Libya

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
EDIT- A general question for you guys: Am I the only one who's become a little underwhelmed by the recent events in the Middle East? I don't know if I was just swept up by all the hype, but I was kind of thinking that all these extreme protests was going to culminate in some severe changes that would ripple through the ME, but... they really haven't. The rebels have zero chance of beating Ghadaffi without help from the West, and just about every other protest is being reigned in by crushing amounts of military might. There's been a few success stories, like Tunisia, but all in all the whole situation feels very anti-climactic.

Libya took the attention away from other Arab states, and their leaders crushed the uprisings. There is still violence on the streets of Syria iirc.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
EDIT- A general question for you guys: Am I the only one who's become a little underwhelmed by the recent events in the Middle East? I don't know if I was just swept up by all the hype, but I was kind of thinking that all these extreme protests was going to culminate in some severe changes that would ripple through the ME, but... they really haven't.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ridiculous. Noone seems to have any problems labelling Al Quaida a terrorist organisation, do they?

Rebels ARE terrorists on Libyan soil - whether you agree with Ghaddafi or not is irrelevant, they're still terrorists and they're behaving like ones.

Tell me, what would America do if such organisation in opposition to Obama or whoever is to come forth and starts causing trouble for American government?
Would they be rebels or terrorists? They'd be terrorists and US would dispose of them like used tissue - like any other normal nation on the planet would.

The problem is that West believes itself to be on some imaginary pedestal of righteousness, while all those ''inferior'' nations need directions and explanations as to what is REALLY going on on their soil.
It sickens me. It also sickens me that noone bothers to think for themselves, to critically evaluate situations and look at them from different perspectives. Instead, the only source of 'objectivity' to some people is a news channel infested with droids who didn't know what Libya was 3 months ago and have now miraculously turned into experts on situation in Libya.

I don't believe anything American or European news outlets have to say in terms of reporting conflicts they have interest in (which makes all of them - those in which they have no interest in, they don't report at all), as much as I don't believe in what Chinese news outlets are going on about day and night.

At least you're honest about lack of caring - many people think the same thing as you, I suspect.
I respect your honesty.

....al qaeda does deliberately target random civilians as primary targets with the goal of spreading panic among the population of the countries whose governments they engage to force them to act certain ways so... they meet the definition of terrorism I cited. your rant about how one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist just points to the fact that the label of 'terrorists' is banally used to describe one's political opponents as a discrediting propaganda tactic regardless of the tactics they actually resort to. the delimitations of the term itself are, of course, not clearly cut and subject to much interpretation, but your angle simply equates any political violence or rather, any anti-establishment violence, with terrorism.

the fact that western nations have only become engaged in the struggle because of their own economic interests in the region and not out of the kindess of their hearts is self-evident, but it really says nothing about the rebels who spontanesouly rised up against dictatorial rule and mass murdering repression and that can, incidently, benefit from nato assistance. history is full of emancipatory political movements that were helped along by foreign powers with their own goals in mind.

good for you on distrusting corporate media.

Originally posted by 753
history is full of emancipatory political movements that were helped along by foreign powers with their own goals in mind.

good for you on distrusting corporate media.

wait, are we opperating under the assumption that the torture of British loyalists was something good done by the American revolutionaries?

because democracy won, its cool that all those people were tarred and feathered and killed?

I think we're operating under the assumption that revolutions are wars, and in war shit happens, and the romanticized story of the morally good underdog rising up against the oppressive tyrannic government is not as common within history as some would like to believe.

Originally posted by inimalist
wait, are we opperating under the assumption that the torture of British loyalists was something good done by the American revolutionaries?

because democracy won, its cool that all those people were tarred and feathered and killed?

Originally posted by inimalist
wait, are we opperating under the assumption that the torture of British loyalists was something good done by the American revolutionaries?

because democracy won, its cool that all those people were tarred and feathered and killed?

Originally posted by inimalist
so when Ghaddafi tortures and murders people, its a crime against humanity, when the rebels do it, it is excuseable because living under a murderous regieme makes them beyond moral reproach?

Of course it doesn't, but you have to expect there to be reactionary consequences to years of abuse and oppression. It shouldn't come as a real surprise to hear of something like this.

It is a shame that such movements are plagued by these incidents, and they shouldn't be disregarded or forgotten.

I guess it's that old saying, what goes around comes around.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You could rescue 1000 children from a war torn country and if someone that is with you kills one of them does that mean your mission was an evil one? I think it means that while you where trying to do something really good and succeeding, someone else was succeeding at doing something really bad simultaneously. It is ok to distinguish the two events from one another when considering good and bad that came out of the main event. 😮‍💨

a mission that ends is death that I bare responsibility for is one I don't want to participate in

whether the mission itself is evil or simply has evil outcomes is particularly moot and a type of moral calculus that I think has little value.

further, there is always the clear moral hypocrisy of the international community that calls any moral justification for the war into serious question

Originally posted by Liberator
Of course it doesn't, but you have to expect there to be reactionary consequences to years of abuse and oppression. It shouldn't come as a real surprise to hear of something like this.

in fact I did expect it, I mentioned it as a likely consequence to our intervention and as a caution against just rushing in...

Originally posted by Liberator
It is a shame that such movements are plagued by these incidents, and they shouldn't be disregarded or forgotten.

but far be it for us to distance ourselves from, condemn or take a stance against it. Nothing the west could do to pressure the rebels into fighting this type of corruption within their ranks... oh wait, we are their air force...

Originally posted by Liberator
I guess it's that old saying, what goes around comes around.

the world intervened in Libya to, specifically, protect Benghazi from slaughter, because Ghaddafi was responding to the uprising there...

you could say "what goes around, comes around" to justify the slaughter of that city...

in fact, all you have done is blamed the victim (in this case, likely a soldier forced into the Libyan army at threat of death and torture) for acts they likely haven't committed (this man recieved no trial for the "wrongs" of the regime you attribute to him (ie: what goes around)) as a way to hand wave away the consequences of violence you support. In your mind, the lives of Libyan soldiers fighting for Ghaddafi are worth less than those of the people fighting against him...

Originally posted by inimalist
a mission that ends is death that I bare responsibility for is one I don't want to participate in

whether the mission itself is evil or simply has evil outcomes is particularly moot and a type of moral calculus that I think has little value.

further, there is always the clear moral hypocrisy of the international community that calls any moral justification for the war into serious question

So where's the Syria thread?

in fact, all you have done is blamed the victim (in this case, likely a soldier forced into the Libyan army at threat of death and torture) for acts they likely haven't committed (this man recieved no trial for the "wrongs" of the regime you attribute to him (ie: what goes around)) as a way to hand wave away the consequences of violence you support. In your mind, the lives of Libyan soldiers fighting for Ghaddafi are worth less than those of the people fighting against him...

And that's an excellent point. I read up on the 'Libyan' army, Ghaddafi is using a lot of mercs to push his point across to the rebels.

I can only assume that life as a Libyan soldier isn't a simple one either, I am sure many of them are torn to pieces over this but they don't have much of a choice in the matter as Ghaddafi probably has a chokehold over their entire existences.

What I was trying to say when I said, "What goes around comes around" isn't to try and make any positive justification for this - you are right about how this soldier recieved no trial, no hearing, nothing. He was butchered on the street which is no better than what has occured on the opposite spectrum.

I was just trying to say that the fact that the Libyan army stands as the sword of the Ghaddafi regime and that is most likely why this soldier was treated with such fierce and fatal hostility. Is it hypocritical? I don't doubt it, the act itself seemed one out of sheer hatred for the old regime, it was mob mentality at its "best".

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So where's the Syria thread?

Might as well have an "uprising thread" now considering what is going on, only a matter of time before the west rebels against the saving plans caused by the bankers playing roullete with our money.

There is an "arab uprising" thread below.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=545829&pagenumber=16#post13330270

YouTube video

Syrians > Bahrainis

why? not a Saudi puppet

humanitarianism is a joke

Originally posted by Liberator
I was just trying to say that the fact that the Libyan army stands as the sword of the Ghaddafi regime and that is most likely why this soldier was treated with such fierce and fatal hostility. Is it hypocritical? I don't doubt it, the act itself seemed one out of sheer hatred for the old regime, it was mob mentality at its "best".

its the difference between saying "**** the police", and actually going out and harming them.

like, I totally get why they did it, I just think they if we look at the conflict like "oh, well, this is just what happens", we never really have to look at our own role in the carnage. I guess I don't know how true the allegations are in the first place, but if it is true, this is blood directly on the West's hands. This isn't the evil of doing nothing, or standing by while people fight their own revolutions, this is the evil of actively pursuing one's own goals through violent means.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Might as well have an "uprising thread" now considering what is going on, only a matter of time before the west rebels against the saving plans caused by the bankers playing roullete with our money.

There is an "arab uprising" thread below.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=545829&pagenumber=16#post13330270

#I wish you were right; however, having watched London taken over by the BNP today, I find that unlikely.

NATO strikes Libyan capital after Gadhafi appears

NATO airstrikes struck Moammar Gadhafi's sprawling compound in Tripoli and three other sites early Thursday, hours after the Libyan leader was shown on state TV in his first appearance since his son was killed nearly two weeks ago.

Explosions thundered across the capital and wailing ambulances raced through the city as the last missile exploded.

Government officials and state-run Libyan television said the strikes targeted Bab al-Azaziya, Gadhafi's compound. They did not say which of the compound's buildings were targeted.

NATO -- which had no immediate comment about the latest strikes -- has hit Tripoli repeatedly this week as part of its effort to weaken the regime's resistance to a 3-month-old rebellion. NATO said most of the alliance's 46 air strikes on Wednesday were concentrated in and around the Libyan capital, hitting command and control centers, ammunition dumps and anti-aircraft missile launchers.

At the nearby Khadra Hospital, medics wheeled in the bodies of two men they said were killed in the shelling. One of bodies was charred; the other was covered by a green blanket, a leg dangling from the stretcher.

From a bus ferrying reporters to the hospital, smoke could be seen rising from part of the Gadhafi compound. Skid marks left from screeching vehicles crisscrossed the roads around it.

The medics said others had been killed by the airstrikes and were still being retrieved from the compound.

Gadhafi's compound has been a frequent site of recent airstrikes, including one on April 30 that killed the leader's son, Seif al-Arab. Officials said Gadhafi -- Libya's autocratic leader for 42 years -- was in the compound when that strike occurred but escaped unharmed.

NATO has repeatedly said all its targets in Libya are military and that it is not targeting Gadhafi or other individuals.

Gadhafi had seven sons and one daughter. He also had an adopted daughter who was killed in 1986 when a U.S. airstrike hit the Bab al-Aziziya residential compound in retaliation for a bombing attack on a German disco in which two U.S. servicemen were killed..

In an apparent effort to dispel rumors that Gadhafi himself had been killed, Libyan state TV showed him meeting tribal leaders, but did not record him speaking. To authenticate the scene, the camera zoomed in on the date on a TV monitor in the room, which read Wednesday, May 11. It was apparently recorded at the hotel where foreign correspondents must reside in Tripoli. Gadhafi did not make himself available to them.

The last time Gadhafi had been seen in public previously was April 9, when he visited a school in Tripoli.

According to the Libyan state news agency, JANA, one of the NATO strikes on Monday damaged the North Korean Embassy in Tripoli.

Intensified NATO airstrikes on Gadhafi's forces across Libya have given a boost to rebels fighting to oust the regime, with the opposition claiming Wednesday that it had captured the airport in the western city of Misrata. In all, NATO said, the alliance has carried out more than 2,400 airstrikes since March 31 as part of the effort to assist the rebels and pressure Gadhafi relinquish power.

Even though some of the recent reports of ground combat are difficult to confirm, they seem to represent a major boost for the rebels' military prospects after weeks of stalemate on several fronts.

The rebels control most of eastern Libya, but Misrata -- about 125 miles (200 kilometers) southeast of Tripoli -- is the only rebel stronghold in the west. Local doctors say more than 1,000 of its residents have been killed in the fighting and shelling during the siege by Gadhafi's forces.

Access to the port has been limited but not halted. The International Committee of the Red Cross has a chartered ship floating in the harbor which delivered medical supplies and baby food on Tuesday and is now being used to support ICRC work in the city.

In Tripoli, a government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, denied the Misrata rebels' claims of success, saying regime forces still held the airport.

Ibrahim did acknowledge that the war was creating severe shortages of many commodities in Tripoli.

"The NATO airstrikes and the sea embargo ... are badly influencing the lives of daily Libyans," he said. "We have some shortages in fuel, food and medicine. It makes it difficult to go to schools, hospitals and factories."

A potential humanitarian crisis was reported Thursday by the World Food Program in the mountain region of western Libya. Josette Sheeran, the WFP executive director, said fighting in the area between rebels and regime forces has prevented aid from reaching civilians trapped in some hard-to-reach villages.

She appealed for a cease-fire so deliveries could be made safely.

Britain said Thursday that it will supply police officers in rebel-held eastern Libya with uniforms and body armor, and help establish a public radio station. The announcement came after Prime Minister David Cameron and other ministers met in London with Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, head of the rebels' National Transitional Council.

Cameron said he had invited Abdul-Jalil to open a permanent office in London to help cement contacts with Britain, although Britain has not followed France and Italy in recognizing the council as Libya's legitimate government.

http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/05/12/ml_libya_9

the humanitarianism of NATO is so apparent

According to me recently the political situation of Libya is very critical. The government and public are came opposite and there is a boom starting of one revolution. This is the beginning of war between the innocent public and the cruel king.