/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Obama Speech on Libya



Ramadhan
03-29-2011, 08:17 AM
So, finally the US is giving full official commitment to attack and invade another sovereign country.

Full text:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/barack-o...329-1ce2d.html


Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
Obama conveniently forgot that Libya is also a muslim country with so much oil wealth sits directly next to Europe.

I don't know why many muslims (american and non) were so enamoured by Obama when he is nothing but a US president, who must serve the interests of enemies of Islam.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ramadhan
03-29-2011, 09:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So, finally the US is giving full official commitment to attack and invade another sovereign country.

Make that the third successive sovereign MUSLIM country.

coinceidence?
Reply

Trumble
03-29-2011, 10:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So, finally the US is giving full official commitment to attack and invade another sovereign country.
Er... what? I can only assume you haven't actually bothered to read it. It makes no commitment, full, official or otherwise to do either (unless you are one of the few left who would suggest the remnants of Gaddafi's forces legitimately represent the 'sovereign country of Libya') . In the case of 'invasion' he DID make a specific statement to the contrary (just as have Britain and France).

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
03-29-2011, 11:10 AM
I don't know why many muslims (american and non) were so enamoured by Obama when he is nothing but a US president, who must serve the interests of enemies of Islam.
they're a bunch of 2-faced hypocrites :(
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Al-Mufarridun
03-29-2011, 11:15 AM
The Unspeak of Liberal War - Tarak Barkawi
Reply

Ramadhan
03-29-2011, 01:33 PM
You just have to replace "Libya" with "iraq" and Obama's speech sound awfully similar to Bushies' rethoric before Iraq invasion.
Reply

Gator
03-29-2011, 01:38 PM
Yes, we are about to invade and take over Libya! HAHAHAHAHA! Soon our soldiers will be in Tripoli and Benghazi repressing the people and stealing all of their oil.

Because MQ wouldn't sell us any oil or buy weapons from us we had to take it...and just because it was a Muslim country too.

We were also jealous of the paradise on Earth that was Lybia as the Libyan people were all too happy. Just like we took over Tunisia and Egypt!

The revolutions are just a cover for us to take over and spread starbucks and McDonalds (mmmm....McDonalds).

<<Sarcasm>>> Link to definition of sarcasm ---> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Thanks.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-29-2011, 02:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
Yes, we are about to invade and take over Libya! HAHAHAHAHA! Soon our soldiers will be in Tripoli and Benghazi repressing the people and stealing all of their oil.

Actually, US forces already did:
And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi's troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance.
If thats is not attacking militarily a sovereign country, I dont know what does.

And for oil, after the regime change, done through this:
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
you can bet that American oil companies will get very sweet (crude) oil deals from the new regimes, replacing the deals handed out to other companies, mostly chinese who had secured most of the sweetest oil deals.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
We were also jealous of the paradise on Earth that was Lybia as the Libyan people were all too happy. Just like we took over Tunisia and Egypt!
So Iraq and Afghanistan are paradise on earth?

format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
The revolutions are just a cover for us to take over and spread starbucks and McDonalds (mmmm....McDonalds).
How old are ya?
Reply

Gator
03-29-2011, 02:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Actually, US forces already did:
If thats is not attacking militarily a sovereign country, I dont know what does.
Like I said within the month, US forces will be patrolling the streets of every major city (especially the oil refinery ones) and in complete control of Libya. I'm glad we agree and we'll look like total f%&^ing idiots if it doesn't.


format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
And for oil, after the regime change, done through this:
you can bet that American oil companies will get very sweet (crude) oil deals from the new regimes, replacing the deals handed out to other companies, mostly chinese who had secured most of the sweetest oil deals.
Exactly, in fact, we aint even gonna have to pay for the oil we're just going to take it. We're just going to kick out all the other national oil companies like France and China. Once again if this is not so, you and I are utter morons.




format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So Iraq and Afghanistan are paradise on earth?
They were, and we just had to invade for no reason and take their oil! (Actually, I think that really was the situation in Iraq. Not that it was paradise on Earth. Although it looks like the Chinese, British and Malaysians are going to get all the development contracts! WTH!)
Reply

Zafran
03-29-2011, 03:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
Like I said within the month, US forces will be patrolling the streets of every major city (especially the oil refinery ones) and in complete control of Libya. I'm glad we agree and we'll look like total f%&^ing idiots if it doesn't.


Exactly, in fact, we aint even gonna have to pay for the oil we're just going to take it. We're just going to kick out all the other national oil companies like France and China. Once again if this is not so, you and I are utter morons.




They were, and we just had to invade for no reason and take their oil! (Actually, I think that really was the situation in Iraq. Not that it was paradise on Earth. Although it looks like the Chinese, British and Malaysians are going to get all the development contracts! WTH!)
Are you kidding me - we've been having problems with Mugabe for a long time nobody bothers to help the people there

We've had problems in sudan as well nobody cared about that as well

Nobody cared about Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen and Behrian and now syria.

But soon as Libya gets in trouble bang off we go to save the oil....I mean rebels - besides most the UK gets there oil from Libya - it would be stupid for the UK not to help the oil.....I mean rebels.
Reply

سيف الله
03-29-2011, 11:42 PM
Salaam

Yes its rather odd, this sudden urge to 'liberate' Libya, wonder why all of a sudden?

Some random thoughts

1 I think they want to exocise the ghosts of Iraq and somewhat Afghanistan, UK and US have cultivated an image as promoters of 'freedom' and 'democracy', however this has been exposed as a sham, so I think they desperately want to reconstruct
the Imperial ideology of 'liberal interventionism'

2 Gaddaffi was always a bit of a joker in the pack, none of his neighbours liked him very much, so now that he is facing a revolt its an opportune time to get rid of him and install a government that is more predictable

3 Western countries want to be on the 'right side of history', now that major changes have taken place in the middle east that are irreversable they want to 'channel' and 'guide' the coming revolutions to suit their own geo-politcal interests (spreading western values etc etc). If they can install a government in Libya that is grateful to the west could give them serious leverage over the rest of the new middle east perhaps hindering the ability of new governments to follow an independent course of action.

4 I dont think this war was fought for oil, though after the conflict oil will become important as well as other commercial interests.

Some articles worth reading

'Noble' War In Libya - Part 1
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?o...2011&Itemid=68

'Noble' War In Libya - Part 2
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?o...2011&Itemid=68
Reply

Darth Ultor
03-30-2011, 12:33 AM
Obama, you lost my vote. What in the blue **** are you thinking?
Reply

LavaDog
03-30-2011, 01:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Obama conveniently forgot that Libya is also a muslim country with so much oil wealth sits directly next to Europe.
Obama didn't forget Libya has oil. He was inaugurated on January 20th of 09, the next day the media reported Gaddafi was going to nationalize the oil companies in Libya. About week after that the army war college journal had a report saying that Obama was going to keep a close eye on the events in Libya.
Reply

Aprender
03-30-2011, 01:16 AM
It really made me sad to hear what he was saying in this speech this morning. I don't think it matters who we have in power in the U.S., this would have happened...
Reply

Salafi1407
03-30-2011, 01:35 AM
I bet 5 years down the line they will still be there "liberating" the country :) Just like they are glorifying Iraq and Afghanistan.

And by liberating I mean, killing many many innocent women, kids, people in general. Making sure Islam and the Shariah does not rise again. Trying to implement their laws (democracy) upon OUR countries (funny how they get all worked up when we suggest our laws for their countries? and they go round bullying our brothers and sisters into adopting their hypocracy... I mean democracy) Oh and the oil is a nice bonus too.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-30-2011, 02:07 AM
Did anyone find it super ironic (I am refraining myself here) that Obama was calling Gaddafy all sorts of names and is punishing him for bombing and throwing missiles at the rebels, meanwhile he is giving the aacolades to the US military who is doing the exact same thing, jet bombing and missiles throwing at the rebels in Afghanistan?

Or did I miss something?
Reply

Verdetequiero
03-30-2011, 02:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Make that the third successive sovereign MUSLIM country.

coinceidence?
Starting from the beginning

The US has also invaded 3 countries with sand in it, coincidence? I think not. Protect the sand imo.
Reply

Verdetequiero
03-30-2011, 02:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You just have to replace "Libya" with "iraq" and Obama's speech sound awfully similar to Bushies' rethoric before Iraq invasion.
In a vacuum it is almost exactly the same.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-30-2011, 02:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
Starting from the beginning The US has also invaded 3 countries with sand in it, coincidence? I think not. Protect the sand imo.

I'm sure you've grown up enough to notice that sand are not people.

Or do people have the same value as sand in your atheistic book?
Reply

Verdetequiero
03-30-2011, 02:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


I'm sure you've grown up enough to notice that sand are not people.

Or do people have the same value as sand in your atheistic book?
The US has invaded 3 countries with facial hair? Is that a coincidence? I think not. The Zionist Christian Crusaders want to remove the only thing keeping our chops and cheek bones warm at night so that they can use it for their Illuminati inspired themes. Perhaps the infidels have ran out of their precious oil and are harvesting the faithful's warm muttonchops in order to sew blankets for the winter.

The point is that you don't have to resort to coincidence theories to oppose the Libyan intervention. There are plenty of cogent arguments such as Glen Greenwald's piece in the Salon ( I can't post a link so I would highly recommend it) but I understand the urge to dog whistle the Muslim vs the infidel crusader meme so it is understandable.
Reply

LavaDog
03-30-2011, 03:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Did anyone find it super ironic (I am refraining myself here) that Obama was calling Gaddafy all sorts of names and is punishing him for bombing and throwing missiles at the rebels, meanwhile he is giving the aacolades to the US military who is doing the exact same thing, jet bombing and missiles throwing at the rebels in Afghanistan?
They used to pass these out after the crap at Fallujah. It's pretty much the same.

Attachment 4243
Reply

Trumble
03-30-2011, 07:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Did anyone find it super ironic (I am refraining myself here) that Obama was calling Gaddafy all sorts of names and is punishing him for bombing and throwing missiles at the rebels, meanwhile he is giving the aacolades to the US military who is doing the exact same thing, jet bombing and missiles throwing at the rebels in Afghanistan?
I might be super ironic if anyone other than yourself (and maybe Hugo Chavez?) still recognised Gaddafi as the legitimate authority in Libya. As it is, just another example of, as Verdetequiero so excellently put it, "the urge to dog whistle the Muslim vs the infidel crusader meme".

Same question I asked before. What do YOU think should happen in Libya? Contrary to your ramblings about 'invasion' the US, Britain, France, Italy etc would be absolutely delighted if those muslim countries (i.e. most of them, now) stepped up to the plate and enforced the no-fly zone and took out Gaddafi's artillery raining shells on civilians themselves. It's expensive in these days of austerity. But where are they? Or would you prefer Gaddafi was just left to get on with it and regain control by slaughtering anybody opposed to him?
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-30-2011, 03:27 PM
This is where I get confused with this. Maybe you can clear it up for me. Didn't western oil companies already have a bunch of sweet deals in Libya under Gadafi? Wouldn't a regime change be risking the sweet deals there already had? There seems to me to be no guarantee that the next regime will be any more in the pocket of western oil companies than Gadafi was.

Also, if the oil company deals are with China or France or the UK, and the US moves in and takes them over through the regime change, woudln't that create a rift with China, France or the UK?

I don't claim to know a whole lot about Lybian oil. So maybe somebody here does and can clarify?
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-30-2011, 03:35 PM
Obama's reaction to this whole thing is a good case in point of what Trumble is saying above. Obama initially resisted and people screamed out about it, that he wasn't helping and should be. Then he started to help a little bit, while bending over backwards to NOT actually invade or take over, and people call him a war monger. He really was in a no-win position. And it is also a good point that the arab nations didn't step up to the plate. They have armies and planes etc, but they explicitly called out to the west. They did. You can look it up.
Reply

Zafran
03-30-2011, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Obama's reaction to this whole thing is a good case in point of what Trumble is saying above. Obama initially resisted and people screamed out about it, that he wasn't helping and should be. Then he started to help a little bit, while bending over backwards to NOT actually invade or take over, and people call him a war monger. He really was in a no-win position. And it is also a good point that the arab nations didn't step up to the plate. They have armies and planes etc, but they explicitly called out to the west. They did. You can look it up.
A lot of people have been calling out for the US to intervene in sudan as well, God knows how many people are dying there and have died - but you see theres no oil unlike Libya. Face it people the Uk, US, France and co dont give a crap about the mid east - Theres no romantic pitcure of saving the rebels here - the oils calling out we need to save it and if that means saving a few rebels here and there no problem.......makes us look better.

To trumble - the whole point the other regimes in the mid east are not helping in enforcing the no fly zone is because they are scared that if they join in with the US, UK, France and co they will be seen as siding with the west and therefore lose support from there population - with the atmosphere in the mid east right now I dont think the mid east regimes can risk that.
Reply

Zafran
03-30-2011, 03:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is where I get confused with this. Maybe you can clear it up for me. Didn't western oil companies already have a bunch of sweet deals in Libya under Gadafi? Wouldn't a regime change be risking the sweet deals there already had? There seems to me to be no guarantee that the next regime will be any more in the pocket of western oil companies than Gadafi was.

Also, if the oil company deals are with China or France or the UK, and the US moves in and takes them over through the regime change, woudln't that create a rift with China, France or the UK?

I don't claim to know a whole lot about Lybian oil. So maybe somebody here does and can clarify?
I know the UK did - but soon as Gaddafi started to kill people its a perfect time to go in there take it - under the excuse we're saving the rebels.
Reply

سيف الله
03-30-2011, 10:05 PM
Salaam

Check this out, has subtitles





Shows why hes not like by other Middle Eastern rulers.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-31-2011, 03:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I might be super ironic if anyone other than yourself (and maybe Hugo Chavez?) still recognised Gaddafi as the legitimate authority in Libya.

Did I even say Gaddafi is the legitimate authority in Libya?

I said "Libya is a sovereign, independent country"

Are you THAT dense not to notice the basic difference?
Reply

Ramadhan
03-31-2011, 03:21 AM
Just from my observation, I find it interesting that atheists at least in this forum believe that US motive in Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) is purely altruism to save the citizens of those countries from the evil of dictatorships.

By the way, could you also tell your western governments to save the people of North Korea, Myanmar, Cote D'voire, uzbekistan, azerbaijan, and other assorted sub saharan countries?

Of course, The US is not in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya because they are muslim countries, have tons of oil or strategically located. No no no... it's because the amreekans are genuinely concerned with the general welfare of the afghanis, iraqis and libyans.

Don't believe me?
Just ask the flying spaghetti monsters.
Reply

Verdetequiero
03-31-2011, 03:27 AM
One of the more common errors I see my fellow-travellers make is the desire to find conspiratorial and malevolent motives behind the aggression of the empire, and while it is true that some wars and some campaigns and some interventions are indeed moved by design, it is equally and likewise true that many of its actions really are dumb and reflexive. I mean, the old Albrightian axiom is the most accurate insight into the relevant mindset: what is the point of having this magnificent military if you're not going to use it? And these things do not have to exist in mutual exclusion. The US invasion of Iraq can be a viciously deliberate expansion of the global garrison while the Afghan invasion can be a war of retribution that metastasized into a cryptocolonial exercise of semipermanent occupation while the Libya kintomagnetoelectrodynamicalimited military prestochangeo whathaveyou can be a hastily conceived exercise in happytime goodluck bombing. At the same time! There is no reason at all to presume that some cabal of Illuminati are actually directing all of these things along a single axis of intention toward a singular evil end. There is a certain "exceptionalism" in the imputation of omnicompetence or even consistent design--and this is not to say that America can never be malevolent, but that it is just as likely merely malicious, and that its rulers really do believe in bombs for peace even as they believe in bombs for democracy and bombs for American material interest and bombs for first-dibs-on-oil and bombs for The Women. They believe in bombs for everything as surely as Joanne down in the copyroom believes in the universal curative powers of fish oil or vitamin C.
I think this blog post from WhoisIOZ sums up everything quiet nicely.
Reply

Little_Lion
03-31-2011, 03:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Don't believe me?
Just ask the flying spaghetti monsters.
*slams fist on the table* I'm telling you, the decline of conditions in Libya is directly related to the decline in the population of pirates! Just like global warming, which is directly caused by a lack of pirates!

(For anyone not getting the references, just look up Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
Reply

titus
03-31-2011, 05:18 AM
So for the people claiming this is about oil, can you explain what is going to happen with the oil that will make things better for the "West"?

Are they going to take the oil without paying for it? Are they going to be given the oil for free? Are they going to force Libya to charge them below market value for it?

Please enlighten me as to what is going to happen to make this worthwhile from an economic standpoint in regards to oil
Reply

Trumble
03-31-2011, 07:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Did I even say Gaddafi is the legitimate authority in Libya?

I said "Libya is a sovereign, independent country"

Are you THAT dense not to notice the basic difference?

No. You, though, are getting so carried away with your incoherent rants you just are contradicting yourself. If Gaddafi no longer represents the legimate authority in Libya, how does attacking his forces represent attacking the 'sovereign state of Libya'?!

Again, what do YOU want to see happen in Libya now?

BTW,

By the way, could you also tell your western governments to save the people of North Korea, Myanmar, Cote D'voire, uzbekistan, azerbaijan, and other assorted sub saharan countries?
North Korea - would need the support of China (which would not be forthcoming) to be practical, even if they weren't psychopathic nutters quite happy to lob a nuke onto Seoul.

Myanmar - again would probably need the support of China. Would have certainly involved ground troops in Vietnam type numbers, which were simply not available. Logistics and terrain very difficult.

Uzbekistan - human rights situation slowing improving. Legitimate authority not disputed, if not liked. Military intervention logistically difficult, Russian support probably needed. No black gold. Lots of the boring gold gold, though.

Azerbeijan - In relation to Nagorno-Karabakh, it is virtually impossible to see what intervention could be made. Again, without Russian support (and they were a bit busy at the time) logistics would have been extremely difficult, and as there were essentially two guerilla armies fighting it out in the mountains any sort of no-fly zone or such would have been pointless.

Cote D'Ivoire. Intervention impossible unless ground troops are used. Had you actually read the article you linked to you might have grasped that Obama is not willing to do that, just the same as is the case in Libya. He simply dfoesnt have the troops available, and their use would be politically unacceptable.
Reply

Argamemnon
03-31-2011, 08:10 PM
Libya's Upheaval Being Orchestrated From Washington By Us Agent

Libya: The Rest of the Story
Libyan opposition literally running protests from Washington.
by Tony Cartalucci

When Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, accused foreigners and opposition groups of fomenting unrest within Libya, it appears no truer words have been spoken. It is not surprising BBC and the rest of the corporate owned media went through extensive measures to discredit his speech.

Unbelievable revelations have been discovered regarding the unrest in Libya. The leader of Libya's opposition group organizing the protests both inside and outside of Libya, is currently in Washington D.C. as he and his organization direct the upheaval and bedlam consuming the North African nation.

An interview with Ibrahim Sahad of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) on ABC Australia, features every talking point covered by the mainstream corporate media from over the past week, all with the White House and Washington Monument looming over him in the background.

Ibrahim Sahad and his NFLS formed the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London in 2005. This group specifically went out of its way to appear not to be influenced or supported by the United States. Perhaps to cement this notion, Huffington Post featured documents released by the NCLO in a wikileaks-esque move to pin US support on Qaddafi. Of course, as with all the unrest in the Middle East, as the facts trickle out we find out this is not to avoid confusion, it is to avoid the truth.

The Sahad's NCLO began organizing the February 17th "Day of Rage" right on cue as Egypt fell so the mainstream media apparatus could swing around and put the focus on Libya. Conveniently, the media needs only move from Cairo to Egypt's western border and wait for Sahad's men on the ground to secure them a base of operations, presumably in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi. Qaddafi apparently understands the role of NGOs and the foreign media, which is why they are not in the streets of Libya's cities, and coverage has been admittedly daunting.

It turns out that both the corporate owned news and the US State Department/corporate funded Movements.org are getting their reports entirely from Sahad's NCLO in Washington, who claims to be in contact with "first hand" reports out of Libya. Other NFSL members including one in Dubai, are also supplying the media with this "first hand" information. These reports have become the basis for accusations of "genocide", the convening of the UNSC, economic sanctions, threats directed toward Libyan security forces that attempt to quell protesters, and NATO enforced no-fly zones.

The Neo-Con infested National Endowment for Democracy and its army of US funded NGOs recently made an official statement urging the US and EU to confront the Libyan "massacres" in the UNSC and Human Rights Council. This is still amidst reports BBC admits are "impossible to verify," based on information coming from Movements.org and a Washington based Libyan protester leader.

It should also be noted that a Ghonim-esque Libyan blogger is being reported by US corporate funded Movements.org as a "Twitter user to follow." He goes by the name "EnoughGaddafi" and is the webmaster of LibyaFeb17.com. EnoughGaddafi's work can also be found archived on Washington based Ibrahim Sahad's NFSL site (EnoughGaddafi.com was hacked according to Movements.org).

Again we are told the protests are spontaneous, inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Again we are told it is the youth yearning for freedom and "democracy." But when we look behind the curtain, we see yet another old man from Washington pulling the levers, blowing the smoke, and flashing the lights.

If you are religious, pray for the people in the streets of Libya, many of whom may be merely swept up in this cruel hoax. The US and their stooges will only be disheartened if their plot doesn't succeed. The rivers of blood that will flow to ensure that it does is never entered into their calculations.

When your US State Department sponsored "liberation" comes to you, you will hope others elsewhere will stand in solidarity with the truth, not the emotions of an engineered hoax. You will hope others take it upon themselves to speak the truth amongst the deafening din of corporate media propaganda. So spread the word, wake your neighbors up, and most importantly, boycott the corporations whose greed drives this agenda and whose members are planning and carrying it out.

Do it for the Libyans, the Egyptians, the Tunisians, and do it for yourself. The conflagration is consuming the Middle East and North Africa now, it may consume you next.

Corporate memberships and supporters of the the Anglo-American globalist agenda:

CFR Corporate Membership:
http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

Chatham House Major Corporate Membership:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/membe..._members_list/

Chatham House Standard Corporate Membership:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/membe..._members_list/

International Crisis Group Supporters:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/support/who-supports.aspx

Movements.org Supporters:
http://www.movements.org/pages/supporters

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/20...-of-story.html
Reply

Argamemnon
03-31-2011, 08:16 PM
The links below provide incontrovertible evidence exposing how the US is orchestrating the chaos, a new front in its GWOT, to salvage its doomed global hegemony.

Collection of Digests 1/28/11 - 2/28/11 US New Soft-Hard Warfront in "No.Africa-MidEast / MENA" http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/340

1/28/11 US Behind Uprisings: Major Soft Power Front in Global World War http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/333

1/29 Documents Expose US behind 'pro-democracy activists' in New War Front http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/333

2/4/11 Egypt: US Mission Accomplished? http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/334

2/11 U.S. Declares Freedom: Egypt's 'New' Military Dictatorship http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/335

2/13 Egypt: Transparent Trappings:Creative Destruction for a ’Greater Middle East' & Beyond http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/336

2/20 Removing Room for Doubt http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/337

2/21/11 Behind the Offensive Across North Africa and Middle East http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/339

2/28/11 Libya: US Soft War Preps for Military Moves: African & Arab Surrogates Assist http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/338

[duplication of node #333; #338 & 339 posted out of chronological order]
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-31-2011, 08:37 PM
Sometimes I can't tell parody from serious posts.
Reply

Zafran
04-01-2011, 04:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
So for the people claiming this is about oil, can you explain what is going to happen with the oil that will make things better for the "West"?

Are they going to take the oil without paying for it? Are they going to be given the oil for free? Are they going to force Libya to charge them below market value for it?

Please enlighten me as to what is going to happen to make this worthwhile from an economic standpoint in regards to oil
If Gaddafi stays in power us guys in the west might not get the oil therfore shooting the price of oil sky high as there will be a restriction in supply.

But if we take him out (in the pre text of supporting the rebels of course) it would give us a big chance of opening up the supply of oil by siding with the new regime (who ever they might be is of no concern) - Thats should reduce the price of oil - cheaper oil for us guys.

I love when a plan comes togather dont you.:shade:
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-01-2011, 05:43 AM
Yea that plan is going well.
Reply

Trumble
04-01-2011, 07:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Sometimes I can't tell parody from serious posts.
Bizarre, isn't it?

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
If Gaddafi stays in power us guys in the west might not get the oil therfore shooting the price of oil sky high as there will be a restriction in supply.

But if we take him out (in the pre text of supporting the rebels of course) it would give us a big chance of opening up the supply of oil by siding with the new regime (who ever they might be is of no concern) - Thats should reduce the price of oil - cheaper oil for us guys.

I love when a plan comes togather dont you.:shade:
Apart from the obvious flaw that as Gaddafi was quite happy to sell us oil anyway, surely 'the plan' with taht object should have been supporting him and not the rebels? Not to mention that there would be no restriction in supply, and only a minor price increase. The Saudis and others would just increase production to manage the supply; that's what OPEC is for. Likewise, if/when Gaddafi goes that price reduction won't be happening either!
Reply

Maryan0
04-01-2011, 06:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
If Gaddafi stays in power us guys in the west might not get the oil therfore shooting the price of oil sky high as there will be a restriction in supply.

But if we take him out (in the pre text of supporting the rebels of course) it would give us a big chance of opening up the supply of oil by siding with the new regime (who ever they might be is of no concern) - Thats should reduce the price of oil - cheaper oil for us guys.

I love when a plan comes togather dont you.:shade:
...As well as getting rid of Khaddafi and helping to bring to power someone more friendly (friendlier than Khaddafi) to western interests. Trying to Make friends with the people all over the Arab world by helping to take out one dictator with the intent that maybe the people will forget they supported these dictators for decades etc. But judging by recent events I don't think all is going according to plan.
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Sometimes I can't tell parody from serious posts.
I can understand your confusion. ^o)
Salam
Reply

Trumble
04-01-2011, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Maryan0
...As well as getting rid of Khaddafi and helping to bring to power someone more friendly (friendlier than Khaddafi) to western interests. Trying to Make friends with the people all over the Arab world by helping to take out one dictator with the intent that maybe the people will forget they supported these dictators for decades etc. But judging by recent events I don't think all is going according to plan.
Like who? The West certainly didn't support Gaddafi 'for decades'; quite the contrary. Normal diplomatic relations were only restored over the last few years, and only when Gaddafi actually did what what the US and UK (the victims of Lockerbie) had been demanding; quit supporting terrorism anywhere and cancel development programmes for WMDs.
Reply

GuestFellow
04-01-2011, 11:17 PM
:sl:

I have not been keeping up with the news but I'll share my thoughts on this issue.

I'm not sure why the US wants to get involved in Libya. I doubt the US wants to help the Libyan rebels. I'm not convinced that any country would get involved in other countries' domestic affairs unless their national interests were affected. The US ignored the Saudi troops attacking the Bahraini civilians or the violence taking place within Yemen. For those who believe the US is getting involved for charitable purpose are clearly naive or living in a fantasy world.

Anyway, I'm not surprised that Libya was targeted. Following 9/11, the neoconservatives had significantly influenced the US foreign policy. The necons are Zionists and targeted the following countries: Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

They are particularly interested in Iraq, Iran and Syria. As a result Iraq was invaded. Many believe the Iraq invasion was about oil but I disagree. The main reason I think why Iraq was invaded because of Israel. Israel, through AIPAC, put significant pressure on the Bush Administration to attack Iraq because it was considered a strategic threat to Israel. I think oil was a factor but not the main reason behind the Iraq invasion. If oil was the main motive, then Saudi Arabia would have been targeted because it has the world largest oil supply. In addition, it would not have been difficult to connect Al-Qaeda with Saudi Arabia.

Israel clearly perceives Iran as a threat. The Afghanistan war might be to Israel advantage because the US troops are stationed there and even in Pakistan.

"Operation in Afghanistan is rooted in Israel"

There are US bases in Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and in Iraq. I think there are US bases in Saudi Arabia too but I'm not sure...anyway, the point is, Iran is completely surrounded.

So I see a long-term plan for the US to build a military presence in that region and to surround hostile countries like Iran and Syria. I think the US is interested in Libya due to a strategic reason but I could be wrong...there might be another reason.

What intervention in Libya tells us about the neocon-liberal alliance

^ I'm certain the neconservatives have played a role behind Libya's invasion...
Reply

Insecured soul
04-02-2011, 01:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
UK and US have cultivated an image as promoters of 'freedom' and 'democracy',
Promoters of freedom and democracy? they are promoters of satan and who sell thier own wife and daughters for TV ads and prostitution.
do libyan's need help of bunch of kuffars to rid their country of a tyrant?

May allah help this ummah and our brothers in libya, only allah knows if it will get easy of worse
Reply

Zafran
04-02-2011, 01:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Bizarre, isn't it?



Apart from the obvious flaw that as Gaddafi was quite happy to sell us oil anyway, surely 'the plan' with taht object should have been supporting him and not the rebels? Not to mention that there would be no restriction in supply, and only a minor price increase. The Saudis and others would just increase production to manage the supply; that's what OPEC is for. Likewise, if/when Gaddafi goes that price reduction won't be happening either!
Thats like a few months ago - we've dumped him - soon as the problems in Libya began it was time take the oil off Gaddafis hands -

do you think Gaddafis still going to give us oil now when they/we have been trying to kill him? If he stays in power it will just be another Iran - very different from anything us westerners have pulled on Gaddafi I tell you.

Opec doesnt seem to be helping right now the prices are sky high and gaddafi staying will just make them go way higher - taking him and taking side with next regime will secure some stabilty back to the oil prices. You'll see the plans going smooth.

We cant rely on saudis for long - Theres been uprisings all around them - Bahrian, Yemen, Egypt, Syria. I'm shocked nothing happend in saudi arabia.

Just securing the oil guys dont mind us.
Reply

LavaDog
04-02-2011, 01:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
So I see a long-term plan for the US to build a military presence in that region and to surround hostile countries like Iran and Syria. I think the US is interested in Libya due to a strategic reason but I could be wrong...there might be another reason

Might want to put your tinfoil hat on before reading this. The entire invasion of the middle east was an Israeli idea called operation shekhinah that was later named operation iraqi freedom. Operation Shekhinah itself is part of the plan of the new strategy for securing the realm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean...ring_the_Realm

Gaddafi is not useful anymore. The west used saddam to attack Iran and had no problem giving him biological weapons but after that he was no longer useful. Gaddafi funded sarkozy's campaign in france and he is no longer useful.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/170262.html
Reply

Zafran
04-02-2011, 01:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Maryan0
...As well as getting rid of Khaddafi and helping to bring to power someone more friendly (friendlier than Khaddafi) to western interests. Trying to Make friends with the people all over the Arab world by helping to take out one dictator with the intent that maybe the people will forget they supported these dictators for decades etc. But judging by recent events I don't think all is going according to plan.

I can understand your confusion. ^o)
Salam
Kaddafis been more crafty then that - he hasnt been like other arab dictators - The UK didnt like him for a long time until they sorted out the Lockerbie bombing break up.
Reply

سيف الله
04-02-2011, 09:58 PM
Salaam

Good article on the current situation

]Libya: Politics of humanitarian intervention

The process of implementing the UN resolution on Libya was a poorly executed farce with no long-term foresight.



Iraq and Afghanistan teach us that humanitarian intervention does not end with the removal of the danger it purports to target. It only begins with it. Having removed the target, the intervention grows and turns into the real problem. This is why to limit the discussion of the Libyan intervention to its stated rationale – saving civilian lives – is barely scratching the political surface.

The short life of the Libyan intervention suggests that we distinguish between justification and execution in writing its biography. Justification was a process internal to the United Nations Security Council, but execution is not. In addition to authorising a "no-fly zone" and tightening sanctions against "the Gaddafi regime and its supporters", Resolution 1973 called for "all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi." At the same time, it expressly "excluded a foreign occupation force of any form" or in "any part of Libyan territory".

UN conflicts

The UN process is notable for two reasons. First, the resolution was passed with a vote of 10 in favour and five abstaining. The abstaining governments – Russia, China, India, Brazil, Germany – represent the vast majority of humanity.

Even though the African Union had resolved against an external intervention and called for a political resolution to the conflict, the two African governments in the Security Council – South Africa and Nigeria – voted in favour of the resolution. They have since echoed the sentiments of the governments that abstained, that they did not have in mind the scale of the intervention that has actually occurred.

The second thing notable about the UN process is that though the Security Council is central to the process of justification, it is peripheral to the process of execution.
The Russian and Chinese representatives complained that the resolution left vague "how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be."

Having authorised the intervention, the Security Council left its implementation to any and all, it "authorised Member States, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements." As with every right, this free for all was only in theory; in practise, the right could only be exercised by those who possessed the means to do so.
As the baton passed from the UN Security Council to the US and NATO, its politics became clearer.

Money trail

When it came to the assets freeze and arms embargo, the Resolution called on the Secretary-General to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions. Libyan assets are mainly in the US and Europe, and they amount to hundreds of billions of dollars: the US Treasury froze $30bn of liquid assets, and US banks $18bn. What is to happen to interest on these assets?

The absence of any specific arrangement assets are turned into a booty, an interest-free loan, in this instance, to US Treasury and US banks. Like the military intervention, there is nothing international about the implementing sanctions regime. From its point of view, the international process is no more than a legitimating exercise.

If the legitimation is international, implementation is privatised, passing the initiative to the strongest of member states. The end result is a self-constituted coalition of the willing.
War furthers many interests. Each war is a laboratory for testing the next generation of weapons. It is well known that the Iraq war led to more civilian than military victims.
The debate then was over whether or not these casualties were intended. In Libya, the debate is over facts. It points to the fact that the US and NATO are perfecting a new
generation of weapons, weapons meant for urban warfare, weapons designed to minimise collateral damage.

The objective is to destroy physical assets with minimum cost in human lives. The cost to the people of Libya will be of another type. The more physical assets are destroyed, the less sovereign will be the next government in Libya.

Libya's opposition

The full political cost will become clear in the period of transition. The anti-Gaddafi coalition comprises four different political trends: radical Islamists, royalists, tribalists, and secular middle class activists produced by a Western-oriented educational system. Of these, only the radical Islamists, especially those linked organisationally to Al Qaeda, have battle experience.

They – like NATO – have the most to gain in the short term from a process that is more military than political. This is why the most likely outcome of a military resolution in Libya will be an Afghanistan-type civil war. One would think that this would be clear to the powers waging the current war on Libya, because they were the same powers waging war in Afghanistan. Yet, they have so far showed little interest in a political resolution. Several facts point to this.

The African Union delegation sent to Libya to begin discussions with Col. Gaddafi in pursuit of a political resolution to the conflict was denied permission to fly over Libya – and thus land in Tripoli – by the NATO powers. The New York Times reported that Libyan tanks on the road to Benghazi were bombed from the air Iraq War-style, when they were retreating and not when they were advancing.

The two pilots of the US fighter jet F15-E that crashed near Benghazi were rescued by US forces on the ground, now admitted to be CIA operatives, a clear violation of Resolution 1973 that points to an early introduction of ground forces. The logic of a political resolution was made clear by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in a different context: "We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is."

That Clinton has been deaf to this logic when it comes to Libya is testimony that so far, the pursuit of interest has defied learning political lessons of past wars, most importantly Afghanistan. Marx once wrote that important events in history occur, as it were, twice – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. He should have added, that for its victims, farce is a tragedy compounded.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...277476962.html
Reply

Maryan0
04-03-2011, 12:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Check this out, has subtitles



.
I don't think Al Assad is laughing now...
Salam
Reply

Tyrion
04-03-2011, 12:56 AM
I've only been skimming through this thread, but are some people here actually pro qaddafi? those videos that people posted seem to imply that we have at least some people here who think he's a good guy...
Reply

Maryan0
04-03-2011, 01:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
I've only been skimming through this thread, but are some people here actually pro qaddafi? those videos that people posted seem to imply that we have at least some people here who think he's a good guy...
Not necessarily. What he is doing is now is obviously wrong but he did have some redeeming qualities prior to the situation in Libya now and I did used to like him, even Saddam Hussein had some redeeming qualities that doesnt mean Saddam wasnt a mass murderer...I may be against what Khaddafi is doing to the people of Libya but i'm alot more against those trying to interfere in Libya's affairs now in the guise of humanitarian concerns. Better the devil you know kind of thing...
Salam
Reply

GuestFellow
04-03-2011, 10:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
I've only been skimming through this thread, but are some people here actually pro qaddafi? those videos that people posted seem to imply that we have at least some people here who think he's a good guy...
Salaam,

I always found him annoying but now I think he is a lunatic.
Reply

سيف الله
04-05-2011, 04:06 PM
Salaam

Libya and the World of Oil

by Noam Chomsky


Last month, at the international tribunal on crimes during the civil war in Sierra Leone, the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor came to an end.

The chief prosecutor, U.S. law professor David Crane, informed The Times of London that the case was incomplete: The prosecutors intended to charge Moammar Gadhafi, who, Crane said, “was ultimately responsible for the mutilation, maiming and/or murder of 1.2 million people.”But the charge was not to be. The U.S., U.K. and others intervened to block it. Asked why, Crane said, “Welcome to the world of oil.”

Another recent Gadhafi casualty was Sir Howard Davies, the director of the London School of Economics, who resigned after revelations of the school’s links to the Libyan dictator. In Cambridge, Mass., the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm founded by Harvard professors, was well paid for such services as a book to bring Gadhafi’s immortal words to the public “in conversation with renowned international experts,” along with other efforts “to enhance international appreciation of (Gadhafi’s) Libya.”

The world of oil is rarely far in the background in affairs concerning this region. For example, as the dimensions of the U.S. defeat in Iraq could no longer be concealed, pretty rhetoric was displaced by honest announcement of policy goals. In November 2007 the White House issued a Declaration of Principles insisting that Iraq must grant indefinite access and privilege to American investors.

Two months later President Bush informed Congress that he would reject legislation that might limit the permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces in Iraq or “United States control of the oil resources of Iraq” – demands that the U.S. had to abandon shortly afterward in the face of Iraqi resistance.

The world of oil provides useful guidance for western reactions to the remarkable democracy uprisings in the Arab world. An oil-rich dictator who is a reliable client is granted virtual free rein. There was little reaction when Saudi Arabia declared on March 5, “Laws and regulations in the Kingdom totally prohibit all kinds of demonstrations, marches and sit-in protests as well as calling for them as they go against the principles of Shariah and Saudi customs and traditions.” The kingdom mobilized huge security forces that rigorously enforced the ban. In Kuwait, small demonstrations were crushed. The mailed fist struck in Bahrain after Saudi-led military forces intervened to ensure that the minority Sunni monarchy would not be threatened by calls for democratic reforms.

Bahrain is sensitive not only because it hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet but also because it borders Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, the location of most of the kingdom’s oil. The world’s primary energy resources happen to be located near the northern Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf, as Arabs often call it), largely Shiite, a potential nightmare for Western planners. In Egypt and Tunisia, the popular uprising has won impressive victories, but as the Carnegie Endowment reported, the regimes remain and are “seemingly determined to curb the pro-democracy momentum generated so far. A change in ruling elites and system of governance is still a distant goal” – and one that the West will seek to keep far removed. Libya is a different case, an oil-rich state run by a brutal dictator, who, however, is unreliable: A dependable client would be far preferable. When nonviolent protests erupted, Gadhafi moved quickly to crush them.

On March 22, as Gadhafi’s forces were converging on the rebel capital of Benghazi, top Obama Middle East adviser Dennis Ross warned that if there is a massacre, “everyone would blame us for it,” an unacceptable consequence. And the West certainly didn’t want Gadhafi to enhance his power and independence by crushing the rebellion. The U.S. joined in the U.N. Security Council authorization of a “no-fly zone,” to be implemented by France, the U.K. and the U.S.

The intervention prevented a likely massacre but was interpreted by the coalition as authorizing direct support for the rebels. A cease-fire was imposed on Gadhafi’s forces, but the rebels were helped to advance to the West. In short order they conquered the major sources of Libya’s oil production, at least temporarily.

On March 28, the London-based Arab journal Al-Quds Al-Arabi warned that the intervention may leave Libya with “two states, a rebel-held, oil-rich East and a poverty-stricken, Gadhafi-led West. ... Given that the oil wells have been secured, we may find ourselves facing a new Libyan oil emirate, sparsely inhabited, protected by the West and very similar to the Gulf’s emirate states.” Or the Western-backed rebellion might proceed all the way to eliminate the irritating dictator.

It is commonly argued that oil cannot be a motive for the intervention because the West had access to the prize under Gadhafi. True but irrelevant. The same could be said about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or Iran and Cuba today.

What the West seeks is what Bush announced: control, or at least dependable clients, and in the case of Libya, access to vast unexplored areas expected to be rich in oil. U.S and British internal documents stress that the “virus of nationalism” is the greatest fear, since it might breed disobedience.

The intervention is being conducted by the three traditional imperial powers (though we may recall – Libyans presumably do – that, after World War I, Italy conducted genocide in eastern Libya).
The western powers are acting in virtual isolation. States in the region – Turkey and Egypt – want no part of it, nor does Africa. The Gulf dictators would be happy to see Gadhafi gone – but, even as they’re groaning under the weight of advanced weapons provided to them to recycle petrodollars and ensure obedience, they barely offer more than token participation. The same is true beyond: India, Brazil and even Germany.

The Arab Spring has deep roots. The region has been simmering for years. The first of the current wave of protests began last year in Western Sahara, the last African colony, invaded by Morocco in 1975 and illegally held since, in a manner similar to East Timor and the Israeli-occupied territories. A nonviolent protest last November was crushed by Moroccan forces. France intervened to block a Security Council inquiry into the crimes of its client.

Then a flame ignited in Tunisia that has since spread into a conflagration.

http://www.zcommunications.org/libya...y-noam-chomsky
Reply

سيف الله
04-17-2011, 11:08 AM
Salaam

So the quest to 'liberate' Libya grinds on. Hard hitting article

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


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.

The detail is also familiar. The Libyan “pro-democracy rebels” are reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988 “with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency”. For the past 20 years, Colonel Haftar has been living not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp. The Mujihadeen, which produced al-Qaida, and the Iraqi National Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored in the same time-honoured way, in leafy Langley.

Libya’s other “rebel” leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, and General Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran Gaddafi’s interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for savagely putting down dissent. There is a civil and tribal war in Libya, which includes popular outrage against Gaddafi’s human rights record. However, it is Libya’s independence, not the nature of its regime, that is intolerable to the west in a region of vassals; and this hostility has barely changed in the 42 years since Gaddafi overthrew the feudal king Idris, one the more odious tyrants backed by the west. With his Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Gaddafi has long made an ideal “mad dog” (Daily Mirror), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a cardiac centre. The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted daughter.

What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a people’s liberation. In undermining efforts Libya’s genuine democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of January’s days of hope in Tunis and Cairo and distracted many, who had taken heart, from the task of ensuring that their gains are not stolen quietly. On 23 March, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the west. With Gaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions. Facebook has come under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full scale Palestinian uprising - a “Third Intifada” - on 15 May.

None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi Arabia. A US “coalition” would “take out” the recalcitrant Gaddafi if the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied King of Bahrain will be a guest at the Royal Wedding in London.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/d...to-them-and-us
Reply

Ramadhan
04-24-2011, 03:36 AM
Well Well ... The US has finally taken a more aggressive approach and started firing off missiles. Maybe they get more impatience now that Khaddafi is not out yet after all this. I wonder what the assorted atheists who ridiculed me in previous pages are saying now.

(note to Tyrion and anyone else before jumping into conclusion: just because I criticize the US military involvement in Libya does not mean I support Khadaffi).


DOD: First Predator strike carried out in Libya


WASHINGTON – The Pentagon says the U.S. Air Force has carried out its first Predator missile strike in Libya.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Darryn James, said the airstrike happened Saturday. He provided no details.
On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates disclosed that President Barack Obama had approved the use of armed Predator drones to improve the precision of strikes on Libyan government forces.
Predators had previously been used in Libya only for surveillance missions.
Reply

سيف الله
04-24-2011, 01:58 PM
Salaam

(Previous thread
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134304182)

Yes, Its pretty depressing how many people have fallen for the fanciful notion that this is a 'humanitarian' intervention, given the past record of western powers.

Just speculation, I think western powers want to install a 'friendly' vassal state that will be suitably obedient to western interests (eg. commercial). Also wouldnt be surprised if this is aimed at China, particualrly its ablity to access oil on favourable terms.

its like a geopolitcal game of chess.

Nice entertaining 12 min video on the subject.



I feel for the Libyans, they are between a rock and a hard place. Who will they submit to? Gaddafi and his family or will they acquinese to becoming a vassal state of western powers.

Of course the idea that Libyans could rule themselves is to outlandish to contemplate.

No easy choices. :(
Reply

سيف الله
04-29-2011, 12:52 PM
Salaam

this is interesting from Putin



Of course I dont trust his motives, being more concerned with guarding Russian interests but nevertheless his analysis is perceptive.

Heres another



Speech given by Jeremy Corbyn MP in the House of Commons on 18 March 2011 when MPs debated western intervention in Libya.. Again another perceptive speech

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...remy-corbyn-mp

Heres some statements from leading Trade Unions in the UK



Unite the union believes the attack on Libya by British, French and US forces is wrong and should be halted.

While holding no brief for Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, and strongly supporting the movements now developing for democracy and freedom across the Arab world, Unite believes the present military intervention is a mistake because:

It risks killing Libyan civilians while doing nothing to end hostilities on the ground.
It prolongs a civil conflict when what is needed is a ceasefire followed by mediation.
It raises the possibility of escalation leading to military occupation of all or part of Libya, when similar occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown how disastrous and counter-productive such interventions are. This could lead to a wider war in the region.
The action has little or no Arab involvement, and is opposed by, amongst others, Russia, China and India, leaving it dependent on those western powers whose policies have aroused deep hostility throughout the Middle East.
It stands in contrast to the indulgence shown by the government to the autocrats in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who have been allowed to repress movements for democracy in their own countries with impunity.

We urge the British government to think again, call a halt to the military action and urge a general ceasefire to be followed by international mediation.



"The record of the Gadaffi regime and the serious concerns over the safety of civilians in the areas of Libya that supported the revolt against his regime led to the United Nations Security Council resolution establishing the no-fly zone. However, the intervention of NATO forces potentially risks prolonging a civil conflict and a division on Libya, instead of a lasting solution that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people."



This Congress supports the right to protest for people around the world and expresses its solidarity with people in Libya who seek democracy and regime change. Congress, however, is not convinced that the current military action is contributing to a positive solution for the Libyan people.

Congress is concerned that the military action taken by British, French and US forces goes beyond the scope of the UN resolution and has resulted in civilian casualties. Furthermore, this action is likely to lead to further and significant ‘mission creep’ increasing the humanitarian costs and resulting in large numbers of refugees fleeing the area. It may also result in Britain becoming involved in a long and drawn out ground offensive, to the detriment of the Libyan people. The belief that Gaddafi’s regime would crumble in the face of international pressure has become less likely with each passing day and this Congress believes that the current military action has precipitated a stalemate.

Furthermore, this activity does not contribute to the development of civil society organisations, such as independent trade unions, which are required to build democracy and ensure lasting change for Libya.

Congress, therefore, urges the UK Government to:

work towards a cessation of the current military action in Libya and towards a diplomatic solution that will allow for a peaceful transition to democracy;
encourage the growth of an independent civil society in Libya and other Middle Eastern nations, including support for the development of truly independent trade unions.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...-libya-bombing
Reply

سيف الله
05-24-2011, 12:03 PM
Salaam

The quest to 'protect' the civillians of Libya continues! This time its getting even more 'muscular'


Apache helicopters to be sent into Libya by Britain

Use of helicopters, which can attack small targets, represents significant escalation of conflict


Britain and France are to deploy attack helicopters against Libya in an attempt to break the military stalemate, particularly in the important coastal city of Misrata, security sources have told the Guardian.

In a significant escalation of the conflict, the Apaches – based on HMS Ocean – will join French helicopters in risky operations which reflect deepening frustration among British and French defence chiefs about their continuing inability to protect civilians in Libya.
Apaches, which are being used in counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan, can manoeuvre and attack small targets in relatively built-up areas. Heavily armed Apaches and French Tiger helicopters are equipped with night vision equipment and electronic guidance systems. Forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, have shed their uniforms, are using civilian vehicles and hiding armour near civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools.

The decision to deploy the helicopters is a clear recognition that high-level bombing from 15,000 feet cannot protect civilians who continue to be attacked by rocket and mortar shells. It brings the Nato offensive much closer to the ground at a time when Britain and other Nato countries are insisting they have no intention of sending in troops. However, the helicopters could be vulnerable to handheld rocket-propelled grenades and even rifle fire.

Hospital officials said two people were killed and several wounded during Monday's fighting in Misrata. Later, heavy explosions outside the city were heard, lasting about an hour. Reuters quoted a rebel spokesman as saying that forces loyal to Gaddafi also shelled the rebel-held town of Zintan and moved troops close to the mountainous region bordering Tunisia, intensifying operations on the war's western front.

On Monday Nato warplanes bombed Tripoli in what appeared to be the heaviest night of bombing since the start of the air campaign against Gaddafi's forces and his sprawling compound. More than 20 airstrikes in less than half an hour set off thunderous booms that rattled windows around the city. Britain and France clearly hope that the use of attack helicopters, and the fact of revealing the intention to use them, will deter pro-Gaddafi forces and assuage Libyan rebels who have been demanding more effective military action from Nato countries. The sight of Nato forces actually on the ground would be strongly opposed by most countries in the alliance, including the US and also those Arab countries in favour of the air campaign against Gaddafi's forces.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, attending an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels, said: "We are very much behind the intensification of the military campaign and ... so is France." He added: "We certainly agree with France, and indeed with all our partners, including all our partners at the EU meeting here today, that it is necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime."

Alain Juppé, France's foreign minister, confirmed that Paris has dispatched a dozen helicopters to add greater strike force to the campaign against Gaddafi in Libya. He said that the 12 Tiger and Gazelle helicopters sent from Toulon on 17 May would enable "us to better adapt our ground attack capacity with more precise means of striking".

He added: "Our strategy is to step up the military pressure in the weeks ahead while pushing at the same time for a political solution." According to French sources, the battleship Tonnerre, carrying the helicopters, left Toulon last week. The vessel combines the roles of helicopter carrier, hospital ship, and troops transporter. Juppé said the helicopters would not be used to deploy ground forces in Libya and that the decision to send them was fully in line with the UN security council resolution mandating attacks in Libya.

The French newspaper Le Figaro said the helicopters would be assisted by target identification from French special forces who have been on the ground in Libya since the start of the allied operation there. The Ministry of Defence does not comment on special forces' operations. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: "This is a significant development. It is right that the alliance is intensifying military pressure on Gaddafi's forces, but the British government needs to be clearer about a political strategy for Libya and whether the military commitment to Libya is an open-ended one."

The first international stabilisation response team has arrived in Libya, the international development secretary Andrew Mitchell has confirmed . He said Britain would continue to provide medical and emergency food supplies, adding that "the international community also needs to start thinking strategically about what is needed now to help lay the foundations for a stable, secure Libya".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-libya-britain









And in the age of austerity and cuts, the UK can still miraculously afford to spend hundreds of millions bombing another third world country.

Libya: on track to be Britain's £1 billion war

We were told it would cost "tens, not hundreds of millions", but after two months the war on Libya is already over £100 million, and by September it's likely to top £1 billion.

Britain's involvement in the Libya conflict will cost the taxpayer as much as £1bn if it continues into the autumn as expected, according to expert analysis and data gathered by the Guardian.

Two months after western powers began bombing Libyan targets to protect civilians in Operation Unified Protector, the cost to Britain so far of the dozens of bombs dropped, hundreds of sorties flown and more than 1,000 service personnel deployed is estimated at more than £100m, according to British defence officials. But defence economists have told the Guardian the costings are conservative. Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter, estimates that by the end of April Libyan operations had already cost the UK about £300m and that the bill was increasing by up to £38m a week.

Military chiefs have acknowledged that the air campaign would last six months. At this rate, the Ministry of Defence's own estimates will put the cost of war at about £400m, but the expert view is that the figure will top £1bn by September.

Another defence analyst told the Guardian £1bn was probably at the top end of the scale, but that it would not be a complete surprise in Whitehall if this was the final bill for six months of operations.

"A lot of what they are doing out there is a substitute for training that would have cost anyway," he said.

"The final cost will depend on whether the Treasury is prepared to pay for replacements for all the bombs and missiles that have been used so far."

British warplanes are increasingly involved along with the French and Italians. According to data collected by the Guardian for the six weeks of aerial operations up to 5 May, the British have flown 25% of nearly 6,000 sorties over Libyan skies – second only to the Americans. The US total was inflated by an early surge, and it has now scaled back its operations. For the five weeks to 5 May , Britain flew more sorties than any other country. But British planes have been dropping far fewer bombs than their allies, relative to the number of flights .

So far, they have attacked about 300 targets, perhaps only 10% of the few thousands destroyed by Nato aircraft.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...p1-billion-war
Reply

سيف الله
05-30-2011, 10:56 PM
Salaam

Unsurprising (Western) special forces are involved directly in the fighting, no boots on the ground I see. . . . . . . .

Al-Jazeera footage captures 'western troops on the ground' in Libya

Five of Gaddafi's generals are among latest defectors to rebels as South African president seeks to broker ceasefire




2:00 minutes onwards

Armed westerners have been filmed on the front line with rebels near Misrata in the first apparent confirmation that foreign special forces are playing an active role in the Libyan conflict.

A group of six westerners are clearly visible in a report by al-Jazeera from Dafniya, described as the westernmost point of the rebel lines west of the town of Misrata. Five of them were armed and wearing sand-coloured clothes, peaked caps, and cotton Arab scarves.

The sixth, apparently the most senior of the group, was carrying no visible weapon and wore a pink, short-sleeve shirt. He may be an intelligence officer. The group is seen talking to rebels and then quickly leaving on being spotted by the television crew.

The footage emerged as South Africa's president, Jacob Zuma, arrived in Tripoli in an attempt to broker a ceasefire. He described reports that he would ask Muammar Gaddafi to step down as "misleading", and said he would instead focus on humanitarian measures and ways to implement a plan concocted by the African Union for Libya make a transition to democratic rule but not seek Gaddafi's exile.

The westerners were seen by al-Jazeera on rebel lines late last week, days before British and French attack helicopters are due to join the Nato campaign. They are likely to be deployed on the outskirts of Misrata, from where pro-Gaddafi forces continue to shell rebel positions to the east.

There have been numerous reports in the British press that SAS soldiers are acting as spotters in Libya to help Nato warplanes target pro-Gaddafi forces. In March, six special forces soldiers and two MI6 officers were detained by rebel fighters when they landed on an abortive mission to meet rebel leaders in Benghazi, in an embarrassing episode for the SAS.

The group was withdrawn soon afterwards and a new "liaison team" sent in its place. Asked for comment on Monday, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "We don't have any forces out there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...n-ground-libya
Reply

Ramadhan
05-31-2011, 12:55 AM
Where's trumble when you need him?

I got chastised by him for saying that Obama's speech on Libya would mark the beginning of western troop involvement on the ground in Libya, and he said that there's no way that the western countries would be directly militarily involved in Libya.
Reply

ProudMuslimSis
05-31-2011, 02:17 AM
Interesting read below from The Oil Empire (US) web site. It's all about the oil!

"Oil geography in the Middle East is a primary motivator of US policies. The selection of Senator Biden to be Obama's Vice Presidential running mate confirms this understanding, as Biden's failed Presidential campaign in 2007 was primarily focused on dismembering Iraq as a supposed solution to ethnic conflict between different groups that allegedly was not fueled by the US occupation. This partition would make it much easier for the US to control the oil fields -- and a long term goal is to similarly divide Iran and Saudi Arabia, creating a new country out of eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and western Iran that would have nearly all of the oil of those three countries. If this new "Arab Shia state" were combined with US allies Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, this would give the US control over half of the world's remaining oil reserves. This is not a "failure" of US policy in Iraq, merely an extremely cynical Machiavellian strategy. However, this goal probably would require a President with a better image than George W. Bush to conclude. Bush was the Bad Cop for the Empire, Obama has the potential to be the Good Cop."
Reply

Who Am I?
05-31-2011, 02:23 AM
Yeah, because military intervention in yet another Islamic country is exactly what the West needs right now... :hiding:
Reply

سيف الله
06-04-2011, 11:20 AM
Salaam

NATO launches helicopter strikes in Libya

Attack helicopters used for the first time, as opposition fighters advance towards the capital Tripoli.


NATO has for the first time used attack helicopters in Libya, striking military vehicles, military equipment and forces backing embattled leader Muammar Gaddafi, the military alliance has announced.

"Attack helicopters under NATO command were used for the first time on 4 June 2011 in military operations over Libya as part of Operation Unified Protector," NATO said in a statement on Saturday. "The targets struck included military vehicles, military equipment and fielded forces" of the Gaddafi regime, said the statement without detailing exactly where the strikes had taken place. “This successful engagement demonstrates the unique capabilities brought to bear by attack helicopters,” Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, commander in chief of the NATO mission in Libya, said.

“We will continue to use these assets whenever and wherever needed, using the same precision as we do in all of our missions," he added.

France was contributing four Tiger attack helicopters for the NATO operation while Britain offered four Apaches, officials said, adding that the helicopters were being prepared to fly over sea and desert conditions.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...635669472.html

The article then goes on the report that rebels are advancing and that the Chinese have met with the opposition

Heres another view. Very good antidote to the standard narrative constructed by the mainstream media.



And another heated exchange - couple of months old but good nevertheless

Reply

Who Am I?
06-04-2011, 05:22 PM
So what is the general consensus on this forum regarding the Libyan Civil War? Do you all support Ghaddafi or the rebels? Or does it even matter?

No particular reason. I'm just curious to know what the average Muslim thinks about all of this.

This video brings up a good point about the democratic initiative being taken from the Libyan people and put in the hands of Western leaders. That will only make things more difficult if and when they transition to a new government.

It all sounds a lot like what happened in Vietnam in the 1960's. First military advisors were sent, and then things escalated to the point that the first US ground troops arrived in Vietnam in 1965. The last US personnel finally left Vietnam in 1975.
Reply

GuestFellow
06-04-2011, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Just a Guy
Do you all support Ghaddafi or the rebels? Or does it even matter?
I do not support Gaddfi. I want this mad dog to be put on trial and executed. So I support the Libyan citizens who want to get rid of this mad dog.
Reply

Who Am I?
06-05-2011, 03:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
I do not support Gaddfi. I want this mad dog to be put on trial and executed. So I support the Libyan citizens who want to get rid of this mad dog.
OK, so what do you think of the Western intervention? Is it necessary, or will it lead to bigger problems for Libya in the future?
Reply

سيف الله
06-15-2011, 09:33 PM
Salaam

White House sued over Libya war

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers sued the Obama administration on Wednesday over its use of U.S. military forces in Libya.

Led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.), the members contend the White House broke the law when it launched military operations against Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Gaddafi in March without congressional authorization.

"With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies," Kucinich said in a statement.

Aside from Kucinich and Jones, eight other House members endorsed the lawsuit, including GOP Reps. Howard Coble (N.C.), John Duncan (Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Ron Paul (Texas), Tim Johnson (Ill.) and Dan Burton (Ind.), and Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.) and Michael Capuano (Mass.).

The 1973 War Powers Act requires presidents to get congressional approval for military operations within 60 days, or withdraw forces within the next 30. Congress has not authorized the current operations in Libya. The Hill

FACTS & FIGURES

Six in 10 Americans don't think the U.S. should be involved in Libya, according to a new CBS News poll. That includes majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents. The Atlantic

A Pentagon memo shows that the cost of America's involvement in the war in Libya is around $2 million per day, putting the cost well ahead of previous estimates of $40 million a month to more like $60 million a month. Antiwar

U.S. President Barack Obama has acknowledged that there was a "stalemate" on the ground in Libya.

NATO is taking the lead on the bombing campaign against Libyan forces, but the U.S. is providing key intelligence and military support. Politico

Richard Haas, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations has said, "We should push hard for a ceasefire, and do what we can to save as many lives as possible, even if that means for the time being having Gaddafi remain in power and have the country effectively divided." Scrollpost.com

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/184861.html

BBC version

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13785073
Reply

سيف الله
06-20-2011, 10:11 AM
Salaam

Another update, Heres an interesting analysis

Libyan gold was globalist game all along



Ron Paul Libyan War Is "About Commercial Business!"

Reply

سيف الله
06-22-2011, 04:45 PM
Salaam

Libya deaths trigger rift over NATO campaign

Italy and Arab League seek ceasefire after civilian casualties, but France wants air campaign to be intensified.


Civilian deaths have raised serious misgivings about the UN-authorised NATO intervention in Libya among the most ardent supporters of the ongoing air campaign. Italy's foreign minister and the outgoing head of the Arab League have each called for a halt to hostilities in the war-torn North African country. Franco Frattini told members of parliament on Wednesday that the suspension of military operations in Libya was "essential" for immediate humanitarian aid, while Amr Moussa, the Arab League chief, called for a political solution to the crisis.

But France expressed a different view, saying the military operations against Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, should be "intensified". "Any pause in operations would risk allowing him to play for time and to reorganise. In the end, it would be the civilian population that would suffer from the smallest sign of weakness on our behalf," Bernard Valero, a French foreign ministry spokesman, said.

'Strikes to continue'

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO chief, said on Wednesday that the alliance will continue its operations in Libya. "NATO will continue this mission because if we stop, countless more civilians could lose their lives," Rasmussen said in a video statement on the NATO website.

Rasmussen also addressed charges that NATO caused civilian deaths in recent air raids.

"Since the start of this mission we have conducted over 5,000 strikes sorties, and as our record shows we have taken utmost care to minimise the risk of civilian casualties and we continue to do that every day and every hour," he said.

"I deeply regret any loss of life in this conflict."

NATO on Sunday acknowledged responsibility for an air strike in Tripoli that killed several civilians.

The 28-nation alliance also acknowledged striking a military target a day later in the Sorman area west of the capital. The Libyan government said the attack had killed 19 people.

Moussa's 'missgivings'

In an interview to Britain's Guardian newspaper published on Tuesday, Moussa said the time was ripe for a political solution to the Libyan crisis. Moussa, who played a central role in securing Arab support for NATO air strikes, also voiced reservations about his support for the NATO bombing campaign after seeing civilian casualties.

"When I see children being killed, I must have misgivings. That's why I warned about the risk of civilian casualties," Moussa told the Guardian.

Moussa said the military campaign would not produce a breakthrough. "You can't have a decisive ending. Now is the time to do whatever we can to reach a political solution," he said.

"That has to start with a genuine ceasefire under international supervision. Until the ceasefire, Gaddafi would remain in office ... Then there would be a move to a transitional period … to reach an understanding about the future of Libya."

Asked whether that meant a halt to the NATO air raids, he said: "A ceasefire is a ceasefire."

Italy breaks ranks

Moussa's sentiment was shared by the Italian foreign minister, who called for urgent humanitarian aid to trapped residents in cities like Tripoli and Misurata. He said the people in those areas face a "dramatic" humanitarian situation and added that a suspension of hostilities would also avoid "consolidating a division of Libya" between east and west. He said he hoped the European Council in Brussels on Thursday would highlight an end to the fighting in Libya as "a practical solution". Frattini had warned earlier this week that NATO's accidental killing of civilians in an air strike was endangering the alliance's credibility in the eyes of the world.

"With regard to NATO, it is fair to ask for increasingly detailed information on results as well as precise guidelines on the dramatic errors involving civilians," he said.

"This is clearly not part of NATO's mission."

Libya is a former Italian colony and Silvio Berlusconi's government had enjoyed close ties with the government of Gaddafi. Italy was initially cautious in its reaction to the crackdown by the Libyan leader but has since played a key role in the NATO-led military operation by offering the use of its air bases to conduct air raids. NATO launched its air campaign in Libya to protect civilians from a brutal crackdown launched by Gaddafi's regime in response to an uprising against his four-decades long rule.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...488135496.html
Reply

سيف الله
07-01-2011, 09:25 AM
Salaam

Patrick Cockburn: Don't believe everything you see and read about Gaddafi

World View: Both sides in this conflict are guilty of spreading propaganda – and foreign journalists have on occasion been all too eager to help


In the first months of the Arab Spring, foreign journalists got well-merited credit for helping to foment and publicise popular uprisings against the region's despots. Satellite TV stations such as Al Jazeera Arabic, in particular, struck at the roots of power in Arab police states, by making official censorship irrelevant and by competing successfully against government propaganda.

Regimes threatened by change have, since those early days, paid backhanded compliments to the foreign media by throwing correspondents out of countries where they would like to report and by denying them visas to come back in. Trying to visit Yemen earlier this year, I was told that not only was there no chance of my being granted a journalist's visa, but that real tourists – amazingly there is a trickle of such people wanting to see the wonders of Yemen – were being turned back at Sanaa airport on the grounds that they must secretly be journalists. The Bahrain government has an even meaner trick: give a visa to a journalist at a Bahraini embassy abroad and deny him entry when his plane lands.

It has taken time for this policy of near total exclusion to take hold, but it means that, today, foreign journalistic coverage of Syria, Yemen and, to a lesser extent, Bahrain is usually long-distance, reliant on cellphone film of demonstrations and riots which cannot be verified.

I was in Tehran earlier this year and failed to see any demonstrations in the centre of the city, though there were plenty of riot police standing about. I was therefore amazed to find a dramatic video on YouTube dated, so far as I recall, 27 February, showing a violent demonstration. Then I noticed the protesters in the video were wearing only shirts though it was wet and freezing in Tehran and the men I could see in the streets were in jackets. Presumably somebody had redated a video shot in the summer of 2009 when there were prolonged riots.

With so many countries out of bounds, journalists have flocked to Benghazi, in Libya, which can be reached from Egypt without a visa. Alternatively they go to Tripoli, where the government allows a carefully monitored press corps to operate under strict supervision. Having arrived in these two cities, the ways in which the journalists report diverge sharply. Everybody reporting out of Tripoli expresses understandable scepticism about what government minders seek to show them as regards civilian casualties caused by Nato air strikes or demonstrations of support for Gaddafi. By way of contrast, the foreign press corps in Benghazi, capital of the rebel-held territory, shows surprising credulity towards more subtle but equally self-serving stories from the rebel government or its sympathisers.

Ever since the Libyan uprising started on 15 February, the foreign media have regurgitated stories of atrocities carried out by Gaddafi's forces. It is now becoming clear that reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been unable to find evidence for the worst of these. For instance, they could find no credible witnesses to the mass rapes said to have been ordered by Gaddafi. Foreign mercenaries supposedly recruited by Gaddafi and shown off to the press were later quietly released when they turned out to be undocumented labourers from central and west Africa.

The crimes for which there is proof against Gaddafi are more prosaic, such as the bombardment of civilians in Misrata who have no way to escape. There is also proof of the shooting of unarmed protesters and people at funerals early on in the uprising. Amnesty estimates that some 100-110 people were killed in Benghazi and 59-64 in Baida, though it warns that some of the dead may have been government supporters.

The Libyan insurgents were adept at dealing with the press from an early stage and this included skilful propaganda to put the blame for unexplained killings on the other side. One story, to which credence was given by the foreign media early on in Benghazi, was that eight to 10 government troops who refused to shoot protesters were executed by their own side. Their bodies were shown on TV. But Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty International, says there is strong evidence for a different explanation. She says amateur video shows them alive after they had been captured, suggesting it was the rebels who killed them.

It is a weakness of journalists that they give wide publicity to atrocities, evidence for which may be shaky when first revealed. But when the stories turn out to be untrue or exaggerated, they rate scarcely a mention.

But atrocity stories develop a life of their own and have real, and sometimes fatal, consequences long after the basis for them is deflated. Earlier in the year in Benghazi I spoke to refugees, mostly oil workers from Brega, an oil port in the Gulf of Sirte which had been captured by Gaddafi forces. One of the reasons they had fled was that they believed their wives and daughters were in danger of being raped by foreign mercenaries. They knew about this threat from watching satellite TV.

It is all credit to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that they have taken a sceptical attitude to atrocities until proven. Contrast this responsible attitude with that of Hillary Clinton or the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, who blithely suggested that Gaddafi was using rape as a weapon of war to punish the rebels. Equally irresponsible would be a decision by the ICC to prosecute Gaddafi and his lieutenants, thus making it far less likely that Gaddafi can be eased out of power without a fight to the finish. This systematic demonisation of Gaddafi – a brutal despot he may be, but not a monster on the scale of Saddam Hussein – also makes it difficult to negotiate a ceasefire with him, though he is the only man who can deliver one.

There is nothing particularly surprising about the rebels in Benghazi making things up or producing dubious witnesses to Gaddafi's crimes. They are fighting a war against a despot whom they fear and hate and they will understandably use black propaganda as a weapon of war. But it does show naivety on the part of the foreign media, who almost universally sympathise with the rebels, that they swallow whole so many atrocity stories fed to them by the rebel authorities and their sympathisers.

http://thehivedaily.com/blog/2011/06...about-gaddafi/
Reply

سيف الله
07-01-2011, 09:35 AM
Salaam

Another update



Russia criticises France over Libya arms drop

Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov says France has committed a "crude violation" of a UN weapons embargo.


Russia has criticised France for air-dropping weapons in Libya's rebel-held areas, saying it violated a United Nations resolution. It said on Thursday that France has committed a "crude violation" of a UN weapons embargo.

Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said his ministry had asked France for further details. "We are awaiting a response. If it is confirmed, it's a flagrant violation", of the resolution, he said.

Russia and China have both questioned whether or not the supplying of weapons breached the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution that authorises international action in Libya.

China, without naming France, said that nations should not overstep the remit of the UN resolutions. Hong Lei, China's foreign ministry spokesman called on "the international community to strictly follow the spirit of the relevant resolution of the UN Security Council and avoid taking any action that goes beyond the mandate of the resolution".

But Mark Toner, a US State department spokesman, told reporters in Washington that the US would "respectfully disagree" with the Russian assessment in a move that threatens to become a new diplomatic dispute over the western air war.

"We believe that UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, read together, neither specified nor precluded providing defence material to the Libyan opposition," he said.

France confirmed on Wednesday that it had air-dropped arms to rebels in Libya's western mountains, becoming the first NATO country to openly acknowledge arming the rebels against Muammar Gaddafi's 41-year rule. Rebels acknowledged the French support, saying it had helped sustain them in the region.

"There should be no doubt that Libyans in the Nafusa Mountain area are alive and safe today thanks to a combination of heroic Libyan bravery and French wisdom and support," Abdul Hafeedh Ghoga, vice chairman, of the Transitional National Council said in a statement of thanks to French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Meanwhile, a Libyan opposition leader said on Thursday that rebels needed more weapons and funding even as the head of the African Union expressed concern over the flow of weapons into Libya.

AU criticises foreign intervention

AU Commissioner Jean Ping, who chairs a meeting of African leaders in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, on Thursday, said that weapons distributed in Libya would contribute to the "destabilisation" of African states.

"What worries us is not who is giving what, but simply that weapons are being distributed by all parties and to all parties. We already have proof that these weapons are in the hands of al-Qaeda, of traffickers," Ping said.

Colonel Thierry Burkhard, a spokesperson for the French general staff, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that the military had dropped assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers to groups of unarmed civilians in western Libya it deemed to be at risk.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...328581644.html
Reply

Ramadhan
07-01-2011, 01:35 PM
^ France is beyond vile.

They banned veil for sisters in their own country, and yet spurring muslims to annihilate each other in a muslim country.
Reply

سيف الله
07-01-2011, 09:03 PM
Salaam

this is a very revealing interview, whether you agree with him or not

Reply

GuestFellow
07-01-2011, 10:14 PM
^ Salaam,

I enjoyed listening to the interview. I like how he described Libya as a big cake. :)
Reply

سيف الله
07-14-2011, 09:09 PM
Salaam

Heres another perceptive analysis on the current situation

Three Little Words: WikiLeaks, Libya, Oil

'Libya has some of the biggest and most proven oil reserves — 43.6 billion barrels — outside Saudi Arabia, and some of the best drilling prospects.'

So reported the Washington Post on June 11, in a rare mainstream article which, as we will see, revealed how WikiLeaks exposed the real motives behind the war on Libya.

So what happens when you search UK newspaper archives for the words 'WikiLeaks', 'Libya' and 'oil'? We decided to take a look.

From the time prior to the start of Libya's civil war on February 17, and of Nato's war on Libya on March 19, we found a couple of comments of this kind in the Sunday Times:

'Gadaffi's children plunder the country's oil revenues, run a kleptocracy and operate a reign of terror that has created simmering hatred and resentment among the people, according to the cables released by WikiLeaks.' (Michael Sheridan, 'Libya froths at plundering by junior Gadaffis,' February 6, 2011, Sunday Times)

The Telegraph described political wrangling over the alleged Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi:

'The documents, obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to this newspaper, provide the first comprehensive picture of the often desperate steps taken by Western governments to court the Libyan regime in the competition for valuable trade and oil contracts.' (Christopher Hope and Robert Winnett, 'Ministers gave Libya legal advice on how to free Lockerbie bomber,' The Daily Telegraph, February 1, 2011)

From the time since Nato launched its war, we found this warning from Jackie Ashley in the Guardian:

'...cast aside international law, and there is nothing but might is right, arms, oil and profits.

'Well, you might say, but isn't that where we are already? Not quite. Many of us may feel great cynicism about some of the west's war-making and the strange coincidence of military intervention and oil and gas reserves. I do.' (Ashley, 'Few would weep for Gaddafi, but targeting him is wrong: In war, international law is all we have. If we cast it aside there'll be nothing left but might is right, arms, oil and profits,' The Guardian May 2, 2011)

This hinted in the right direction, but no facts were cited in support of the argument, certainly none from the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables.

The Guardian's Alexander Chancellor managed to discover a leaked cable revealing that Libya 'sometimes demands billion-dollar "signing bonuses" for contracts with western oil companies'. (Chancellor, 'The bonanza of kickbacks and corrupt deals between Libya and the west have helped Gaddafi cling on to power,' The Guardian, March 25, 2011)

Other cables offer more significant insights, but Chancellor made no mention of them.

George Monbiot's March 15 Guardian article contained all three search terms - his sole mention of Libya in the past 12 months – but he was writing about Saudi Arabia: 'We won't trouble Saudi's tyrants with calls to reform while we crave their oil.' The article had nothing to say about the looming assault on Libya, just four days away. Monbiot has had nothing to say since.

Johann Hari wrote about the Libyan war in his sole article on the subject in the Independent on April 8, commenting:

'Bill Richardson, the former US energy secretary who served as US ambassador to the UN, is probably right when he says: "There's another interest, and that's energy... Libya is among the 10 top oil producers in the world. You can almost say that the gas prices in the US going up have probably happened because of a stoppage of Libyan oil production... So this is not an insignificant country, and I think our involvement is justified".'

This was a rare affirmation of the role of oil as a motive, albeit one that emphasised the specious claim that the US concern is simply to keep the oil flowing (Hari did mention, vaguely, that results were intended to be 'in our favour'). And again, Hari appeared to be innocent of any relevant information released by WikiLeaks. A lack of awareness which perhaps explains why he had 'wrestled with' the alleged moral case for intervention before rejecting it.
Reply

سيف الله
07-14-2011, 09:13 PM
Soured Relations - Gaddafi And Big Oil

Remarkably, then, we found nothing in any article in any national UK newspaper reporting the freely-available facts revealed by WikiLeaks on Western oil interests in Libya. And nothing linking these facts to the current war.

By contrast, in his June 11 article for the Washington Post, Steven Mufson focused intensely on WikiLeaks exposés in regard to Libyan oil. In November 2007, a leaked State Department cable reported 'growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism'. In his 2006 speech marking the founding of his regime, Gaddafi had said:

'Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them. Now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money.'

Gaddafi's son made similar comments in 2007. As (honest) students of history will know, these are exactly the kind of words that make US generals sit up and listen. The stakes for the West were, and are, high: companies such as ConocoPhillips and Marathon have each invested about $700 million over the past six years.

Even more seriously, in late February 2008, a US State Department cable described how Gaddafi had 'threatened to dramatically reduce Libya's oil production and/or expel... U.S. oil and gas companies'. The Post explained how, in early 2008, US Senator Frank R. Lautenberg had enraged the Libyan leader by adding an amendment to a bill that made it easier for families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing to 'go after Libya's commercial assets'.

The Libyan equivalent of the deputy foreign minister told US officials that the Lautenberg amendment was 'destroying everything the two sides have built since 2003,' according to a State Department cable. In 2008, Libyan oil minister Shokri Ghanem warned an Exxon Mobil executive that Libya might 'significantly curtail' its oil production to 'penalize the US,' according to another cable.

The Post concluded: 'even before armed conflict drove the U.S. companies out of Libya this year, their relations with Gaddafi had soured. The Libyan leader demanded tough contract terms. He sought big bonus payments up front. Moreover, upset that he was not getting more U.S. government respect and recognition for his earlier concessions, he pressured the oil companies to influence U.S. policies'.

Similarly, compare the chasm in rational analysis separating the mainstream UK media and the dissident Real News Network, hosted by Paul Jay. Last month, Jay interviewed Kevin G. Hall, the national economics correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers. Jay concluded with a summary of their conversation discussing oil shenanigans in Libya:

'So you've got the Italian oil companies already at odds with the US over Iran. The Italian oil company is going to, through its deals with Gazprom, allow the Russians to take a big stake in Libyan oil. And then you have the French. As we head towards the Libyan war, the French Total have a small piece of the Libyan oil game, but I suppose they would like a bigger piece of it. And then you wind up having a French-American push to overthrow Gaddafi and essentially shove Gazprom out. I mean, I guess we're not saying one and one necessarily equals two, but it sure - it makes one think about it.'

Hall responded:

'Yeah, it's not necessarily causation, but there's - you might suggest there's correlation. And clearly this shows the degree to which oil is kind of the back story to so much that happens. As a matter of fact, we went through 251,000 [leaked] documents - or we have 250,000 documents that we've been pouring through. Of those, a full 10 percent of them, a full 10 percent of those documents, reference in some way, shape, or form oil. And I think that tells you how much part of, you know, the global security question, stability, prosperity - you know, take your choice, oil is fundamental.' (Our emphasis)

Jay replied with a wry smile:

'And we'll do more of this. But those who had said it's not all about oil, they ain't reading WikiLeaks.'

Hall replied: 'It is all about oil.'

In March, we drew attention to a cable released by WikiLeaks sent from the US embassy in Tripoli in November 2007. The cable communicated US concerns about the direction being taken by Libya's leadership:

'Libya needs to exploit its hydrocarbon resources to provide for its rapidly-growing, relatively young population. To do so, it requires extensive foreign investment and participation by credible IOCs [international oil companies]. Reformist elements in the Libyan government and the small but growing private sector recognize this reality. But those who dominate Libya's political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya's extensive oil and gas reserves. Effective U.S. engagement on this issue should take the form of demonstrating the clear downsides to the GOL [government of Libya] of pursuing this approach, particularly with respect to attracting participation by credible international oil companies in the oil/gas sector and foreign direct investment.' (our emphasis)

The US government has certainly been 'demonstrating the clear downsides' since March 19.

US analyst Glenn Greenwald, asks:

'Is there anyone - anywhere - who actually believes that these aren't the driving considerations in why we're waging this war in Libya? After almost three months of fighting and bombing - when we're so far from the original justifications and commitments that they're barely a distant memory - is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya? Is there anything more obvious - as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish - than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose?'
Reply

سيف الله
07-14-2011, 09:16 PM
'The Urge To Help'

It does seem extraordinary that anyone could doubt that this is the case. But the fact is that the WikiLeaks cables cited above, the Washington Post's facts, and Greenwald's conclusions, have been almost completely blanked by the UK media system. Notice that they have been readily accessible to us, a tiny website supported by public donations.

As though reporting from a different planet, the BBC reported last week:

'Nato is enforcing a UN resolution to protect civilians in Libya.'

Is this Absolute Truth? Holy writ? In fact, no. But it does reflect the mainstream political consensus and so the BBC feels content to offer it - by way of a service to democracy - as the only view in town. And yet, we need only reflect on three obvious facts: while UN Resolution 1973 did authorise a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians, Nato is now openly seeking regime change and rejecting all peace overtures out of hand. The UN did not authorise regime change.

An Observer leader entitled, 'The west can't let Gaddafi destroy his people,' told the same tale in March:

'the only response that matters now is a common position which brooks no more argument... to pledge, with the honest passion we affect to feel that, whether repulsed in time or not, this particular tyranny will not be allowed to stand'. (Leading article, 'Libya: The west can't let Gaddafi destroy his people,' The Observer, March 13, 2011)

Like a cut and paste from Orwell, the paper insisted:

'This is a regional uprising of young people seeking freedom, remember? Do you recall all the power of the tweet, as lauded only a fortnight ago?

'The millions who began this revolution won't be much impressed by a democracy defined only by inertia. They won't thank the west – or China, India, Russia, the African Union – for letting this Arab spring die in a field of flowery promises.'


The Guardian also focused on the 'ethical' motivation. In a February 24 leading article entitled, 'Libya: The urge to help,' the editors simultaneously mocked and reversed the truth:

'It is hard to escape the conclusion that European leaders are advocating these moves in part because they want to be seen by their electorates at home to be doing something, and in part because they want to be seen by people in the Middle East as being on the right side in the Arab democratic revolution. They may hope that a dramatic line on Libya will go some way toward effacing the memory of the dithering and equivocation with which they greeted its earlier manifestations in Tunisia and Egypt, France being particularly guilty in this regard.'

Compared to the analysis discussed above this reads like a bed-time story for children. The deceptive words 'dithering and equivocation' refer to the West's iron-willed resolve to protect tyrannical clients and to thwart democratic revolution in the region while appearing (the key word) to be 'on the right side'.

The conclusion: 'a no-fly zone should become an option. Lord Owen was therefore right to say that military preparations should be made and the necessary diplomatic approaches, above all to the Russians and the Chinese, set in train to secure UN authority for such action'.

The Guardian's argument was shorn of the political, economic and historical facts that make a nonsense of the idea that Western military action 'should become an option'. There may indeed have been a moral case for action by someone. But not by Western states with a bitter history of subjugating and killing people in Libya, and elsewhere in the region, for the sake of oil. But then it is a trademark of Guardian liberalism that Britain and its allies are forever Teflon-coated, forever untainted by the evident brutality of 'our' actions. This is the perennial, vital service the paper performs for the establishment.

We are asked to believe that the facts sampled in this alert are somehow unknown to the hard-headed corporate executives who write of 'The urge to help' and the 'common position which brooks no more argument'. And yet, the Guardian was one of WikiLeaks' major 'media partners' at the time the cables were published - it is well aware that 'a full 10 percent of those documents, reference in some way, shape, or form oil'. Like the rest of the corporate media, Britain's leading liberal newspaper knows but is not telling.

http://www.medialens.org/index.php?o...2011&Itemid=68
Reply

Who Am I?
07-14-2011, 10:06 PM
:sl:

Of course it's all about oil. That's the only reason the West has become involved in Arab World politics in the first place. It's not even about religion or "global terrorism". It's all about the oil.
Reply

سيف الله
07-31-2011, 10:29 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by King of Nines
:sl:

Of course it's all about oil. That's the only reason the West has become involved in Arab World politics in the first place. It's not even about religion or "global terrorism". It's all about the oil.
Well yes, though there are some who labour to deny the obvious, they even reside on this forum :p

To be fair though, even though oil is the main factor, I think in this case they thought they could get rid of an unreliable 'ally' quickly and painlessly.

Another update

Libya is history's most ill-thought out air war

Israel's attack on Lebanon in 2006 rates as history's most ill-thought out air war, until this year when France and Britain decided to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi.


By

Patrick Cockburn

Air strikes are becoming the main Western means of controlling the Middle East and South Asia without putting soldiers on the ground where they might suffer politically damaging casualties. Britain, France and the US have used only airpower to wage war in Libya over the last four months. The US is also stepping up its air offensive in Yemen, where the CIA is to start operating Predator drones alongside the US military, and is continuing its drone attacks in north-west Pakistan. Even in Iraq, where the US is supposedly ending its military commitment, it stunned people near the southern city of Amarah last week by unexpectedly launching bombing raids.

The use of air forces as colonial policemen in the region has a long and bloody history, but has often proved ineffective in the long term. A NATO pilot who bombed Ain Zara south of Tripoli earlier this month almost certainly did not know that his attack came almost exactly 100 years after the very same target had been hit by two small bombs dropped by an Italian plane in 1911. The Italian air raid was the first in history, carried out soon after Italy had invaded what later became Libya during one of the many carve-ups of the Ottoman Empire. The first ever military reconnaissance flight took a route near Benghazi in October, and on November 1 Sub-Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti became the first pilot to drop bombs. He swooped down on a Turkish camp at Ain Zara and dropped four 4.5lb grenades from a leather bag in his cockpit. The Turks protested that Gavotti's bombs had hit a hospital and injuring several civilians.

The pros and cons should have become swiftly apparent. It is not that air strikes are wholly futile. I was in Baghdad during the US bombing in 1991 and again during Desert Fox in 1998. Crouched on the floor of my hotel room, watching columns of fire erupt around the city and the pathetic dribbles of anti-aircraft fire in return, was a testing experience. On the other hand, being shelled in West Beirut during the civil wars was in some ways worse because it went on for longer and was completely haphazard. In Baghdad I hoped that the Americans were taking care about what they targeted, if only for reasons of PR.

Frightening though it is being bombed, air forces often exaggerate what they can do. They are always less accurate than they claim; their effectiveness depends on good tactical intelligence. Bombing works best as a blunt instrument against civilians as a generalized punishment. Against well-prepared soldiers, such as Hezbollah's guerrillas, it is far less effective. Israel's disastrous venture in Lebanon probably rated as history's most ill-thought out air war until this year when France and Britain decided to ally themselves to an enthusiastic but ill-trained militia to overthrow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

It did not start like this. When NATO planes first attacked, it was with the aim of preventing Gaddafi's tanks advancing up the road from Ajdabiya to rebel-held Benghazi. The strikes were effective, but the objective swiftly changed to become an open-ended campaign to overthrow Gaddafi in which NATO provided air support for the rebel militia. Very similar to French imperial forays in West Africa, it is extraordinary that this open-ended foreign intervention has been so little criticized in Britain.

The rebels have always been weaker than their NATO sponsors pretended. It is all very well to recognize them as the legitimate government of Libya, but evidently not all Libyans agree. The highly informed International Crisis Group says that a key component "in Gaddafi's ability to hold on to much of the west [of Libya] has been the limited defections to date among the main tribes that traditionally have been allied with the regime".

In reality, a divided NATO has joined one side in a civil war in Libya, just as it did earlier in Afghanistan, and the US and Britain had done in Iraq.

In air wars, the first week is usually the best. By the end of it, the easiest targets will have been destroyed and the enemy will have learnt how to hide, disperse its forces and avoid presenting a target. In the case of Libya, the pro-Gaddafi troops started to use the same beat-up pick-ups with a heavy machine gun in the back as the rebels. Several times NATO struck at their allies with devastating results.

So far in Libya there has not been a mass killing of a large number of civilians in an air strike. When this happened with the Amariya shelter in Baghdad in 1991 killing 400, the selection of targets in the city had to be confirmed by the chief of staff, Colin Powell, and air strikes on the capital largely ceased. Air force generals point to the wonderful accuracy of their smart weapons, singling out tiny targets, but they seldom explain that this depends on correct intelligence.

Such intelligence is often very shaky. I was in Herat in western Afghanistan in 2009 when US aircraft killed some 147 people in three villages to the south. Bombs had smashed the mud-brick houses and bodies of the dead had been torn to shreds by the blast. What had happened in these villages, which were deep in Taliban territory, was that some US and Afghan vehicles had been successfully ambushed. Frightened and bewildered soldiers had called for air support. Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", enraged survivors drove a tractor pulling a trailer piled high with body parts to the governor's office in Farah City.

The response of the US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, to all this was to claim that the Taliban had run through the villages hurling grenades. Lies like this were very much designed for US consumption, but they infuriated Afghans who could see the deep bomb craters on their televisions. Will the Libyan air campaign end in a similar disaster? Political tolerance in the UK and the US for the war in Libya is shallow and it would be fatally undermined by any accidental mass killing of civilians.

From the moment, 100 years ago, when Sub-Lieutenant Gavotti threw his grenades over the side of his cockpit, Western governments have been attracted by the idea that they can win wars by air power alone. Victory will be cheap without committing ground troops. Only late in the day does it become clear, as we are now seeing in Libya, that air power by itself hardly ever wins wars.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...war-in-history
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!