Obama Speech on Libya
- Thread starter Ramadhan
- Start date
- Replies 77
- Views 13K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
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/africa/2011/06/20116435635669472.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
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/africa/2011/06/20116435635669472.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
Last edited:
Who Am I?
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 258
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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.
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.
GuestFellow
IB Legend
- Messages
- 6,327
- Reaction score
- 784
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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.
Who Am I?
IB Expert
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 258
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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?
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
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
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/africa/2011/06/201162210488135496.html
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/africa/2011/06/201162210488135496.html
Last edited:
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/2011/0...ve-everything-you-see-and-read-about-gaddafi/
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/2011/0...ve-everything-you-see-and-read-about-gaddafi/
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/africa/2011/06/2011630201328581644.html
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/africa/2011/06/2011630201328581644.html
GuestFellow
IB Legend
- Messages
- 6,327
- Reaction score
- 784
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
^ Salaam,
I enjoyed listening to the interview. I like how he described Libya as a big cake.
I enjoyed listening to the interview. I like how he described Libya as a big cake.
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.
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.
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?'
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?'
'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?...eaks-libya-oil&catid=24:alerts-2011&Itemid=68
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?...eaks-libya-oil&catid=24:alerts-2011&Itemid=68
Salaam
Well yes, though there are some who labour to deny the obvious, they even reside on this forum
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...e-the-most-ill-thought-out-air-war-in-history
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
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...e-the-most-ill-thought-out-air-war-in-history