Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by FarangRed

I think it's about time we had a revolution or what ever you wanna call it in England, who would be the rebels?

The OAP's, can you imaging a street load of schizophrenics being kettled. There would be mass deaths, full colostomy bags being thrown, WW1 and WW2 medals being brandished, and the Met Police wading in with truncheons, water cannons and attack dogs.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Wow! Koman, like many, you've been sold a bill of goods. False goodness and light.

Sorry Surin, you usually do better than this......what in the world did I say that suggested any goodness and light on anybody's part., or that I had been "sold" anything?

I'm attempting to face up to the hard realities of the world, not blather on about some backwoods star gazing version of it. Seems some of us TD'ers prefer to listen and believe the rantings of the Colonel....well good luck with that version of the story.....

The same people firmly believe than anything "the west" does or says is just plain wrong and steeped in conspiracy.....and whatever the rest of the world does or says is all about truth and justice.....and you think I've been sold a bill of goods.....give me a break FFS.... I've listened to Gadaffi's "speeches"?? They remind me a lot of Saddam's "information minister".... he was a real winner too....

[quote=OhOh;1710393]Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

The Odyssey Dawn top 10
Pepe Escobar

"War is peace. Protesters are now off-camera, missile diplomacy is on camera. Packaged in moral uprightness, Tomahawks, Typhoons, Tornados, Rafales, Mirages, B-2s and F-18s - not to mention sexy European Storm Shadow cruise missiles and possible guest star the F-22 Raptor radar-evading stealth jet - now speak the language of democracy. These "military assets", displaying their "unique capabilities", are now "protecting the Libyan people". Run for cover - or become collateral damage.


Seems to have some kind of phobia about quality weapons systems. and a failure to understand that "peace" at any cost is not an attractive option for many people in countries that are ruled by lunatics. Is this actually intended to be a position taken against the western intervention to prevent a lunatic regime from slaughtering a great many people ("we will show no mercy"---Gadaffi's words broadcast to the world) or just another anti American rant??

Originally Posted by FarangRed

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

OK Mr Arab league military fucking genius.....how do you "protect" civilians who are under attack from the air and ground without first degrading the capacity of the forces that are attacking....under a "no mercy" order from their illustrious leader?

You may have noticed that it was these "civilians" that were screaming for help from us just a short time ago.....(that's some of them dancing and shooting their guns into the air on top of the tanks and missile launchers we hit)......so here we are, helping out as requested....and you'r still bitching ....

You A-rabs really are an ungrateful bunch of assholes.......and you don't really know what you want, do you??...

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by FarangRed

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

OK Mr Arab league military fucking genius.....how do you "protect" civilians who are under attack from the air and ground without first degrading the capacity of the forces that are attacking....under a "no mercy" order from their illustrious leader?

You may have noticed that it was these "civilians" that were screaming for help from us just a short time ago.....(that's some of them dancing and shooting their guns into the air on top of the tanks and missile launchers we hit)......so here we are, helping out as requested....and you'r still bitching ....

You A-rabs really are an ungrateful bunch of assholes.......and you don't really know what you want, do you??...

So the tanks and APC's and pick-ups that were taken out by the French air force appeared to be in the desert. Some reports suggest they were inside Benghazi. How do they manage be in two places at once.

Some of the tanks appear to be on transporters, were they advancing to attack the "civilians" or being taken back as part of the Libyan ceasefire?

The "civilians" in the photographs look more like the photos we normally see, Iraq Afghanistan etc., of "terrorists".

Should not the "crusader" forces attack these breakers of the ceasefire and the resolution?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Frankly Koman, I don't give a shit whether they whack Gaddafi or not. But I'd appreciate it if the Security Council, The Pentagon, UK's Ministry of Defence, et al, would stop insulting my intelligence by pretending to be fighting to protect the Libyan people, not to mention the fact they were given greenlights for a "no fly zone" not the bombing of Baghdad all over again. If you really believe that "we" are doing this to protect Libya's long suffering population then you need to go back to Kansas and finish high school.

And contrary to what is emanating from officialdom, they ain't just going to be there a couple of weeks. Ghaddafi shows no signs of backing down. The conflict will escalate....blah, blah. Hypothetically, one could see the obvious long-term involvement, including ground forces and the expected coalition occupation. Just another neo-colony in the works.

Legal advice on Libya mission in full - politics.co.uk

"HM government's note on legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets
21 March 2011
Following the prime minister's statement to the House on March 18th, this note sets out the government's view on the legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military assets to Libya.
Under the Charter of the United Nations the Security Council is the organ conferred with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In carrying out its duties the Security Council acts on behalf of Member States of the United Nations, who agree to accept and carry out its decisions in accordance with the Charter. Among the specific powers granted to the Security Council are those provided in Chapter VII of the Charter which is concerned with action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) of 17 March 2011 is annexed to this document.
In this resolution the Security Council has determined that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The Security Council has adopted the resolution as a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which provides for such action by air, sea and land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Provision for a No Fly Zone is provided for by operative paragraphs 6 to 12 of the resolution. Operative paragraph 8 authorises Member States that have notified the UN Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements to take all necessary measures to enforce the ban on flights established by operative paragraph 6.
Operative paragraph 4 of the resolution also authorises Member States making the notifications so provided, and acting in co-operation with the UN Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.
Operative paragraph 13 of the resolution, in substituting a replacement operative paragraph 11 in resolution 1970 (2011), further authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out inspections aimed at the enforcement of the arms embargo established by that earlier resolution.
The Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives."

Note the terms in yellow.

"the resolution also authorises Member States making the notifications so provided, and acting in co-operation with the UN Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi"


Member States are not allowed to attack civilians or civilian populated areas. The US, UK and French forces are by their own admission currently doing this and therefore are open to charges of crimes against humanity and being tried at the ICC.

Bangkok Post : Medvedev rebukes Putin over Libya

Medvedev rebukes Putin over Libya

• Published: 21/03/2011 at 11:32 PM
• Online news:

President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday rebuked Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for comparing the West's military action in Libya to a medaeival crusade, in the most public clash yet between Russia's rulers.

Putin earlier Monday slammed a UN resolution allowing military action on Libya as resembling a "medieval call to crusade", in one of his most virulent diatribes against the West in years.

In a hastily-convened briefing at his Gorky residence outside Moscow, Medvedev, wearing a bomber jacket emblazoned with the presidential insignia, openly contradicted Putin and said he largely supported the resolution.

With a grim expression on his face Medvedev added that using words such as "crusade'' _- expeditions by armies in the Middle Ages to end Muslim rule over the holy land _- in reference to a Muslim country was unacceptable.

"Under no circumstances is it acceptable to use expressions which essentially lead to a clash of civilisations. Such as 'crusade' and so on,'' Medvedev said.

"It is unacceptable. Otherwise, everything may end up much worse compared to what's going on now. Everyone should remember that,'' Medvedev said.

He gave his qualified backing to the UN resolution on Libya, in remarks that are likely to further endear him to the West in the run-up to presidential polls in 2012.

Russia refrained from using its veto on the resolution and instead abstained, a position that allowed the resolution to be passed.

"I do not believe this resolution to be wrong. I believe that this resolution also reflects on the whole our understanding of the events happening in Libya,'' Medvedev said.

"But not in everything. That's why we did not use our veto right, it was a qualified refusal to veto, with rather clear consequences.''

"We have done it consciously, those were my instructions to the foreign ministry and they have been implemented.''

Medvedev said it had to be remembered that what was happening in Libya is "the result of the appalling behavior of the Libyan leadership and the crimes it committed against its own people''.

The comments directly contradicted Putin, who had described the entire resolution as "flawed''.

"The resolution by the Security Council, of course, is defective and flawed,'' Putin told workers on a visit to a missile factory in the central Russian region of Udmurtia.

"To me, it resembles some sort of medieval call to crusade when someone would appeal to someone to go to a certain place and free something there,'' he said in televised remarks.

Medvedev took over the Kremlin in 2008 after Putin served two four-year terms as president, with Putin immediately becoming a powerful prime minister.

Russia is heading for presidential elections in 2012 and neither 57-year-old Putin nor his 44-year-old protege Medvedev ruled out standing but they have said they would agree who would run to avoid competing with each other.

Analysts say that may not be easy as Medvedev has acquired a taste for power and Putin may be planning to return to the Kremlin for a third term.

Until now the two men have steered clear of clashes in public, preferring to sweep most conflicts and differences in opinion under the carpet and Monday's clash was the most visible yet.

Observers have long speculated that Washington favours Medvedev over Putin and the Kremlin chief's support for the UN resolution may earn him further political capital in the West, while Putin's belligerent rhetoric is expected to go down well with ordinary Russians.

Some recent reports suggested that US Vice President Joe Biden would warn Putin against considering a return to the Kremlin in 2012 polls, on his visit to Russia earlier this month.

Originally Posted by FarangRed

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who supported the UN resolution, on Sunday criticised the severity of the bombardment.


Amr Moussa reiterated concerns about the safety of civilians and dismissed suggestions of disunity

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

Its a shame the Arab League with all their billions spent didn't take on the job of protecting the 'no fly zone' and the African Union could have secured Lybia's borders to stop overland supplies of ordanance and mercinaries. All supported by UN member states and Nato when requested.

Originally Posted by Bower

Originally Posted by FarangRed

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who supported the UN resolution, on Sunday criticised the severity of the bombardment.


Amr Moussa reiterated concerns about the safety of civilians and dismissed suggestions of disunity

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

Its a shame the Arab League with all their billions spent didn't take on the job of protecting the 'no fly zone' and the African Union could have secured Lybia's borders to stop overland supplies of ordanance and mercinaries. All supported by UN member states and Nato when requested.

But they don't agree with the war at all. Some, on the surface, are talking the talk but their experience of the "crusaders" does not lead them to trust them as far as they can throw them.

A few thousand "civilians" so what.

How many people die in hotel suicides in thailand each year, how many die on the roads?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Frankly Koman, I don't give a shit whether they whack Gaddafi or not. But I'd appreciate it if the Security Council, The Pentagon, UK's Ministry of Defence, et al, would stop insulting my intelligence by pretending to be fighting to protect the Libyan people, not to mention the fact they were given greenlights for a "no fly zone" not the bombing of Baghdad all over again. If you really believe that "we" are doing this to protect Libya's long suffering population then you need to go back to Kansas and finish high school.

Ahhh, who gives a shit. Us Europeans need some new places to go to.

There is big money to be made. Gaddafi has to learn to share

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

In a hastily-convened briefing at his Gorky residence outside Moscow, Medvedev, wearing a bomber jacket emblazoned with the presidential insignia, openly contradicted Putin and said he largely supported the resolution.

.

nice cop, nasty cop - it's all just part of the ongoing Big Game

Originally Posted by Bower

Its a shame the Arab League with all their billions spent didn't take on the job of protecting the 'no fly zone' ...

but they've already got lots of oil

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by FarangRed

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

OK Mr Arab league military fucking genius.....how do you "protect" civilians who are under attack from the air and ground without first degrading the capacity of the forces that are attacking....under a "no mercy" order from their illustrious leader?

You may have noticed that it was these "civilians" that were screaming for help from us just a short time ago.....(that's some of them dancing and shooting their guns into the air on top of the tanks and missile launchers we hit)......so here we are, helping out as requested....and you'r still bitching ....

You A-rabs really are an ungrateful bunch of assholes.......and you don't really know what you want, do you??...

So the tanks and APC's and pick-ups that were taken out by the French air force appeared to be in the desert. Some reports suggest they were inside Benghazi. How do they manage be in two places at once.

Some of the tanks appear to be on transporters, were they advancing to attack the "civilians" or being taken back as part of the Libyan ceasefire?

The "civilians" in the photographs look more like the photos we normally see, Iraq Afghanistan etc., of "terrorists".

Should not the "crusader" forces attack these breakers of the ceasefire and the resolution?

You really have taken this "cursader" BS to heart.....

The UN resolution gives member states the mandate to "use all necessary means"

Now if I was a French Mirage pilot that would include tanks (on or off transporters)
(in the desert or not) They were part of Gadaffi's military machine.....disable them when the opportunity presents itself. I'm sure that if the Colonel told you that crows are normally white and that we have just been fooled into thinking they are black by western propaganda....some posters here would buy it....

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Frankly Koman, I don't give a shit whether they whack Gaddafi or not. But I'd appreciate it if the Security Council, The Pentagon, UK's Ministry of Defence, et al, would stop insulting my intelligence by pretending to be fighting to protect the Libyan people, not to mention the fact they were given greenlights for a "no fly zone" not the bombing of Baghdad all over again. If you really believe that "we" are doing this to protect Libya's long suffering population then you need to go back to Kansas and finish high school.

First off all, the whacking of Gadaffi is not central to the issue at all.....we just want him out of power. We don't really care where he goes...just go. It's not like we did'nt ask him...politely...many times.

The Security council, Pentagon et al are not trying to insult you. Pinky swear.
They are simply stating the protection of "civilians" as one of the core issues....but it is clearly not the only one.....we have to explain these things in simple terms that the readers of supermarket tabloids will understand. Complex geo-political matters don't sell.....protecting civilians (like sex) does sell.

As to the "no fly zone" issue. It was openly and widely stated by military and non-military spokesmen well before the UN vote....that in order to have an effective no fly zone, you have to disable those military assets that would make the zone too dangerous to operate in. That is what they appear to be doing.
If the civil war that was underway in Libya can be halted by disabling the regimes ability to fight....then we have in effect "protected civilians" It just depends on how you look at it.

It would have been much better for everyone if the Colonel had stepped down (like his counterparts in Tunis and Cairo) but that was not going to happen.....he is a "no mercy" kind of guy and has issued some pretty dire threats to his opponents (all those innocent civilians we keep hearing about) and to anyone who gives support or aid to them.

If the "west" had continued to dither and debate (as they frequently do) and no intervention was forthcoming......and tens of thousands of people ended up being slaughtered by Gadaffi's forces............then the very same people who are talking about "crusaders" and fretting over a few missile strikes, would be hyper- ventilating over the fact that the same "west" stood by and did nothing. It never fails...we (the west) are always in the wrong and the rest...however despicable they may be, always have the moral high ground.

Anyhow just for the record---I don't believe that this is simply about protecting the long suffering population of Libya and I'm not from Kansas, but I did finish high school....

looks like we never learn from our mistakes,

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, we seem to be looking for a perpetual state of war

are we trying to escape something bigger ?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Frankly Koman, I don't give a shit whether they whack Gaddafi or not. But I'd appreciate it if the Security Council, The Pentagon, UK's Ministry of Defence, et al, would stop insulting my intelligence by pretending to be fighting to protect the Libyan people, not to mention the fact they were given greenlights for a "no fly zone" not the bombing of Baghdad all over again. If you really believe that "we" are doing this to protect Libya's long suffering population then you need to go back to Kansas and finish high school.

So now the UN and the Arab league is in on the conspiracy ?

No UN "approval" was every anti iraq war protesters claim to fame, but when the UN goes against the conspiracy agenda, they become part of it.

Just like Wikileaks. When wikileaks didn't dig up a shred of 9/11 inside job evidence, wiki became a part of the conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Frankly Koman, I don't give a shit whether they whack Gaddafi or not. But I'd appreciate it if the Security Council, The Pentagon, UK's Ministry of Defence, et al, would stop insulting my intelligence by pretending to be fighting to protect the Libyan people, not to mention the fact they were given greenlights for a "no fly zone" not the bombing of Baghdad all over again. If you really believe that "we" are doing this to protect Libya's long suffering population then you need to go back to Kansas and finish high school.

why do you think it is so obvious that its nothing to do with humanitarian ?

Imagine you where a world leader and you knew thousands of people where about to be slaughtered by fighter jets ?

I think it is strategic and humanitarian and we never know how much weight one reason carries over the other.

kosovo had no oil.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

looks like we never learn from our mistakes,

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, we seem to be looking for a perpetual state of war

are we trying to escape something bigger ?

Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union won that.

Just like the war in Afganistan in the 80's was also a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union and the US won that.

I would say there is always big things at play,