NATO terrorising Tripoli's residents

cyberhog

Richard Spencer in Tripoli writes:

Tripoli has got used to the sound of bombs. But the Nato attack in the early hours of Tuesday morning was of a different order....the intensity of the bombing, greater than anything seen in such a concentrated area since raids began in March, suggested a higher profile target, such as an intelligence headquarters.

Or perhaps the aim was just to frighten – ... It may not work for Col Gaddafi, though his prime minister, Baghdadi Mahmoudi, cancelled his weekly press conference on Tuesday without giving a reason. But fear is certainly working for Tripoli's residents.


"The whole ceiling was just vibrating," said Ola Remi, 30, a Nigerian who lives in a house next to the impact zone. "The whole area, all the houses, shook."

"Imagine what it's like for our mothers and children," shouted Fathallah Salem, 45. "We really thought it was the Day of Judgement."

"There are people here who live in slums – imagine how terrified they are."

...

The fear has created a fragile atmosphere in which, so Nato hopes, anything can happen. At the allied base in Gioia del Colle in Italy at least, from where the raids were launched, the night was regarded as a success.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8533825/Libya-Natos-most-ferocious-air-strike-on-Tripoli.html

Russia has warned about the dangers posed by NATO's bombardments.

"The disproportional use of force, all the more so, beyond the mandate of U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 1973, which in no way stipulates the replacement of the Libyan leadership, is leading to harmful consequences and the death of civilians," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official RIA Novosti news agency.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-01/world/libya.gadhafi.son.killed_1_anti-gadhafi-nato-airstrike-libyan-population/2?_s=PM:WORLD

It should be clear to all but the most naive observers that NATO bombs are NOT protecting civilians they are terrorising and in some cases killing them.

jimmycrackcorm

cyberhog wrote: »

Richard Spencer in Tripoli writes:





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8533825/Libya-Natos-most-ferocious-air-strike-on-Tripoli.html

Russia has warned about the dangers posed by NATO's bombardments.



http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-01/world/libya.gadhafi.son.killed_1_anti-gadhafi-nato-airstrike-libyan-population/2?_s=PM:WORLD

It should be clear to all but the most naive observers that NATO bombs are NOT protecting civilians they are terrorising and in some cases killing them.

Your link is to Ghadaffi's son. That's not the public.
Bit of a fail then...

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

Russia has warned about the dangers posed by NATO's bombardments

I'd call that irony. They'll be bemoaning corrupt autocratic government and lack of press freedom next.

wylo

JustinDee wrote: »

I'd call that irony. They'll be bemoaning corrupt autocratic government and lack of press freedom next.

having a go at the messenger doesnt take away from the truth of it though

BlaasForRafa

JustinDee wrote: »

I'd call that irony. They'll be bemoaning corrupt autocratic government and lack of press freedom next.

Aye, Putin would know all about the disproportionate use of force.

OS119

wylo wrote: »

having a go at the messenger doesnt take away from the truth of it though

the messages credibility is affected by the credibility of the messenger though.

when Switzerland or Sweden make these points then perhaps NATO will take more notice, but they haven't - probably because a) they understand what happens when you explode 1000lbs of high explosive in a populated area, and b) they aren't looking to make a cheap political score off of a subject they don't actually care about, but are happy to use to advance ther own agenda.

i'd take lessons in humanitariansm in conflict off the Russians in the same way i'd take financial advice off of the former Chairman and Treasurer of this Parish.

i wouldn't.

Nijmegen

Residents in Tripoli might be frightened at the bombardment, but NATO goes to great lengths not to kill any civilians (despite the regime claiming everything that's hit is a school or a hospital, or the good old "Put a playground on top of your bunker," trick.)

Ghadaffi on the other hand first terrorises civilians, and then actively sets out to kill them.

If a few windows get cracked in Tripoli to get rid of him, so be it.

JustinDee

wylo wrote: »

having a go at the messenger doesnt take away from the truth of it though

Nor does it distract or justify said messenger's modus operandi in the Caucusus region, Chechnya or indeed on his own streets.

On the other hand, the average barstool wiki-wagging 'expert' on North Africa and the Middle East would not only decry NATO's mission against Gaddaffi but decry sanctions because of their effects on the typical person on the street.
In short, nothing is the right thing to do but adherance to the alternative in sitting in a hunch, shuting your eyes and plugging your ears as it might then just all go away.

MysticalRain

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Aye, Putin would know all about the disproportionate use of force.

Indeed. This is, after all, the same nation that leveled Grozny to the ground with Grad rockets.

Icepick

cyberhog wrote: »

Richard Spencer in Tripoli writes:





http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8533825/Libya-Natos-most-ferocious-air-strike-on-Tripoli.html

Russia has warned about the dangers posed by NATO's bombardments.



http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-01/world/libya.gadhafi.son.killed_1_anti-gadhafi-nato-airstrike-libyan-population/2?_s=PM:WORLD

It should be clear to all but the most naive observers that NATO bombs are NOT protecting civilians they are terrorising and in some cases killing them.

Russia had a chance to veto the resolution, the hypocrites.

cyberhog

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Aye, Putin would know all about the disproportionate use of force.

The US are no strangers to using disproportionate force. Remember Fallujah? I know the Russians are not squeaky clean but they are absolutely correct that NATO's attempts to topple Gaddafi are a clear violation of the UN mandate.

OS119

cyberhog wrote: »

...I know the Russians are not squeaky clean but they are absolutely correct that NATO's attempts to topple Gaddafi are a clear violation of the UN mandate.

can i ask if you've actually read UNSCR1973 (and because its a Chapter VII resolution, that you've also read Chapter VII)), or if you're basing your view on what someone else has told you what UNSCR1973 does and does not authorise?

please read both, and then present a coherant argument that demonstrates how any attack by any method (with the exception of the foriegn land occcupation mentioned in section 4) that degrades any Libyan Military, paramilitary, command, control and communication, or intellegence gathering capabilty is in violation of UNSCR1973.

cyberhog

OS119 wrote: »

can i ask if you've actually read UNSCR1973 (and because its a Chapter VII resolution, that you've also read Chapter VII)), or if you're basing your view on what someone else has told you what UNSCR1973 does and does not authorise?

My understanding is based on my own reading of the resolution aswell as on what others like Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore and French Defence Minister Gerard Longue have said.

Gilmore: ACTIONS TAKEN under UN resolution 1973 “do not extend to regime change” in Libya and “must be confined to the protection of the civilian population” ... “Ireland can only support implementation of resolution 1973 in a manner that is proportionate, targeted and avoids civilian casualties”.... “The Gadafy regime will have to be replaced” but “it must be clearly stated that resolution 1973 did not comprehend regime change. It is confined to the protection of civilians, on which our support for implementation of that resolution is based.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0323/1224292847891.html

French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet suggested a new UN Security Council resolution would be needed for Nato allies to achieve their goals in Libya.

Speaking on French radio, Mr Longuet conceded that ousting Col Gaddafi would be "certainly" beyond the scope of the existing UN Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya, and could require a new council vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13096829

Nowhere does Resolution 1973 contemplate regime change. NATO's flagrant attempts to topple Gaddafi are a clear violation of the UN mandate.

BlaasForRafa

cyberhog wrote: »

Nowhere does Resolution 1973 contemplate regime change. NATO's flagrant attempts to topple Gaddafi are a clear violation of the UN mandate.

So?

Would you like to see Gaddafi remain in charge?

BlaasForRafa

cyberhog wrote: »

The US are no strangers to using disproportionate force. Remember Fallujah? I know the Russians are not squeaky clean but they are absolutely correct that NATO's attempts to topple Gaddafi are a clear violation of the UN mandate.

:rolleyes:

The americans gave the civilians of Fallujah time to exit the city. Also they did not pound the city to dust like the russians did with Grozny. It might be helpful if you knew the facts rather than just make lazy comparisons.

AlekSmart

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So?

Would you like to see Gaddafi remain in charge?

That's an interesting question Blaas.

It's largely immaterial who I wouild like to see in charge in Libya.

However,It's a valid point to make that even after a significant level of UN sanctioned Direct Military Intervention the Colonel's regime remains largely in control of the country.

This causes me to pause for reflection as it cannot be explained away by the usual "Oh he employs Mercenaries you know !" or "The Libyan People hate him"...etc etc...

IF the Colonel is/was the Ming The Merciless of African/Mid-Eastern leaders I would have fully expected the "Rebel Forces" to capitailze on the massive UN support operation allying it with equally massive popular civillian support for their cause....but that is not the conclusion I can draw from the current situation in Libya as far as I can tell.

It might not suit some of our Western Centred sensitivities,but there just could be a significant chunk of "The Libyan People" who are content with their Leadership...?

What if...what if...this chunk actually does represent the majority will of the "Libyan People"....where then does this leave the UN's impramatur,except on a suspect resolution.

I remain unconvinced that the UN resolution was justified by the oft-quoted inevitable genocide which Gadaffi was about to unleash on his people.

The Colonel had already ample opportunity,before and immediately after the adoption of the resolution to go-for-broke and lay waste to his country and people but that scenario never occured.

My belief is that the "Genocide" card was never in Gadaffi's deck at all,but it was the only trump card in the deck for the UN's players.

Libya is simply not playing out according to plan.
There are too many inconsistencies surrounding the entire scenario,not least of which is Gadaffi's refusal to fit the mad blood-thirsty lunatic role...so far !!!

cyberhog

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So?

Would you like to see Gaddafi remain in charge?

I couldn't care less whether he stays or goes that is for Libyans to decide.

halkar

UN is totally a corrupt institution and now they are using Nato. Is Nato becoming army of UN?

Where were UN and Nato when Saudis were driving through Bahrain streets to keep their puppets in charge?

BlaasForRafa

cyberhog wrote: »

I couldn't care less whether he stays or goes that is for Libyans to decide.

Really I could answer just about any of your posts with rolleyes.

The Libyan people ARE deciding whether he stays or goes.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

I couldn't care less whether he stays or goes that is for Libyans to decide.

No, thats absolutely wrong, this is not the US, or France, or Egypt, this is Libya.. Gaddafi's T72's and mercenaries are doing the deciding, not the Libya people.

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

This causes me to pause for reflection as it cannot be explained away by the usual "Oh he employs Mercenaries you know !" or "The Libyan People hate him"...etc etc...

IF the Colonel is/was the Ming The Merciless of African/Mid-Eastern leaders I would have fully expected the "Rebel Forces" to capitailze on the massive UN support operation allying it with equally massive popular civillian support for their cause....but that is not the conclusion I can draw from the current situation in Libya as far as I can tell.

It might not suit some of our Western Centred sensitivities,but there just could be a significant chunk of "The Libyan People" who are content with their Leadership...?

Using this same logic - the large proportion of North Koreans are "content with their leadership" because they are not protesting?

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Using this same logic - the large proportion of North Koreans are "content with their leadership" because they are not protesting?

Perhaps they are....I really cannot say as I am not in daily communion with any of them.

My own belief,in the current Libyan situation,is that we are being asked to accept some very wide-ranging assumptions about the actual level of disaffection amongst "Ordinary" Libyan people.

Every country has it's "Rebels",and none has a better track record of rebellion than our own.

However I think the assumption that the bould Colonel's only Libyan support is....

T72's and mercenaries.

....may be a bit far fetched.

Of course there is an ongoing rebellion in Libya,but that does not instantly make it something that draws the UN into an ever broadening and daily more warlike role in the country.

I remain uneasy about how easy this scenario was sold off to a western audience so thoroughly immersed in a "Gadaffi is the spawn of the Devil" mind-set.

Who,in their right mind,could disagree or oppose a UN sanctioned regime change that saw a cruel despotic dictator who cared nothing for his people,kept them living in abject squalor,denied them education and health-care ?

Who indeed,except perhaps me,who's still not seeing any real evidence of this in the case of Libya.

Oppression,along with Racism,are words which in our modern western social norms have attained a status akin to Holiness,yet both are thrown around at the merest whisper of people attempting to seek more clarity in how decisions are made to start wars in our names...

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps they are....I really cannot say as I am not in daily communion with any of them.

Honestly, have a read, its nasty stuff

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/life-in-north-koreas-gulags/

Regarding the T72's and mercenaries..

....may be a bit far fetched..

Gah! He is using T72's and mercenaries, I have to ask you a serious question, are you actually following this conflict, or doing some casual Sunday reading of some CT sites?

Imagine reading all about Hitler, and the Nazi party, the SS, the Holocaust, and then having to read some poster posing such gems as; was he really that bad? cmon does anyone have any footage of them actually using the gas?

cyberhog

Nijmegen wrote: »

Residents in Tripoli might be frightened at the bombardment, but NATO goes to great lengths not to kill any civilians

They have good reason to be frightened of NATO airstrikes.

Nato-Led Airstrike Kills 12 Afghan Children

The tragedy happened in Nawzad district in southwest Helmand province late on Saturday.

Dawood Ahmadi, a spokesman for the provincial government, said Nato was targeting insurgents but instead struck two homes, killing two women, five girls and seven boys.

...

The deaths have been condemned by Afghan president Hamid Karzai who said he had warned US and Nato troops that their "arbitrary operations" were killing innocent people every day.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Afghanistan-12-Children-And-Two-Women-Mistakenly-Killed-In-Nato-Airstrike-In-Helmand-Province/Article/201105416001738?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_16001738_Afghanistan%3A_12_Children_And_Two_Women_Mistakenly_Killed_In_Nato_Airstrike_In_Helmand_Province_


I'm not sure residents in Tripoli will take much comfort in your assertion that 'NATO goes to great lengths not to kill any civilians'. In fact I think they would probably feel a lot safer if NATO stopped violating the UN mandate.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

They have good reason to be frightened of NATO airstrikes.

True they don't have a great record in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan, however I have to ask, what do you think should have been done about the Libyan regime's response to the protests?

halkar

Jonny7 wrote: »

True they don't have a great record in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan, however I have to ask, what do you think should have been done about the Libyan regime's response to the protests?

Same thing as what is being done for Bahrain, Yemen and Syria at the moment. Protesting is not even possible in Saudi Arabia. What will they do about that?

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

However,It's a valid point to make that even after a significant level of UN sanctioned Direct Military Intervention the Colonel's regime remains largely in control of the country.

Really, your obviously not following the detailed news from there, see here:

http://twitpic.com/54mun8/full

He has lost control of:

- All the Eastern half of the country.
- Misrata in the West
- Zlitan in the West
- The western boarder to Tunisia
- The mountain cities just to the south of Tripoli are in full revolt.

The only areas he seems to control are Sirte (his home town) and Tripoli. And reports from Tripoli say massive parts of the city are basically sealed off by his security forces.

Looks like a pretty popular uprising across the whole country to me.

Jonny7

halkar wrote: »

Same thing as what is being done for Bahrain, Yemen and Syria at the moment. Protesting is not even possible in Saudi Arabia. What will they do about that?

Getting rid of Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast was bloody, but swift, he was a scumbag who refused to leave power.. the UN, the French and Outtara just went in, guns blazing, and captured the guy. UN resolution 1975 authorised the use of "all necessary means to carry out its mandate to protect civilians ... including to prevent the use of heavy weapons."

Yet why no mention of this situation by those opposed to NATO/UN in Libya?

If people want to use comparisons, then why the faux shock and outrage over the 'alleged' regime change in Libya when it blatantly just happened down in Ivory Coast?

I mean, maybe we should just do nothing, the world sat idly by while 800,000 people were hacked to death in Rwanda, so for the rest of time we can say why intervene in anything if you we didn't intervene in that situation.

On less hypothetical and more realistic note, Western intervention in Syria would be madness in its current state, to be in Libya and Syria at the same time? ridiculous. Assad does not have the same "colourful" history as Gaddafi, not even close, he's not on television talking about going from house to house cleansing the cockroaches, he may have vicious internal security and the reluctant loyalty of the army, but he doesn't have mercenaries, from Chad, psychopaths who are going to go at the people with the pliers and the blowtorch. Different situations. The devil is in the details.

What if the Egyptian army had obeyed Mubarak's order and start to open fire on the people, there could've been Western intervention if it got serious enough, in which case you'd be posting right now, why are they in Egypt but not in Libya.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

True they don't have a great record in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan, however I have to ask, what do you think should have been done about the Libyan regime's response to the protests?

Just to be clear, I would fully support Resolution 1973 if it was strictly adhered to. What I'm concerned about is the ever more drastic action NATO is taking in it's pursuit for regime change. Flouting the remit set out by the Security Council will inevitably lead to the same appalling "collateral damage" we see caused by air strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

jill_valentine

I'm a lefty at heart, but I've seldom seen a clearer case for international intervention than Libya, or a more transparent grasp for a few propaganda points than the article in the OP.

Naive indeed.

old_aussie

So half of Libya support Gadaffi and half support a new regime.

Why is it up to NATO to take it upon themselves to decide which half is right?

Libya should sort it out themselves, till there is just one majority side left and then let them live the way they want.

jill_valentine

The majority oppose Gaddafi, but he's got the hardware, muscle and resource dollars to keep them underfoot. They revolted, he broke out the big guns, and it was at that point that intervention became a moral case. The Libyans are able and willing to fight, they've proved that, but they've got one shot at this. If we stood by and did nothing, we'd be consenting by silence to the status quo. The implications for both the people of Libya and for the other civilian populations in the region would be unthinkable.

I'm anti-warish generally, but Libya was not in any state of peace before NATO stepped in.

JustinDee

old_aussie wrote: »

So half of Libya support Gadaffi and half support a new regime.
Why is it up to NATO to take it upon themselves to decide which half is right?

Libya should sort it out themselves, till there is just one majority side left and then let them live the way they want.

Not doing anything would akin to Aussie ignoring Soeharto all those years. If one does nothing, the problem doesn't just go away.

Jonny7

old_aussie wrote: »

So half of Libya support Gadaffi and half support a new regime.

Why is it up to NATO to take it upon themselves to decide which half is right?

Libya should sort it out themselves, till there is just one majority side left and then let them live the way they want.

Rwanda "sorted" it out themselves

And no, half don't support Gaddafi, but here is a fact thats true, the more brutal and vicious a regime, and the bigger grip they have on the military, the more likely it is that people will be too scared of imprisonment, torture, disappearances of their family and their lives that they will take to the streets.

Incredibly, partially due to external events, they actually took to the streets.. what happened? they were killed by anti-aircraft guns, crushed in cars by tanks, snipers, heavy machine guns, jets, artillery, even an entire city being sieged.

This isn't the French revolution, this is the modern dictator who knows how to stay in power for 40 years using force, coercion, corruption, intimidation and all the tricks.

Its worse in N Korea, Kim Il Yong and his family will keep stuffing their faces with cavier and lobster whilst their people starve.. why? because if one person even dares to attempt to protest, they and their family will be disappeared to the gulags, such is the insane control in that country. Men can die for causes, but get to their family and they won't be so willing.

AlekSmart

bk wrote: »

Really, your obviously not following the detailed news from there, see here:

http://twitpic.com/54mun8/full

He has lost control of:

- All the Eastern half of the country.
- Misrata in the West
- Zlitan in the West
- The western boarder to Tunisia
- The mountain cities just to the south of Tripoli are in full revolt.

The only areas he seems to control are Sirte (his home town) and Tripoli. And reports from Tripoli say massive parts of the city are basically sealed off by his security forces.

Looks like a pretty popular uprising across the whole country to me.

The Twitpic site is very interesting sure enough,however once I see the term "Freedom Fighters" used to describe the anti-Government forces then I have to put my bias-filter on.

There is no doubt but Gadaffi faces a major revolt,albeit now one which is driven from without Libya which makes it all the more difficult to gauge the actual level of anti-Gadaffi sentiment as opposed to popular revelutionary zeal.

Gadaffi's major problem is how to satisfy the Kalashnikov vs The Ballot Box arguement so well known to us in this parish ?

Jonny7 : On less hypothetical and more realistic note, Western intervention in Syria would be madness in its current state, to be in Libya and Syria at the same time? ridiculous. Assad does not have the same "colourful" history as Gaddafi, not even close, he's not on television talking about going from house to house cleansing the cockroaches, he may have vicious internal security and the reluctant loyalty of the army, but he doesn't have mercenaries, from Chad, psychopaths who are going to go at the people with the pliers and the blowtorch. Different situations. The devil is in the details.

Whilst Syria's Assad may not himself be as "colourful" as Gadaffi,it remains true that his father before him was very much the epitome of the "Strongman" during his long tenure in office.

The Chadian mercenary issue is,it would seem,the major source of validation for the pro UN people.

It would seem that viewed from their perspective Col Gadaffi has annexed Chad and is using it's populace as a replacement for native Libyans who never have,no longer do and never will support him.

To me this seems to raise a question of whether or not Gadaffi has had any Libyan support over his 40 year involvement with the country....to suggest he did'nt appears to indicate he is capable of Black Magic on a masive scale indeed.

Jill_Valentine: The majority oppose Gaddafi, but he's got the hardware, muscle and resource dollars to keep them underfoot. They revolted, he broke out the big guns, and it was at that point that intervention became a moral case. The Libyans are able and willing to fight, they've proved that,

I have little doubt that Gadaffi has opponents in Libya,and certainly further afield.

I'm still not convinced however that this opposition as typified by the ,now popularized " freedom fighter" tag was a major factor prior to the UN becoming involved here

And of course we see that Libyans are prepared to fight,however my point is that significant numbers of them are fighting FOR Gadaffi....unless,as described above,he has annexed Chad altogether ?

SeanW

cyberhog wrote: »

It should be clear to all but the most naive observers that NATO bombs are NOT protecting civilians they are terrorising and in some cases killing them.

As opposed to Col. Gaddafi?

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

To me this seems to raise a question of whether or not Gadaffi has had any Libyan support over his 40 year involvement with the country....to suggest he did'nt appears to indicate he is capable of Black Magic on a masive scale indeed.

Thats a rather silly sentence. Of course he has support. So does Kim Il Yong, so did Saddam, so did Pinochet, Mengistu, Mobuto, etc.

In fact history has proved that many dictators are extremely successful despite being incredibly unpopular. Fear is a very effective tactic.

I have little doubt that Gadaffi has opponents in Libya,and certainly further afield.

I'm still not convinced however that this opposition as typified by the ,now popularized " freedom fighter" tag was a major factor prior to the UN becoming involved here

And of course we see that Libyans are prepared to fight,however my point is that significant numbers of them are fighting FOR Gadaffi....unless,as described above,he has annexed Chad altogether ?

I just want to clarify the "freedom fighters" were not a "movement" who were somehow all ready and set up and good to go as part of a plan.

Protests started
Gaddafi used military to quell the protests violently

Now this is the important part - sections of the military defected rather than shoot their own countrymen. Some were burned alive as reprisals, others shot. Away from Tripoli and Sirte the defections were more widescale (relatively speaking), basically the anti-Gaddafi movement now had access to a decent amount of arms, some old tanks, a jet or two and some hind gunships and random helicopters.

Comprising of ex-military (mainly conscripts, the paramilitaries and mercenaries were much more "disiplined"), men and even women made up a sort of "rebel" force who had initial success.. actually amazing success, really took the pro-Gaddafi forces by surprise.

However the pro forces got their act together and started using jets and T72 tanks, as a military nerd myself I know the make-up of the Libyan army and even on one-half operating potential its still a formiddable force. The badly disorganised rebels, despite all their morale, were being beaten back pretty fairly decisively.

They'd been on the back-foot about 2 weeks when US/NATO joined the fight.

This is important to note - unless the army acts as an independent block from the ruler (just like in Egypt) then it is just another tool for whoever is in control. This isn't some Tom Hanks moral disneyland, in the real world, psychology tests and reality have shown over and over again that troops will often do what they are told. From roman soldiers, to allied soldiers, to german/russian, they are all capable of commiting terrible acts.

The fact that Gaddafi was openly talking about these acts and what he was going to do to those cities and towns and villages that had opposed him - didn't make for a pretty picture.

Whatever you may think of the man himself, think of who and what he has control over.. as has been repeated many times in history, don't protest against dictators and not topple them, the reprisals are insane.

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Twitpic site is very interesting sure enough,however once I see the term "Freedom Fighters" used to describe the anti-Government forces then I have to put my bias-filter on.

Sure the use of the term Freedom Fighters indicates a certain bias in the map maker. However what is indicated on the map has been widely reported in the press and seems to realistically reflect what is happening on the ground.

This indicates that pretty much every part of the country that doesn't have a heavy Gadaffi army presence (basically Tripoli and Sirte) is in full revolt against him.

This pretty strongly indicates that is is a popular uprising against him and not just a small group of freedom fighters.

Interestingly today reports have come out of mass protests against Gadaffi in Tripoli today * and of fighting happening in Tripoli itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2p8JlQpLfs&feature=player_embedded

* Remember at the start there were mass protests in Tripoli, but they were ruthlessly put down my Gadaffi's security forces at the time. Many protestors were shot dead, tanks were sent in, etc.

Also today, a large number of his generals and other senior officers have defected to Italy and have reported that they were ordered to carry out genocide and rape of women.

AlexSmart, with all due respect it is becoming increasingly hard to defend this mad man.

I think when he is gone, it will become quiet clear the atrocities he carried out and that the vast majority of people wanted him gone.

BlaasForRafa

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Chadian mercenary issue is,it would seem,the major source of validation for the pro UN people.

It would seem that viewed from their perspective Col Gadaffi has annexed Chad and is using it's populace as a replacement for native Libyans who never have,no longer do and never will support him.

And of course we see that Libyans are prepared to fight,however my point is that significant numbers of them are fighting FOR Gadaffi....unless,as described above,he has annexed Chad altogether ?

Where are you getting this idea that Libya has influence in Chad, let alone annexed it. Have you never heard of the Toyota War? Libya got thoroughly defeated by Chad in that war.

Most of the mercenaries are from Niger iirc.

AlekSmart

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Where are you getting this idea that Libya has influence in Chad, let alone annexed it. Have you never heard of the Toyota War? Libya got thoroughly defeated by Chad in that war.

Most of the mercenaries are from Niger iirc.

Thank you Blaas for the clarification,my Chadian fixation came from Jonny7's assertions that Chadian mercenaries made up a significant amount of Gadaffi's military capability.

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

Thank you Blaas for the clarification,my Chadian fixation came from Jonny7's assertions that Chadian mercenaries made up a significant amount of Gadaffi's military capability.

In Sahart alone they captured 200 mercenaries, from the Tuareg tribe, Chad, Niger, the entire sub-Saharan area.

Numbers are impossible to ascertain

A quick search will lead you to lots of info on the subject

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8336467/Libya-protests-foreign-mercenaries-using-heavy-weapons-against-at-demonstrators.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-benghazi-doctor-gadhafi-foreign-mercenaries-quell-protests/story?id=12972216
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011219811665897.html
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/03/140004.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12558066
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/africa/24libya.html?_r=1

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

In Sahart alone they captured 200 mercenaries, from the Tuareg tribe, Chad, Niger, the entire sub-Saharan area.

Numbers are impossible to ascertain

A quick search will lead you to lots of info on the subject

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8336467/Libya-protests-foreign-mercenaries-using-heavy-weapons-against-at-demonstrators.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-benghazi-doctor-gadhafi-foreign-mercenaries-quell-protests/story?id=12972216
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011219811665897.html
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/03/140004.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12558066
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/africa/24libya.html?_r=1

Notwithstanding the various news gathering and reporting agencies,I'm happy enough with the reality that we have no real idea at all of the numbers game in Libya at the moment.

Much is being made,I see,of various high-level defections from the Gadaffi camp,although I'm of the opinion that if the Man was the evil incaranate he's supposed to be then these lads would have jumped ship 5 minutes after the UN resolution was passed.

What has taken them so long to recognize their leader as the Great Satan in waiting ?

Oh well,all change is good is'nt it...especially regime change !!

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

Much is being made,I see,of various high-level defections from the Gadaffi camp,although I'm of the opinion that if the Man was the evil incaranate he's supposed to be then these lads would have jumped ship 5 minutes after the UN resolution was passed.

What has taken them so long to recognize their leader as the Great Satan in waiting ?

Perhaps making arrangements for their families to get out of the country first.

Or making sure they end up on the winning side. If you went over to the rebels straight away and they lost, then best case scenario you manage to get out of the country and have to live in exile, never seeing your family and friends again.

Worse case scenario you get caught, tortured in some dungeon before being executed.

cyberhog

The Republican Party leadership have delayed a vote on a bill to pull the U.S. out of Libya due to fears the bill would have passed.

House GOP leaders pulled back from a floor vote on a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that would bar U.S. involvement in the NATO-led campaign to topple Muammar Qadhafi.

...

Citing “lots of unrest on both sides of the aisle,” a senior House GOP aide said Republican leaders are still working through their options.

Another senior Republican staffer said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) “is concerned that if this were to come to the floor now, it would pass”

...
In a statement, Kucinich said he was “disappointed that the president and leadership feel the need to buy even more time to shore up support for the war in Libya. It’s not surprising that some are now wondering if a preliminary vote count on my resolution came out in favor of defending the Constitution.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56018.html


Isn't that something? The Republican leadership covering for a Democratic President that wants to continue bombing Libya without seeking congressional approval. Well it appears Obama's contempt for U.S. representatives has left many members of the House in no mood for U.S. involvement in Libya to carry on much longer.

“We are in control in the House, and we want something on the floor,” said Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), one of a number of conservatives who called Wednesday for a showdown with Obama. “Put a resolution up, and let us express ... to the president that ‘you no longer have the authority of this Congress to conduct military operations in that country.’ ”

“There’s been disquiet for a long time,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of those who supported it. “Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism.”

Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored Kucinich’s bill, said he would press for GOP leadership to bring it up for a vote.

“I think, in the House, there’s probably enough votes to pass this,” Burton said. Also Wednesday, Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) introduced a similar bill, which would require Obama to obtain Congress’ approval by June 19 or begin withdrawing troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-house-gop-leaders-fend-off-vote-on-libya-resolution-antiwar-sentiment-simmers/2011/06/01/AGYO1lGH_story.html

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

The Republican Party leadership have delayed a vote on a bill to pull the U.S. out of Libya due to fears the bill would have passed.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56018.html

Isn't that something? The Republican leadership covering for a Democratic President that wants to continue bombing Libya without seeking congressional approval. Well it appears Obama's contempt for U.S. representatives has left many members of the House in no mood for U.S. involvement in Libya to carry on much longer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-house-gop-leaders-fend-off-vote-on-libya-resolution-antiwar-sentiment-simmers/2011/06/01/AGYO1lGH_story.html

Long post, just read end for summary

First of all

The title of this thread is a bit ironic - "Nato terrorising Tripoli's residents" - no, Gaddafi has been doing that for 40 years, reaching a pinnacle in Feb/Mar when they protested and he started killing his own people like "cockroaches" with heavy weapons, etc - the Russians, even the Iranians were condemning it.

As far as I know NATO are not killing Libyan residents, please quote some non-Libyan state TV sources if you believe they are. I do not hold NATO in the highest regard (Afghanistan/bombing rebels tanks claiming they didn't know rebels had tanks despite widespread broadcasts on tv showing the rebels in tanks, even helicopters)

Secondly

There is not enough resource "gain" from this conflict to indicate some darker motives for the West to be involved. We already had the contracts with Gaddafi since 2004/2005. There's a 50-odd page thread on that already and I'm not going back into the idiocy that its another Iraq. Its a grim humanitarian mission for the Libyan people, stability for the region, democracy, and the chance to get rid of Gaddafi who has been nothing but trouble for the entire region for 40 yrs.

Usually the UN issues a strongly worded letter and we all bemoan the lack of action in the world. Incredibly in Libya and in the Ivory coast, "something" has been done. Unfortunately, mistakes have been made. Action happened about 2 weeks too late, huge momentum was lost. The exile option was stupidly rubbished (now its back on the table) and the ICC haven't given Gaddafi/sons any escape options. The rebels are exacting their revenge, repisals, etc its getting very nasty, but this happens in war.

Try to remember -

If NATO/UN did nothing but issue a strongly worded letter, then the world was going to sit by while another Kurd style massacre took place. The rebels can have all the morale in the world, but they cannot hold back T72's. They and their families and that entire region was not long for this world.

Barring boots on the ground (I would be completely against that) the NATO airstrikes are there to defend the people, and tip the balance in favour of the rebels - strikes on Tripoli near his compound definitely bear hallmarks of psychological strikes (not decapitation) - the conflict is now dragging on, everyone is getting nervous and tetchy, the spectre of failure is on the horizon if Gaddafi does not go (hence the desperate stress on offering him exile, anything, just get him out)

If NATO fail, if Gaddafi stays - NATO just pulls out (no boots on ground), there is no loss but face and monetary (the cost of the conflict), and Gadaffi fights the rebels, maybe with the added desperation of no NATO support and the loss of a lot of Gaddafi's heavy equipment they could still oust him, but if he still prevailed then he would reek his revenge on the East and far West of the country - which is what was going to happen anyway.

So to sum up - consequence of no UN/NATO action - the people in East and West get a taste of Kurd style massacre, Gaddafi/sons retain power and oppression for next 40 years

Consequence of NATO action and success - country gets a chance at democracy

Consequence of NATO action and failure - Gaddafi crushes those against him anyway

Some may say " oh but he'll also be very dangerous and anti-West if he succeeds", I say read his rap-sheet from 1970 to 2004.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

So to sum up - consequence of no UN/NATO action - the people in East and West get a taste of Kurd style massacre, Gaddafi/sons retain power and oppression for next 40 years

I agree with some of your points but I don't buy into your claim that intervention was necessary to prevent a civilian massacre. I think Richard N. Haass has a more credible analysis.

I would suggest that what has been asserted as fact was in reality closer to assumption. First, it is not clear that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. There had been no reports of large-scale massacres in Libya up to that point, and Libyan society (unlike Rwanda, to cite the obvious influential precedent) is not divided along a single or defining fault line. Gaddafi saw the rebels as enemies for political reasons, not for their ethnic or tribal associations. To be sure, civilians would have been killed in an assault on the city – civil wars are by their nature violent and destructive – but there is no evidence of which I am aware that civilians per se would have been targeted on a large scale. Muammar Gaddafi’s threat to show no mercy to the rebels might well have been just that: a threat within the context of a civil war to those who opposed him with arms or were considering doing so.

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Haass.Testimony.4.6.11.pdf

The New York Times reported that "the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda" against Gaddafi "and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E3D91531F931A15750C0A9679D8B63

I think that threat was grossly exaggerated. Gaddafi only spoke about targeting armed rebel fighters and he even promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away."

The question is was Obama duped by the rebels or did he conspire with them to pursue regime change?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Consequence of NATO action and success - country gets a chance at democracy

If you think NATO's objective is so clear cut then why is Congress having so much trouble seeing what the U.S. is doing in Libya?

Why does the House have to adopt a resolution chastising Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale'' for the mission?

http://www.examiner.com/rep-john-boehner-in-national/boehner-threaten-s-to-withhold-libyan-war-funding-unless-obama-explains-mission

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

I agree with some of your points but I don't buy into your claim that intervention was necessary to prevent a civilian massacre. I think Richard N. Haass has a more credible analysis.

I am not talking about the worst that would happen, I am talking about the very least that Gaddafi has to do to ensure he stays in power, hold the country, and subdue the East.

That "very least" is more than enough to justify intervention to protect the civilians of his country against him.

The journalists, the (ex) Libyan high ranking officials, diplomats, the expats who fled the country - they have all been painting a very unified single picture ever since mid Feb.

Even if military action wasn't undertaken (very surprised it was in the first place) then some sort of enclave would've had to have been setup anyway, else the immigrant exodus from the country would've been nothing compared to everyone shifting out of the East.

If you think NATO's objective is so clear cut then why is Congress having so much trouble seeing what the U.S. is doing in Libya?

Why does the House have to adopt a resolution chastising Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale'' for the mission?

http://www.examiner.com/rep-john-boe...plains-mission

The US is quagmired in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is now a third conflict, that's the main reason.

You are raising legitimate points though.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

The New York Times reported that "the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda" against Gaddafi "and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E3D91531F931A15750C0A9679D8B63

I think that threat was grossly exaggerated. Gaddafi only spoke about targeting armed rebel fighters and he even promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away."

The question is was Obama duped by the rebels or did he conspire with them to pursue regime change?

Missed these.

The "rebels" did not exist early on in the conflict (in their current form) and what was happening was being reported by the locals, tv reporters, defecting Libyan military, libyan officials, diplomats, even Gaddafi's childhood friends who held high ranking positions. It was fairly black and white.

Despite a complete net shutdown, controlling journalists movements, stifling of information, seizing of all mobile phones/cameras at the border by fleeing immigrants and expats there is still a large amount of footage of the kind of atrocities that were taking place.

The subsequent UN resolution - US then NATO action was taken based on all this credible evidence.

Anything the rebels say now I take as a mixture of truth and propaganda as with any conflict.

The last bolded point makes zero sense to me - the action taken was pushed and foumulated by Clinton, Sarkowzy and Cameron + UN, with varied support from the Arab league. It was just rubberstamped by Obama.

Since beginning of the conflict/action regime change takes the form of Gaddafi going into exile/fleeing or the people overcoming him.

Certain commentators are confusing psychological/military strikes within Tripoli with some sort of decapitation/assassination strikes.

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

I agree with some of your points but I don't buy into your claim that intervention was necessary to prevent a civilian massacre. I think Richard N. Haass has a more credible analysis.



http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Haass.Testimony.4.6.11.pdf

The New York Times reported that "the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda" against Gaddafi "and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E3D91531F931A15750C0A9679D8B63

I think that threat was grossly exaggerated. Gaddafi only spoke about targeting armed rebel fighters and he even promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away."

The question is was Obama duped by the rebels or did he conspire with them to pursue regime change?

If you think NATO's objective is so clear cut then why is Congress having so much trouble seeing what the U.S. is doing in Libya?

Why does the House have to adopt a resolution chastising Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale'' for the mission?

http://www.examiner.com/rep-john-boehner-in-national/boehner-threaten-s-to-withhold-libyan-war-funding-unless-obama-explains-mission

This particular area remains my greatest misgiving about this Libyan adventure.

I'm certainly not attempting to paint Col G as some form of latter-day saint,cos he's not that for sure.

However I'm equally confident that his is far from the worst example of despotic rule to be found in the region,by a large distance.

The nature,extent and indeed,popular support for the "rebels" also remains,in my view,open to conjecture.

Colonel Gadaffi and his Government have not been "swept from power on a wave of popular uprising" even with substantial Western direct military support....why ?.....I don't accept that his use of mercenary forces can,of itself,keep a truly unwanted ruler in power.

Jonny7: The journalists, the (ex) Libyan high ranking officials, diplomats, the expats who fled the country - they have all been painting a very unified single picture ever since mid Feb.

Whilst it is true that a substantial number of these defectors have been portraying a "unified scenario" since the UN action commenced,I would suggest that "They would say that,would'nt they ?"....Its highly unlikely these high-ranking people would step in front of the "Coalition" Media and start singing the Colonels praises,would they ?.....or more top the point would the "Free World" allow them to ?

I prefer to look at other aspects of the "Mad Colonels" supposed despotic and cruel rule,area's perhaps we might have some affinity with here in Ireland,such as Healthcare...

Between 1970 and 2004 the number of beds available rose from 7589 to 19499 a 156% Increase

The number of Basic Healthcare centres rose from 12 to 306 a 2450% Increase

No of Physicians from 784 to 9234....1079% Increase.

Staff Nurses. 3073 to 30085.....879% Increase...

Figures sourced from "The Libyan Econony-Economic Diversification and International Repositioning." Otman and Karlberg.(Springer Science and Media 2007).

For me,Libya just is'nt fitting the popular template of the badly run,tin-pot dictatorship in the same mould as,for example Uncle Bob Mugabe's Zimbabwe....?

I'll go with Cyberhog's line here and particularly Dick Haase's somewhat cogent analysis of the situation.

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

For me,Libya just is'nt fitting the popular template of the badly run,tin-pot dictatorship in the same mould as,for example Uncle Bob Mugabe's Zimbabwe....?

I'll go with Cyberhog's line here and particularly Dick Haase's somewhat cogent analysis of the situation.

If there were protests in London and David Cameron ordered the military to open fire on the crowds with anti-aircraft guns, and worse.

Would I be defending it by saying how much health care there in the UK?

No - its ridiculous

Whilst universally loathed, Gaddafi was playing ball, and there were no "plans" to take him out, a la Iraq

Its his RECENT brutal actions that have mainly caused such a response from the world.
You don't deem them violent enough to merit such a response, fine that's your opinion.

To put it more crudely, we already have the contracts, we are mired in two unwinnable wars, we weren't exactly "pining" to go at him with any old excuse.

Using your logic I can say ..

Well Saddam had decent employment, a strong middle class, good infrastructure - even with previous heavy Western intervention, the Kurds weren't overthrowing him, I don't buy it all this, he's not so bad, here's some stats on education in the country.. see .. not so bad.. are who are these "Kurds" anyway, how come they are so armed.. what are their motives? anyway he's probably just going to arrest the ringleaders and be a little firm. Besides I think we are just a bit indoctrinated by all this Western propaganda on him.

On another note, back to the mecenaries debate
Gaddafi has regular military, mainly conscripts, then he has very loyal, well trained parmilitaries, akin to the "republican guard" in Iraq, they'll pretty much do what he says.. he "also" has mercenaries. Typically used to supplement a fighting force, it is an extremely sinister turn of events to be using them against the local populace. Average soldiers, even hardcore paramilitaries have a hard time doing violence to civilians. Many African mercenaries, esp. those from Congo, Liberia, etc do not have this problem.




.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

If there were protests in London and David Cameron ordered the military to open fire on the crowds with anti-aircraft guns, and worse.

Would I be defending it by saying how much health care there in the UK?

No - its ridiculous

Using your logic I can say ..

Well Saddam had decent employment, a strong middle class, good infrastructure - even with previous heavy Western intervention, the Kurds weren't overthrowing him, I don't buy it all this, he's not so bad, here's some stats on education in the country.. see .. not so bad.. are who are these "Kurds" anyway, how come they are so armed.. what are their motives? anyway he's probably just going to arrest the ringleaders and be a little firm. Besides I think we are just a bit indoctrinated by all this Western propaganda on him.

On another note, back to the mecenaries debate
Gaddafi has regular military, mainly conscripts, then he has very loyal, well trained parmilitaries, akin to the "republican guard" in Iraq, they'll pretty much do what he says.. he "also" has mercenaries. Typically used to supplement a fighting force, it is an extremely sinister turn of events to be using them against the local populace. Average soldiers, even hardcore paramilitaries have a hard time doing violence to civilians. Many African mercenaries, esp. those from Congo, Liberia, etc do not have this problem.

.

The UK point would indeed be ridiculous,if that was what I was making...however it's not.

Much of the entire premise upon which the UN action is based revolves around Gadaffi being a raving slavering lunatic with blood dripping from his panga.....

My point is that,obviously he took a period of study-leave from all of this in order to take a hugely backward Health Service and lake it universally available to Libyan's generally...

A similar issue arises with Education,particularly for females.

To take what I believe is the 4th largest country in Africa and implement such policies flies significantly counter to the portrayal of the Lunatic Colonel,so beloved of many a Western Leader down the years.

The bit about the nationality of the African Mercenaries leaves me a tad uncertain....it's almost as if behaving in such fashion only merits robust response if it's done outside their home 20 ?

Could it be,perhaps,that these countries might just have merited a UN adventure in their own right .....maybe before the agency decided to unseat Gadaffi ??