaceful uprising. The movement did not start in the capital and does not have any socio economic basis. Its epicentre is situated in the East of the country, in Cyrenaica, a region traditionally opposed to the central power. The movement quickly became an armed insurgency.
    There is also growing evidence that, unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the Libyan rebels sought from the begining to sieze armories and engage in open combat with the government. This was not a legitimate protest movement as was portrayed in the media, but an open rebellion from the start.

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

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

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

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

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

  15. #1095
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
    How many times must the same tired propaganda be corrected in the same thread?

    There was no wholesale slaughter going on in Libya.
    No, but there is in Syria and Gadaffi was working up to it. Certainly, he had started employing snipers and mercs to incite terror.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  16. #1096

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    No, but there is in Syria and Gadaffi was working up to it. Certainly, he had started employing snipers and mercs to incite terror.
    Certainly? What you claim is hardly certain, and, in fact, runs contrary to what has been reported by independent sources on the ground. Even after the fall of Tripoli and the capture of government and military buildings, no evidence has emerged that Gaddafi ordered the killing of any protestors or civilians. The only verifiable deaths of protestors came at the hands of local police, many of them acting in self defense.

    What you're repeating is most likely based on reports such as this.

    "What we have are reliable and consistent reports of children being among the people targeted by snipers in Misrata," UNICEF spokeswoman Marixie Mercado told reporters in Geneva.
    Terrible stuff, if true. You'll note in the very next paragraph, UNICEF (a branch of the very same organization that authorized military intervention based on a complete fabrication) gave itself an excuse to say pretty much whatever it wanted.

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

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

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

  17. #1097
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

    Sucks
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  18. #1098
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

  19. #1099
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec View Post
    PJ, if it was known that the reports of violence in Libya were exagerated or fabricated, why did Russia and China agree to let the UNSC resolution pass?
    Because especially China has a shitload of dollars, and Gaddafi wanted to switch to gold. Bad for the dollar, bad for the euro.

  20. #1100

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec View Post
    PJ, if it was known that the reports of violence in Libya were exagerated or fabricated, why did Russia and China agree to let the UNSC resolution pass?
    As was recently made clear in regard to the Syrian situation, Russia and China act in the same manner as the other members of the council; that is to say, they act in their best interests and not with what could honestly be considered altruistic intentions. Put simply, a case was made that those interests would be better served in a world without Gaddafi.

  21. #1101
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

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

    The reason radical Islam is taking hold post Arab spring is becuase radical islam is the only organized group between Tunisa and Pakistan
    In my opinion, that's a bit of an unfair view of the Muslim Brotherhood. They're definitely Islamists, but they're not radicals.
    Last edited by Hax; 02-18-2012 at 12:37.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  22. #1102
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

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



    In my opinion, that's a bit of an unfair view of the Muslim Brotherhood. They're definitely Islamists, but they're not radicals.
    What does it matter? You are being counterproductive by being so sensitive about a mere word. Maybe we should reinvent a new word to say the exact same thing? Maybe 'cooking differently', or 'face-hiding' or 'facial hear enthousiasts m/v'. Would that please you

  23. #1103
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    No, you're being misleading. Talk about Arabs when you mean Arabs, talk about Islamists when you mean Islamists.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  24. #1104
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    No, you're being misleading. Talk about Arabs when you mean Arabs, talk about Islamists when you mean Islamists.
    When I call it either you will bring up the other, I can at least have the absolute certainty it's neither at all time I guess. But there is still something deeply wrong in the muslim world. I can understand why you are being so defensive mind you, not all critisism is fair. But then again a lot actually is.

  25. #1105
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
    I don't mean to relativate everything, but what is Islam? Turkish Islam is not at all the same as Egytian Islam, for example. You have to be very careful in slapping this "Islamic" label on something, because it kinda implies that Islam is the major factor when it comes to internal affairs. The AKP party is trying to do that right now, but Turkey is still a staunchly secular nation right now. That's also why I mentioned Albania and Azerbaijan. Would you call them Islamic countries?
    Is Turkey a "staunchly secular" nation? The reports we have been getting the past few years indicate that there is a gulf of opinion between the Ataturkist elite and the large rural population, who are far more traitional in their views. The reason they had a ban on Islamic headscarves is because they have a large segment of the population who think women should be forced to wear them. Turkey may be more secular than other Eastern nations but Christians and Jews are still treated badly and only a paltry few denominations are recognised under law and given protection. The fact is, Turkey is a rather more totalitarian regime than France (its model) because it has to be to maintain the status quo.

    The thing is that bringing Islam into this is very misleading as the revolts had nothing to do with religion.
    Well, that depends on whether you call Britain a "Christian Country", or even Norway. We may have a vague grip on our religion at best but in times of national tragedy we still flock to our churches and the historical context is what infuses our public life. Islam is not Christianity, so it follows that even a "post" Islamic country will have more in common with an "islamic" one than a "post Christian" one.

    In my opinion, that's a bit of an unfair view of the Muslim Brotherhood. They're definitely Islamists, but they're not radicals.
    The question is whether they are for demoncracy for its own sake or to create an Islamic state. These aren't German Christian Democrats either.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  26. #1106
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
    As was recently made clear in regard to the Syrian situation, Russia and China act in the same manner as the other members of the council; that is to say, they act in their best interests and not with what could honestly be considered altruistic intentions. Put simply, a case was made that those interests would be better served in a world without Gaddafi.
    If they wanted Ghadaffi gone, they would simply have voted along with the USA, France etc. Futhermore they wouldn't have criticized the other countries for aiding the rebels so much - because that does nothing to increase their popularity with the new Libyan leaders.

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

  27. #1107
    Hǫrðar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,449

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
    Do you mind explaining what you mean by that?
    At no point does it give more blood on your hands if it turns out that an intervention made no difference in a certain area. That's a completely absurd statement to make. And that's ignoring that the ties to the government of the current torturers are vague at best, and that torture's position in a near-future Libya is largely unknown.


    Quote Originally Posted by Fragony View Post
    You forgot ethnic cleansing, foreign militias and various tribes acting independently killing randomly. All the experts who don't get asked by the -still high on their own invention called the arab spring- quality media warned this would happen
    I forgot nothing at all, you are setting up strawmen. I suggest that you read what you quoted again.


    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
    [...] Viking seem to be content [...]
    But is not at all. What I am content about, is that a dictatorship has been toppled by a popular armed revolt, much thanks to NATO's help. That's mission success.

    Regarding massacres or not (and killing of civillians), one can make a case for them; but since this had nothing to do my decision to support the intervention, I cannot be bothered.
    Last edited by Viking; 02-18-2012 at 18:34.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  28. #1108

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

  29. #1109

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

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

    It seems much more plausible that they, too, believed that widespread reprisals against civilians were imminent and that they allowed the resolution to pass furthermore because they didn't have significant interests in keeping friendly relations with Ghadaffi.
    Russia and China did not want Gaddafi gone. Considering the fact that their official positions were against intervention, I'm not sure how plausible it is that they believed or cared that civilian reprisals were imminent. Russia and especially China have a long history of absention. It can be interpreted as principled opposition and practical acquiescence, due to an interest in avoiding a diplomatic row, geopolitical horse trading, avoiding public outcry, or some combination of the three. A concern for human rights does not factor into that equation. Considering both nations had not insignificant interests in Libya, I would hazard a guess that assurances were made that they would be put in a better position after Gaddafi's ouster. Remember that what is said and done in public often has very little to do with the actual motivations of the council members.

    I would be extremely skeptical of the notion that Putin's Russia and a nation with China's human rights record felt genuine compassion for the Libyan people and an urgent need to avoid imminent slaughter. Instead, it is far more plausible that they calculated that allowing the Western coalition a free hand would benefit them in some way or at least avoid world condemnation, a calculation they clearly did not make in the Syrian situation.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Viking
    At no point does it give more blood on your hands if it turns out that an intervention made no difference in a certain area. That's a completely absurd statement to make. And that's ignoring that the ties to the government of the current torturers are vague at best, and that torture's position in a near-future Libya is largely unknown.
    We must have very different conceptions of what responsibility entails. I would submit that the Gadaffi regime was actually moderating and that the level of violence, especially towards non-political and immigrant communities, was nothing like what has been documented by human rights groups in today's Libya. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the level of violence before and after the intervention is exactly the same - that we traded torture for torture, that no real difference was made.

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

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

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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Noncommunist
    Where are you getting your sources?
    Formatting those PDF copy/pastes was so tedious, and no one even read them.

  30. #1110
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,418

    Default Re: Civil War in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
    Formatting those PDF copy/pastes was so tedious, and no one even read them.
    I read them, even though I didn't comment.

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

Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 27333435363738 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO