The Libyan Crisis

**Butterfly** · 07-04-2011, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Talk about egg on the face

sabang, are you there ?

**OhOh** · 07-04-2011, 10:12 PM

The media is telling us it takes up to 8 hours for information to reach NATO control.

What has happened to the 24/7 global assets, to inform and control (C4), that the military have bought in the last ten years?

Was this just the US forces who have them or another shovel of Horse Shit.

On another NATO point

I once went to the NATO headquarters in Belgium to negotiate a change in use for some solutions I sold them. Very difficult to get in, lots of searches and paperwork. One colleague, an Irishman, was taken to one side and dealt with more severely, which he passed with his usual blarney.

We were taken through many guard posts and led passed the offices of the "high Command" lots of long titles and insignia. Good productive and lucrative meeting.

On the way to the lunch area more guard posts, unfortunately there appeared to be only one guard who was moved between the posts.

**Tom Sawyer** · 07-04-2011, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by Butterfly

oh FFS, every PR firms do this for every government in the world, including Sarko and Bush

it's ridiculous to make it a story,

Hill and Knowlton are the biggest and best known at doing government dirty work. The Kuwaiti girl in Gulf War One speaking publicly about babies being dragged from Kuwaiti incubators by invading Iraqis and left to die (to UN or US Senate - I forget) was suspected to be a set-up of H&K.

I'm copying my own reply to extend further down the queue and add the link to this - much of which is substantiated should any others (esp pro-right Americans) want to dispute it - beyond this link. As I've said before, anyone who thinks these things are just happening (Libya) now - cause it's coincidence need to give their heads a really HARD fucking shake.

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

**OhOh** · 07-04-2011, 10:26 PM

David Cameron's gift of war and racism, to them and us

A John Pilger Comment 6/4/11

"The Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the West’s response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new imperial rival, China.

President Barack Obama’s historical distinction is now guaranteed. He is America’s first black president to invade Africa. His assault on Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to secure the continent’s lucrative natural resources from Africa’s impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China’s principal source of oil. As American, British and French planes currently incinerate both “bad” and “good” Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by western officials and media that a “deranged and criminal Colonel Gaddafi” is planning “genocide” against his own people still await evidence. This is reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe. "

continues....

**Tom Sawyer** · 07-04-2011, 10:28 PM

^
Could be. Not sure - but maybe. In the final analysis it may be seen as the 21st century colonialsts - China vs America - and the poor Africans get f+cked yet again.. Still China's sucking-up has happened in East Africa if I'm not mistaken, but I take the above point about a "toe hold" for America for future conflict. Get in there - Med is best - then get ready to fight your way to the Gulf if required.

What a fucking world. Here's another link from a few years back that really sums it up the interest in Africa (china v US - then ask yourself why all the international aid money has since then been rediverted to Africa - I think you'll see why):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5714

**Mr Gribbs** · 08-04-2011, 12:40 AM

The Europeans are directly killing Libyans and causing a civil war in order to steal their oil, and not a peep from the average European. There are no huge protest in London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Lisbon, Dooblin, Athens, Berlin, etc. The Europeans must support it. Gadhafi financed Sarkozy run for president, then the Jew dwarf stabs him in the back like the sniveling little shit he is.

**OhOh** · 08-04-2011, 06:37 AM

Libya: more rebels killed in Nato air strikes - Telegraph

"In a sign of the fragility of rebel forces, the bombing stopped an opposition attempt to regroup outside the oil town of Brega, which has changed hands repeatedly in the course of the fighting.
Instead, many rebels retreated instantly and civilian inhabitants of the next major town Ajdabiya began fleeing to the relative safety of Benghazi out of fear that government forces were advancing.
"Why did this happen?" said one fighter, called Mohammad Muftar. "The rebels were not threatening any civilians, they were not firing at the planes, why did this happen?"
The strike was the second in a week to have hit the wrong side. The previous error, which occurred close to Thursday's incident, killed 13 people.
Fighters said that captured tanks had been marked under an agreement with Nato to prevent friendly fire accidents, but to no avail. According to one rebel, up to seven were killed and others seriously wounded, including one teenaged boy who lost both legs. Others gave different figures."

This, if true, implies that NATO has agreed not to attack the "Heavy" weapons of the ITNC army. It also implies that they were aware of the ITNC army having access to and utilising these "Heavy" weapons.

The source of these weapons is not given.

There are three alternatives:

1. They are weapons scavenged from the battle field - ex government assets
2. They are weapons taken from government stores and moved, with NATO knowledge, to threaten civilians and civilian populated areas
3. They are weapons supplied to the ITNC army across the porous land borders from outside countries. Reports of US/Qatari/Egyptian supplies have already been discussed. NATO again would have been aware of these weapons once inside Libya, or are they only "monitoring" Libyan Government forces?

NATO has been"economical with the truth", our "media" has not asked the correct questions or the "media" is not printing the truth.

Which is it?

This is in direct contravention of UNSC 1973 forbidding the arming of Libya.

Whoever signed this decision off, and anyone in NATO who was aware of this decision needs to answer the question and be asked to explain themselves not only in the UNSC but before the ICC.

This illegal murder must stop today, not when "our dave" returns from holiday.

How can he enjoy himself when people are dying because of his actions. How can his missus spend time with him knowing what he is doing.

The UK Prime Minister and his wife surrounded by minders, is on "holiday, while people are being murdered.

How can our politicians not call this murderous govenment to account.

**koman** · 08-04-2011, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

The media is telling us it takes up to 8 hours for information to reach NATO control.

It's because they always have to tell you first....you really should try to forward the information faster. We are so lucky here on TD...getting all this up to date and accurate reporting before NATO.....

**OhOh** · 08-04-2011, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by OhOh

The media is telling us it takes up to 8 hours for information to reach NATO control.

It's because they always have to tell you first....you really should try to forward the information faster. We are so lucky here on TD...getting all this up to date and accurate reporting before NATO.....

Originally Posted by OhOh

NATO has been"economical with the truth", our "media" has not asked the correct questions or the "media" is not printing the truth.

I believe there is an ignore button somewhere, if you find my posts offensive use it.

**OhOh** · 08-04-2011, 07:53 AM

NATO "Press Conference" video available at NATO tv site.

NATOchannel.tv - NATO's official online video channel

5 minute update, nothing said, no Press Q&A session.

**OhOh** · 08-04-2011, 04:32 PM

NATO have reiterated, today 8/4/11, that they will be attacking ANY forces attacking civilians or civilian populated areas.

They have defined this as : visibly attacking, guns or missiles pointing in the direction of or any forces moving towards these targets.

Reports state that the ITNC "heavy weapons" are from stocks held in Benghazi.

I am no geographer but Banghazi is hundreds of Km from Brega. Why did NATO not stop/attack these "heavy weapons" as soon as they left Benghazi?

With all the "aerial monitoring" assets did they not know of the movement or did they ignore the movement. If the latter who made this decision?

There are also confirmed reports of "arms", including anti tank missiles being supplied to the ITNC from Qatar.

Is the UNSC demanding the stoppage of this action as specified in resolution 1973 or has "someone" vetoed this.

Will NATO be attacking Qatar because of this blatant infringement of the resolution?

**Butterfly** · 08-04-2011, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

that they will be attacking ANY forces attacking civilians or civilian populated areas.

will they attack themselves then ?

**OhOh** · 08-04-2011, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by OhOh

that they will be attacking ANY forces attacking civilians or civilian populated areas.

will they attack themselves then ?

That would be insane you idiot

, however other UN members have the right to assist to stop the murder of civilians. NATO has admitted that they control the NATO assigned assets, but that there are "national" assets doing their own thing. Even one of NATO's "allies", Qatar, is reportedly arming one side of the civil war with impunity so far.

This leave an option for the Russians, Chinese, Germans, African Union or any disgruntled Arab league country to arm the other logically.

**Panda** · 08-04-2011, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by OhOh

that they will be attacking ANY forces attacking civilians or civilian populated areas.

will they attack themselves then ?

That would be insane you idiot

, however other UN members have the right to assist to stop the murder of civilians. NATO has admitted that they control the NATO assigned assets, but that there are "national" assets doing their own thing. Even one of NATO's "allies", Qatar, is reportedly arming one side of the civil war with impunity so far.

This leave an option for the Russians, Chinese, Germans, African Union or any disgruntled Arab league country to arm the other logically.

You mean ???? ---Its not all about protecting civilians then?

**Rural Surin** · 08-04-2011, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

^
Could be. Not sure - but maybe. In the final analysis it may be seen as the 21st century colonialsts - China vs America - and the poor Africans get f+cked yet again.. Still China's sucking-up has happened in East Africa if I'm not mistaken, but I take the above point about a "toe hold" for America for future conflict. Get in there - Med is best - then get ready to fight your way to the Gulf if required.

What a fucking world. Here's another link from a few years back that really sums it up the interest in Africa (china v US - then ask yourself why all the international aid money has since then been rediverted to Africa - I think you'll see why):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5714

Are you just waking up to these deep shenanigans, TS? International aid, NGOs, militarism, and corporatism are uttered partners with designs that are anything but benign. It's been a quite the racket for some time now.

**Panda** · 08-04-2011, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

^
Could be. Not sure - but maybe. In the final analysis it may be seen as the 21st century colonialsts - China vs America - and the poor Africans get f+cked yet again.. Still China's sucking-up has happened in East Africa if I'm not mistaken, but I take the above point about a "toe hold" for America for future conflict. Get in there - Med is best - then get ready to fight your way to the Gulf if required.

What a fucking world. Here's another link from a few years back that really sums it up the interest in Africa (china v US - then ask yourself why all the international aid money has since then been rediverted to Africa - I think you'll see why):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5714

Are you just waking up to these deep shenanigans, TS? International aid, NGOs, militarism, and corporatism are uttered partners with designs that are anything but benign. It's been a quite the racket for some time now.

You forgot the IMF.

**Rural Surin** · 08-04-2011, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

^
Could be. Not sure - but maybe. In the final analysis it may be seen as the 21st century colonialsts - China vs America - and the poor Africans get f+cked yet again.. Still China's sucking-up has happened in East Africa if I'm not mistaken, but I take the above point about a "toe hold" for America for future conflict. Get in there - Med is best - then get ready to fight your way to the Gulf if required.

What a fucking world. Here's another link from a few years back that really sums it up the interest in Africa (china v US - then ask yourself why all the international aid money has since then been rediverted to Africa - I think you'll see why):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5714

Are you just waking up to these deep shenanigans, TS? International aid, NGOs, militarism, and corporatism are uttered partners with designs that are anything but benign. It's been a quite the racket for some time now.

You forgot the IMF.

Yep. Brothers in corruption and control.

**StrontiumDog** · 08-04-2011, 10:41 PM

Prospects fade for military overthrow of Gaddafi | Reuters

Prospects fade for military overthrow of Gaddafi

Thu, Apr 7 2011

By Maria Golovnina
TRIPOLI | Fri Apr 8, 2011 11:06am EDT

(Reuters) - Libyan rebels said on Friday they repulsed a government assault on the besieged city of Misrata but prospects faded for a military overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

NATO leaders acknowledged the limits of their air power, which has caused rather than broken a military stalemate, and analysts predicted a long-drawn out conflict that could end in the partition of the North African oil producer.

Alliance officials expressed frustration that Gaddafi's tactics of sheltering his armor in civilian areas had reduced the impact of air supremacy and apologized for a second "friendly fire" incident on Thursday that rebels said killed five fighters.

Misrata, a lone major rebel outpost in the west of the country, has been under siege by Gaddafi's forces for weeks. On Friday insurgents said they had pushed back an assault on the eastern flank of the coastal city after fierce street battles.

"The attack from the east has been repelled now and the (pro-Gaddafi) forces have been pushed back," rebel spokesman Hassan al-Misrati told Reuters by telephone.

The only active front in the war, along the Mediterranean coast around the eastern cities of Brega and Ajdabiyah, has descended into stalemate for a week with both sides making advances and then retreating behind secure lines at night.

On Friday rebels at the western boundary of Ajdabiyah, gateway to their Benghazi stronghold, fled from an artillery bombardment but there was no sign of a government advance.

The head of U.S. Africa Command, General Carter Ham, said the conflict was entering stalemate and it was very unlikely the rebels would be able to fight their way into Tripoli.

POLITICAL SOLUTION

Early hopes that air attacks on Gaddafi forces would tip the balance in favor of the rebels have now evaporated and Western leaders are emphasizing a political solution.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen took a similar line to Ham on Friday. "There is no military solution only. We need a political solution," he told Al Jazeera television.

NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu spoke of the difficulties facing alliance pilots because of Gaddafi's tactics. "The fact is they are using human shields and parking tanks next to mosques and schools so it is very hard to pinpoint any military hardware without causing civilian casualties," she said.

Analysts predicted an extended conflict leading toward possible division of the country between east and west.

"The opposition forces are insufficient to break this deadlock and so as things stand the march on Tripoli is not going to happen," said John Marks, chairman of Britain's Cross Border Information consultancy.

"This standoff looks like it could go on pretty much forever ... for now we have a stalemate so we are looking rather more at a de facto partition."

Geoff Porter of North Africa Risk Consulting agreed. "It is increasingly unlikely that the rebels will get anywhere close to Tripoli," he said.

The confusion on the desert battlefield has caused "friendly fire" incidents, increasing anger among the rebels, who said they lost five men on Thursday when NATO planes bombed a column of 20 tanks brought out of storage to bolster the eastern front.

REBEL RETREAT

The strike sent the rebels into a confused retreat back toward Ajdabiyah.

It was the second time in less than a week that rebels had blamed NATO for bombing their comrades by mistake after 13 were killed in an air strike not far from the same spot on Saturday.

Rebels in Ajdabiyah painted the roofs of their vehicles bright pink on Friday to identify them better to NATO planes.

"NATO is an alliance against the Libyan people," said Alaa Senudry, a rebel volunteer on he edge of Ajdabiyah.

At the same time as expressing anger about the attacks, the rebels have accused NATO of being too slow to order air strikes to support their rag-tag army, a charge denied by the alliance.

Misrata, Libya's third city, rose up with other towns against Gaddafi in mid-February and has been under siege for weeks after a crackdown put an end to most protests in the west.

Rebels say people in Misrata are crammed five families to a house in the few safe districts, to escape weeks of sniper, mortar and rocket fire. There are severe shortages of food, water and medical supplies.

The insurgents have used containers filled with sand and stone to block roads and break supply lines to Gaddafi forces including snipers in Misrata, the rebel spokesman said.

Ashour Shamis, a U.K.-based Libyan opposition activist, said the coastal town was key to breaking the stalemate.

"The reason is that Misrata has a big port that acts as a key supply route of food and medicine for Tripoli, and Sirte as well. To keep Tripoli going, Gaddafi needs Misrata."

**Norton** · 09-04-2011, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

NATO leaders acknowledged the limits of their air power, which has caused rather than broken a military stalemate, and analysts predicted a long-drawn out conflict that could end in the partition of the North African oil producer.

Surprise, surprise! Those so called Qaddafi "mercenaries" the media would have us believe comprised all the Qaddafi forces are being very un-mercenary like. When the going gets tough, mercenaries leave to fight another day. Could it be Qaddafi's forces really are loyal to him?

So now the enthusiasm of a quick victory and the installation of a nationally unified democracy is waning. What to do, what to do?

Must be what should have been obvious long before the whole debacle began. Cease fire, partition the country and fix it all later. Stupid is as stupid does.

**sabang** · 09-04-2011, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Norton

Cease fire, partition the country and fix it all later. Stupid is as stupid does.

Makes sense to me. Line in the sand. Nato did right not to allow a massacre in the Benghazi region imo, but it would be doing wrong to commit forces on the ground there. Whether the defection of many of his close advisers & senior military is actually terminal to the Qadaffi regime remains to be seen. Lets not confuse Hope for Change.

Unfortunately, I'm sensing potential 'mission creep' already. Reports are emerging that Nato has been secretly arming the rebels- whether they are credible I don't know. And the 'regime change' rhetoric has been increasing- but ultimately that is for the Libyans to decide. Or decide to demerge. Even 'decapitating' Qaddafi is not necessarily tantamount to anything other than a cosmetic change. Just as Saddam had his Baathists and 'inner circle' of Tikriti's, so Qadaffi has his inner core, and regional backers. Another inconvenient truth is he is not the President of Libya anyway.

Nato has done right so far in my own and, I think, the safe majority of opinion in the West. International community, much more opaque- the Russians and Chinese are not in favor for example. I hope they are sensible enough to learn from the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan. The same old thinking could easily lead to another expensive quagmire.

**Butterfly** · 09-04-2011, 12:19 PM

Eggs a la farce ? sab are you still there ?

**Butterfly** · 09-04-2011, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

Cease fire, partition the country and fix it all later. Stupid is as stupid does.

couldn't be more obvious, what a total fuckup, and so predictable

**Norton** · 09-04-2011, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

Nato did right not to allow a massacre in the Benghazi region imo, but it would be doing wrong to commit forces on the ground there.

For purely humanitarian reasons agree but I am fundamentally opposed to military intervention of any sort to support one side or the other in what is a "revolution" in a sovereign nation. Way too many shenanigans practiced by the "international community" to justify their interference.

Regime change can only come from within. In some cases it may happen by mass demonstrations but in most people are going to be killed as armed revolution is the only solution. Revolution will have individual nations supporting one side or the other as it fits their "best interests". This to is up to each nation.

In the case of Libya, let France and Italy arm and give financial support to the government they have diplomatically recognized. Up to them but don't expect all nations to do so. Some may choose to support the Qaddafi regime. Such is the way it has been and always be.

**Panda** · 09-04-2011, 12:52 PM

I am sure the Chinese would like to unload some of their reserve cash by helping to build civil infrastructure in any new East Libyan state. :-) The Ruskies would probably throw in a few Roubles too. And NATO can guard the border and keep Gaddafi out.

**sabang** · 09-04-2011, 01:00 PM

My stance remains the same on the Nato airstrikes, on humanitarian grounds. Qadaffi's blood curdling rhetoric removed any issue of justification in my mind. They worked too- no massacre in Benghazi region. Just hope Nato doesn't turn this into a eggs a la farce via the all too common mission creep. History gives us good reason to be alert to that possibility.

On the ground, the fighting- actually fairly sparse- is over a couple of oil ports in the 'border' region between the sides, surprise surprise. 'Rebels' can't take Tripoli, Qadaffites can't take Benghazi. The more oil infrastructure you control, the stronger your poker hand. The real action remains at the negotiating table- wonder what Q's sons have come up with? It's all gone quiet there.

Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions