Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by Panda

There is no evidence that Gaddafi was using his airforce to attack civilian targets.

Originally Posted by Mid

Ban said he has seen "very disturbing and shocking scenes" of Libyan security forces firing at protesters with warplanes and helicopters, actions he termed a "serious violation of international humanitarian law."

That's a tough one , Panda or Ban ?

Ban seems to be the ONLY person in the whole world who saw that footage, if indeed his comments were reported correctly.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by OhOh

Mid brings in published stories which is useful. He doesn't comment or express an opinion mainly.

actually he does, when he quotes partially such stories, it's to express his support for the arguments he is quoting.

We all do that though

Originally Posted by OhOh

Do the Terrorist army

One thing I would be curious to hear is your reasons or justifications why you support Qadaffi? Nothing to do with Lockerbie I trust.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Mid

MISRATA, Libya — Military forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi scattered antitank land mines on the port of this besieged city late Thursday night, threatening once more to close the city’s only route for evacuation and supplies, according to accounts of witnesses, photographs and physical evidence collected on the ground.

Gadhafi forces scatter land mines | | The Bulletin

" according to accounts of witnesses, photographs and physical evidence collected on the ground."

The so called "rocket" delivery system looks a little small to have been carrying anti-tank mines. But maybe an armaments expert will clarify. Do the Terrorist army have tanks in Misrata against which the mines would be deployed?

It might be the same "Chinese" who delivered the torpedo to the North Koreans which was alleged, since discounted, to have broken the back of the South Korean ship.

"The land mines were delivered by a Chinese-made"

Implying the Chines are now involved - just hinting at it to stir the soup a little more. They of course didn't explode when the insurgent army was laying them to protect against the Libyan government proven tank divisions.

Dont get too carried away there OhOh, this is more of a propaganda war than it is a real war. We in the west get the sanitized version that backs our governments political stance. The Bad guys are evil killers and we (or our proxy rebels) are the good guys. Not at all like in Bahrain where the western backed Royal dictator is slaughtering his own people, aided by Saudi dictators military assistance and with hardly a word of condemnation from the western media.
The double standards in whats going on at the moment are just deafening except for those who want to see only half of the truth.

Disappointing to see that some otherwise intelligent posters here have been swept along by the mainstream western media propaganda.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by OhOh

Mid brings in published stories which is useful. He doesn't comment or express an opinion mainly.

actually he does, when he quotes partially such stories, it's to express his support for the arguments he is quoting.

We all do that though

Its OK to use quotes to back up your argument, but when you start using published quotes solely as a response it shows a lack of balls to get into the debate and stick your neck out.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by OhOh

Do the Terrorist army

One thing I would be curious to hear is your reasons or justifications why you support Qadaffi? Nothing to do with Lockerbie I trust.

No reason other then the "Worlds Leaders" using a flimsy pretext to invade a sovereign state. Which is a fundamental no-no of the UN. I have no love for any "leader" abusing their position.

If this is what was agreed to in the UNSC then it would at least be seen to be and promoted as "legal".

The extensions and mission creep are opening up all sorts of future attacks which are now "accepted" by world leaders. Bin Laden's murder for example.

It may be us on the receiving end one day and the "justification" for all these precedents will be "recalled".

It is making the whole world less save for "civilised" populations.

Originally Posted by Panda

Not at all like in Bahrain where the western backed Royal dictator is slaughtering his own people, aided by Saudi dictators military assistance and with hardly a word of condemnation from the western media.

United Kingdom – Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was "deeply concerned" by the "unacceptable violence" used against protesters. The UK government was accused of providing arms for Arab regimes while their government were suppressing the demonstrations.It then announced that in light of the unrest it has decided to revoke some arms export licenses to Bahrain stating that "licenses will not be issued when officials judge that there is a risk that the exports may provoke regional or internal conflicts or be used to facilitate internal repression".

United States – US President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" by the violence, while US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton urged restraint. George Washington University Professor Hossein Askari blamed the "power of the Saudi lobby in Washington" for the failure of the American government to defend the democracy protesters in Bahrain in 2011. On 30 April, Obama spoke to the Bahraini king by phone and reportedly told him that the U.S. position is that Manama must make political reforms and respect the "universal rights" of the Bahraini people.
2011 Bahraini uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might call it a toothless diplomatic response, but hardly an endorsement.

Originally Posted by sabang

You might call it a toothless diplomatic response

I do.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Panda

Not at all like in Bahrain where the western backed Royal dictator is slaughtering his own people, aided by Saudi dictators military assistance and with hardly a word of condemnation from the western media.

United Kingdom – Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was "deeply concerned" by the "unacceptable violence" used against protesters. The UK government was accused of providing arms for Arab regimes while their government were suppressing the demonstrations.It then announced that in light of the unrest it has decided to revoke some arms export licenses to Bahrain stating that "licenses will not be issued when officials judge that there is a risk that the exports may provoke regional or internal conflicts or be used to facilitate internal repression".

United States – US President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" by the violence, while US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton urged restraint. George Washington University Professor Hossein Askari blamed the "power of the Saudi lobby in Washington" for the failure of the American government to defend the democracy protesters in Bahrain in 2011. On 30 April, Obama spoke to the Bahraini king by phone and reportedly told him that the U.S. position is that Manama must make political reforms and respect the "universal rights" of the Bahraini people.
2011 Bahraini uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might call it a toothless diplomatic response, but hardly an endorsement.

They could always black ban Saudi oil and Saudi investments. Oh, and move the US 5th fleet out of Bahrain.

Its not like oppression of the people in Saudi and Bahrain at the hands of their royal dictators has only just started. Its been going on for many decades with full endorsement of the western powers,-- especially USA. Its only now that the people are revolting that Obama and Hague are having an each way bet. They swapped sides in Libya and Egypt only after it looked like their former friends and allies, Mubarak and Gaddafi were going to be toppled by a peoples revolution.

The truth is that while our western governments try to sell the high moral ground argument, they have endorsed brutal dictatorships around the world for decades out of self interest.
While I dont have a problem with governments acting in their countries own self interest, I do have a problem with the lies and propaganda they put out to hide their hypocrisy. I do have a problem with our governments endorsing dictators who oppress their people. I do have a problem with our governments selling arms to dictators. I do have a problem with our governments financing dictators under the guise of "aid".

Originally Posted by Panda

Not at all like in Bahrain where the western backed Royal dictator is slaughtering his own people, aided by Saudi dictators military assistance and with hardly a word of condemnation from the western media.

fucking amazing, isn't it ? western media have become government PR office, it's quite shameful

Originally Posted by Panda

The double standards in whats going on at the moment are just deafening except for those who want to see only half of the truth.

nobody is innocent in this world and the morale high ground taken by certain leaders is just sickening. Cameron and Sarko in particular.

Originally Posted by Panda

The truth is that while our western governments try to sell the high moral ground argument, they have endorsed brutal dictatorships around the world for decades out of self interest.

and then they wonder why 911 happened, it will happen again for sure, but by then the public will have forgot why

Originally Posted by Panda

The truth is that while our western governments try to sell the high moral ground argument, they have endorsed brutal dictatorships around the world for decades out of self interest.

Yes exactly. If the United States had properly promoted freedom and democracy around the world - instead of cynically trotting out what sadly have become tired fake rhetoric to prop up tyrants - it wouldn't have found itself in this position where so many people hate it.

They squandered that moral leadership within 15 years of WW2.

Fighting the good fight - honestly and truthfully - would have resulted in a strong Western world still solidly behind the superpower. Instead we're divided, angry and feeling betrayed.

It's a truly sad state of affairs - a downhill slide that began with LBJ and has led us to the dark and sadistic cartoon of OBL.

Originally Posted by Norton

If the US is the great Satan then other countries are demonic disciples who willing participate in the very same policies and practices.

absolutely,

Now we are seeing several despotic regimes falling- with US/ western 'approval' and little anticipated blowback, yet the anti- US rhetoric has only gained more steam from several quarters. I believe that the kneejerk neo-con response to the Egyptian revolution that ultimately ousted Mubarak would have been more in line with the paranoid Israeli response than President Obama's. US foreign policy has changed overall since the failed neo-con era, become less belligerent, and it is working imo.

I am quite outspoken about what I consider to be US foreign policy blunders, and their ramifications. Iraq was a disaster for which only Iran & AQ thank 'us', and I fail to see what Obama hopes he can achieve in Afghanistan, besides massaging the ego and budget of the Pentagon, lining the pockets of military contractors, and fomenting Islamic radicalism. Hopefully the iconic and welcome removal of OBL will give pause to rethink the errant strategy there.

But lets be clear here. More has happened in favour of the cause of representative democracy these past three months than has probably happened over the last decade or more. Our major despotic 'friend' in the middle east has fallen. The US response was benign. Obama listened to the people, the winds of change- not the Despot and his cronies. Several other regimes too. Q will not survive either, what a sad loss. The muted Islamic response to OBL's slaying, combined with the pro-democracy uprisings, have discredited both the Islamoloonies, and the tub thumping Right wingers in the west, who both assured us they want to set up a Caliphate, and wage jihad against us until we are one too. They don't- the people want representative democracy just like us, just like the Thai, and the Burmese for that matter. The steam has been conclusively taken out of that bullshit.

Psychologically, it seems the propensity of several here is to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. Slow down, smell the roses. We'll get back to amerka bashing tomorrow.

it's some interesting fairy tales you have sab,

meantime, in the real world

BBC News - Tunisia imposes overnight capital curfews

New sectarian clashes raise fears of chaos in Egypt

No ones saying it ain't messy- do I need to tell a frenchie that? but-

Originally Posted by sabang

More has happened in favour of the cause of representative democracy these past three months than has probably happened over the last decade

Of course, if you want Mubarak & Osama back, and Qadaffi saved, just pray to Allah.

Originally Posted by sabang

More has happened in favour of the cause of representative democracy these past three months than has probably happened over the last decade or more.

No question. It is a game changer that needs a complete change in "foreign policy" by the west.

For years the center piece of all mid east demonstrations was the burning of US or other western nation flags. Didn't see any of that show cased in recent democracy demonstrations. These are not anti-American or anti-west demonstrations. They are what they are advertised to be. Democracy and human rights movements to unseat dictatorial regimes.

The west can seize the opportunity by strongly stating they support these movements and their right to demonstrate no matter the country. Regimes who slaughter their citizens to put down the demonstrations should be punished, condemned, isolated and demonstrators supported short of military intervention by the west.

Why short of military intervention? As much as we abhor the sight of despots slaughtering civilians, democracy must come from a determined people who want it enough to put their lives on the line. It futile and costly to believe it can be imposed by outside military might. Foreign military incursion will not be welcomed in those countries where the west turned a blind eye to human rights and in most cases supported the very dictatorships these movements want to end.

If the west wants to gain the moral high ground, wake up and seize the day. Practice what you have been hypocritically preaching for far too long.

Originally Posted by sabang

Of course, if you want Mubarak & Osama back, and Qadaffi saved, just pray to Allah.

au contraire, but the problem remains the same, it's more than likely than Islamic fundamentalists will eventually win an election in those countries, and let's see how "fair and square" we will play with those regimes. See Iran as an example.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's some interesting fairy tales you have sab, meantime, in the real world BBC News - Tunisia imposes overnight capital curfews New sectarian clashes raise fears of chaos in Egypt

The real world as it stands today. Neither Tunisia or Egypt are close to forming a working government which is dedicated to protecting the rights of "all" it's citizens. Until then, we should expect the things reported in your links to happen. If they continue to happen under the "new" democratic government then the west needs to act accordingly. Democratically elected governments complicate things for the west so they better be prepared to deal with each country based on the policy of each elected government.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's more than likely than Islamic fundamentalists will eventually win an election in those countries

The videos I've seen of the demonstrations in Egypt and other countries show as many women as men taking part. I find it hard to believe these women would vote for a party who would limit their rights because they happen to be female. Nor would those who fought to rid themselves of a dictatorial regime vote for an Islamic dictatorial regime.

Not surprising those who buy into the "clear and present" danger posed by world dominance of fundamentalist Islam would predict such a result.

RAF Jets Target Gaddafi Rocket Launchers
Sunday May 08, 2011

RAF fighter planes have destroyed missile launchers during a bombing raid on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's home town, the Ministry of Defence has said.

Two Tornado GR4 aircraft attacked FROG-7 rocket launchers and canisters used to carry Scud missiles on Friday morning near the city of Sirte.

Video taken from the Tornados' Litening III targeting pod clearly shows a number of large secondary explosions after bombs were dropped.

A previous mission had identified and gathered images of the weapons site.

These were analysed by specialists from the RAF Tactical Imagery Wing who identified a large number of Frog-7 rocket launchers and Scud canisters.

This hugely successful mission is an example of how we are stepping up our strikes on Gaddafi's forces that continue to attack the Libyan people.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox

The RAF targeted the launchers and the canisters using a number of Paveway IV bombs - a highly accurate weapon that uses both laser designation and GPS for guidance.

The MoD says the aircrew carried out a full assessment before the attacks to ensure collateral damage was kept to a minimum.

After the strike the Tornadoes reported 20 FROG-7 launchers and over 30 Scud canisters were either completely or partially destroyed.


Target before Paveway IV bombs are dropped...

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox said: "I have no doubt that this stockpile of weapons could have been used to threaten and kill innocent Libyans.

"This hugely successful mission is an example of how we are stepping up our strikes on Gaddafi's forces that continue to attack the Libyan people.

"The international coalition is resolute in its UN mandated task of protecting the civilian population."


... and after it is hit: Over 50 launchers and canisters were struck

The FROG-7 can fire rockets up to 45m (70km) and would pose a serious threat to civilians in an urban area.

The Scud tactical ballistic missile can strike targets up to 175m (300km) and can carry a one-tonne warhead.

The UK is operating alongside other Nato countries to prevent Col Gaddafi's forces from attacking innocent Libyan civilians.

Nato aircraft have flown more that 5,300 sorties since the no-fly zone was put in place in March.

news.sky.com

Originally Posted by Mid

The RAF targeted the launchers and the canisters using a number of Paveway IV bombs - a highly accurate weapon that uses both laser designation and GPS for guidance. The MoD says the aircrew carried out a full assessment before the attacks to ensure collateral damage was kept to a minimum.

This can not be accurate information; surely we only target innocent civilians and their property. I suppose they could have hit a few rocket launchers in the process. Accidents do happen.. It won't be long until some of our TD military analysts come along to explain all this to us.