Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Fartsniffage]

The fact that Libya's officials are refusing to allow journalists to go to locations and verify their claims indicates a concern for the safety of journalists but it doesn't help them.

This line absolutely, positively, takes the cake.

So much concern for journalistic safety...

[Nazis in Space]

This line absolutely, positively, takes the cake.

So much concern for journalistic safety...

Spankings are just a way to express the love and concern you have for your charges, whether they're children or journalists.

I bet it hurt the officers more than it hurt the journalists, too :(

[Andaluciae]

I would have never thought just a few years ago, that I would become a bleeding heart liberal internationalist.

A month of one sided news reports will do that to you. Think Iraq war run up fair and balanced coverage to the pro (Pentagon funded generals and other shills) and anti war sides.

My political inclinations definitely have mixed in this direction for years, not just the past month.

[Gauthier]

It's amazing that people who were screaming for the Taliban and Saddam to go down in record time are now trying to defend Qaddafi's regime.

[Herrebrugh]

So much concern for journalistic safety...

Spankings are just a way to express the love and concern you have for your charges, whether they're children or journalists.

I bet it hurt the officers more than it hurt the journalists, too

Hmm, if you'd try that with your girlfriend you'd get arrested . "Honey, I love you so much I'm going to hurt myself, which is, smacking you in the face with a chair."

[Fartsniffage]

Spankings are just a way to express the love and concern you have for your charges, whether they're children or journalists.

I bet it hurt the officers more than it hurt the journalists, too

Hmm, if you'd try that with your girlfriend you'd get arrested . "Honey, I love you so much I'm going to hurt myself, which is, smacking you in the face with a chair."

Depends on the girlfriend...

[Herrebrugh]

Hmm, if you'd try that with your girlfriend you'd get arrested . "Honey, I love you so much I'm going to hurt myself, which is, smacking you in the face with a chair."

Depends on the girlfriend...

lol

[Nazis in Space]

Spankings are just a way to express the love and concern you have for your charges, whether they're children or journalists.

I bet it hurt the officers more than it hurt the journalists, too :(

Hmm, if you'd try that with your girlfriend you'd get arrested :P . "Honey, I love you so much I'm going to hurt myself, which is, smacking you in the face with a chair."

Now, now. Smacking someone's face in with a chair isn't the same thing as giving them an old-fashioned, bare-bottomed spanking!

But that's getting kinda off-topic, and I didn't really intend for a sarcastic remark to end up starting a discussion about fetishism and consensual domestic discipline. You're very naughty for making this connection, you know?

[North Suran]

So when we invade a repressive dictatorship under a Republican flag (Iraq) it's a patriotic duty, but setting up a no fly zone under a Democratic flag (Libya) is a violation of sovereignty.

Got it.

-blah blah blah inaccurate self-serving bullshit blah blah-

So this is what it comes down to then?

Conflict initiated by Republican administration - good.

Conflict initiated by Democratic administration - bad.

I never though US partisanship would get so bad that some Americans would criticise efforts to depose a capricious autocrat and stop him from butchering his citizens simply because the President belongs to the opposite party.

[Alanava]

The house of commons has passed the motion to support military action in support of UN resolution 1973 by 557 for to 13 against which is a majority of 544. Lets hope other parliaments follow suit.

[Laerod]

-blah blah blah inaccurate self-serving bullshit blah blah-

So this is what it comes down to then?

Conflict initiated by Republican administration - good.

Conflict initiated by Democratic administration - bad.

I never though US partisanship would get so bad that some Americans would criticise efforts to depose a capricious autocrat and stop him from butchering his citizens simply because the President belongs to the opposite party.

Surely a UMP administration, no? =P

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

more trouble for the western alliance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... NETTXT3487

Firing another warning shot across the coalition's bows, Abdul Rahman bin Hamad al-Attiyah, secretary general of the six-nation Gulf Co-operation Council, stressed the aim of the Libyan operation must be limited to protecting civilians

Worries among Britain's Arab allies that a hidden agenda lies behind the attack on Libya have been underscored the comments of Liam Fox. The defence secretary said an attempt to kill Gaddafi was "potentially a possibility". Demands by Cameron, Barack Obama and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, that Gaddafi stand down have also been widely interpreted as support for regime change

Speaking en route to Russia, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, distanced himself from Fox's comments, saying it was unwise to make promises that might not be deliverable

Speaking in Mecca on Monday, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, elaborated his country's misgivings.

"Our biggest desire is for this operation to be finished as soon as possible," he said. "Our biggest desire is for the Libyan people to determine their own future ... Now the issue is, is Nato going into operation? If Nato is going into operation, we have some conditions. Nato should recognise that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth."

The Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, raised legal objections. "There are legal procedures for the establishment of a coalition in an international operation. We take the view that for Libya, these were not sufficiently respected."

Erdogan's suggestion that western actions were influenced by interest in Libya's oil wealth reflected suspicions voiced by Arab commentators and Gaddafi himself, who has accused Britain and other countries of seeking to re-colonise Libya.


Other Nato countries oppose British and French policy in Libya, notably Germany and Poland.


Complicating matters further,....France has long resented Washington's leading role in Nato. Italy, in contrast, said it wanted greater Nato involvement, as a way of locking in the US


Downing Street has not found much enthusiasm for its Libyan offensive within the broader EU, either, which is split like Nato on the issue. Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, clashed with Cameron at an EU summit this month, suggesting he "hold his horses" over an intervention which, she predicted, would lead to loss of civilian life.

Adding to the growing pressure on Britain and France, which were beginning to look slightly isolated, Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a long-standing critic of the west, joined China, India, Brazil and other leading developing countries in criticising the intervention.

Add to this that China is calling for another UN Security Council meeting to discuss the attacks on Libya and the advisor to Sarkozy has said his country sees a permanent French military occupation in Libya.


All this from a British newspaper.

Ironically, almost of all of my links have been to British news outlets.

I am full agreement with the Germans and the Arab League. The Resolution is about protecting civilians, not killing Gaddafi, not beating Gaddafi, not eliminating his ability to fight rebels who may have Al Qaeda sympathies, and it's not about seizing oil. It most certainly not to be used to expand "French grandeur".
Avoiding these things was part of the agreement for the no fly zone. By providing air cover for armed rebels attacking government forces we are breaking the agreement and violating UNSC Resolution 1973. We are currently lowering ourselves to Gaddafi's level. That is where the major problem is.

It is one thing to attack planes or tanks that are shelling civilian neighborhoods, it's quite another to provide air support for a rebel offensive against government troops.

If the Chinese are serious, they will call for a new Resolution that would ban the western alliance from killing or overthrowing Gaddafi, and also ban it from providing any type of military support to the rebels.

It is not for the Europeans, nor is it for America to decide whether Gaddafi will continue to be in charge in Libya. The Libyan people must decide that themselves, without western interference.

Protect civilians yes. Get involved in the civil war either from the air or on land? No.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Are you saying that all of the civilians in Tripoli are families of officers and soldiers?

Up until today I've been largely silent on claims of civilian casualties and for a very good reason: we don't know.

The Western Alliance is not saying there were no civilians killed by their attacks on Libya, they are saying they have no information about civilian casualties. A big difference.

We don't know.

In fact we won't know until after this war is ended.

Please don't ask silly questions or try to put words in my mouth. I know your ability to read is better than that. Read what I wrote: "Qaddafi uses the families of his officers and soldiers as human shields, "inviting" them to take up residence at his various compounds."

It's a valid question. Is it your view that all of the civilians in the compound are relatives of soldiers and high ranking officers?

[Farnhamia]

Please don't ask silly questions or try to put words in my mouth. I know your ability to read is better than that. Read what I wrote: "Qaddafi uses the families of his officers and soldiers as human shields, "inviting" them to take up residence at his various compounds."

It's a valid question. Is it your view that all of the civilians in the compound are relatives of soldiers and high ranking officers?

Not the way you phrased it. I believe that a majority of the people in Col. Qaddafi's personal compounds - the places he goes to sleep and eat - are probably hostages and human shields, yes. We know from the Libyan government itself that they were "invited" there.

[Terishany]

Hey, this doesn't at all remind me of the left's collective fit when the US tried to kill Gaddafi in response to the La Belle bombing, resulting in assorted lefties commemorating the 'Terrible and Unlawful' attack by posing with their good and totally sweet pal Gaddafi a year later, and in 2006, another commemoration with Lionel Ritchie sucking Gaddafi's peace-loving, democratic and most impressively socialist (Previously USSR-allied and, after all, styling itself as islamic socialist) dick.

No wonder they think that intervention at the request of the rebels themselves is a bad, a horrible and extremely imperialist thing to do. It could actually threaten their dear pal Gaddafi, with whom I'm sure at least some of them had dinner. Down with the counterrevolutionaries!

I'm a leftist who supported American intervention.

I'm a rightist who can't stand these right wing commentators and senators screaming about intervention. They did the exact same thing in Iraq 8 years ago. The only difference is that Obama issued this one.

[Laerod]

[snip random quoting to make things look the way they aren't]

You're back! Answer this or retract:

And you lie everytime you say there are no civilian deaths from the western attacks on Libya.

Show me where I said there were no civilian deaths due to Western attacks on Libya.

Add to this that China is calling for another UN Security Council meeting to discuss the attacks on Libya and the advisor to Sarkozy has said his country sees a permanent French military occupation in Libya.

Source?

I am full agreement with the Germans and the Arab League.

Good:

"We are united that the war must be ended. The resolution must be pushed through.

"We will not take part in the action in military terms. We will take on additional responsibilities in Afghanistan.

"No one will succeed in dividing the international community in its determination. We stand united at the side of the Libyan people and stand united that the Gaddafi's war against his own people must be ended and a ceasefire must be implemented.

"I believe that the presence also of the countries that are not participating militarily is very important because we have made clear that the resolution counts and this resolution must now be implemented. We will not participate militarily in the action."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... geNumber=2

"The Arab League position on Libya was decisive and from first moment we froze membership of Libya ... Then we asked the United Nations to implement a no-fly zone and we respect the U.N. resolution and there is no conflict with it.

"It is for protecting civilians and that is what we care about. We will continue to work on the protection of civilians. We urge everybody to take this into consideration in any military action."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... 4220110321

Do note that Moussa's above comments are from today.

The Resolution is about protecting civilians, not killing Gaddafi, not beating Gaddafi, not eliminating his ability to fight rebels who may have Al Qaeda sympathies, and it's not about seizing oil. It most certainly not to be used to expand "French grandeur".

Source that anyone responsible was actually in favor of these? The only one referring to "French grandeur" was a representative of the Vatican.

Avoiding these things was part of the agreement for the no fly zone. By providing air cover for armed rebels attacking government forces we are breaking the agreement and violating UNSC Resolution 1973. We are currently lowering ourselves to Gaddafi's level. That is where the major problem is.

It is one thing to attack planes or tanks that are shelling civilian neighborhoods, it's quite another to provide air support for a rebel offensive against government troops.

Source it or it's bullshit.

If the Chinese are serious, they will call for a new Resolution that would ban the western alliance from killing or overthrowing Gaddafi, and also ban it from providing any type of military support to the rebels.

The US, France, and the UK all have veto powers. There won't be a new resolution any single one of them is opposed to.

It is not for the Europeans, nor is it for America to decide whether Gaddafi will continue to be in charge in Libya. The Libyan people must decide that themselves, without western interference.

Protect civilians yes. Get involved in the civil war either from the air or on land? No.

What are you complaining about? The absolute only ones that are hinting at doing anything you're claiming are the French. And even then the case is paperthin at best.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

It's a valid question. Is it your view that all of the civilians in the compound are relatives of soldiers and high ranking officers?

Not the way you phrased it. I believe that a majority of the people in Col. Qaddafi's personal compounds - the places he goes to sleep and eat - are probably hostages and human shields, yes. We know from the Libyan government itself that they were "invited" there.

Assuming this is true,(since we don't know at present time), should we go ahead and bomb the place knowing the civilians are there, whether voluntarily or as hostages? Does it make much of a difference if they are there voluntarily or as hostages?

[Laerod]

Not the way you phrased it. I believe that a majority of the people in Col. Qaddafi's personal compounds - the places he goes to sleep and eat - are probably hostages and human shields, yes. We know from the Libyan government itself that they were "invited" there.

Assuming this is true,(since we don't know at present time), should we go ahead and bomb the place knowing the civilians are there, whether voluntarily or as hostages? Does it make much of a difference if they are there voluntarily or as hostages?

Do you have any evidence that the place was bombed now that civilians are there?

[Gauthier]

I'm a leftist who supported American intervention.

I'm a rightist who can't stand these right wing commentators and senators screaming about intervention. They did the exact same thing in Iraq 8 years ago. The only difference is that Obama issued this one.

Seriously, the Republican obcession with declaring Obama a failure and removing him from the White House is just overwhelming. I mean, if Dubya had called for a No Fly Zone in Libya these Quislings would be cheering and calling any objection to it traitorous.

[Farnhamia]

Not the way you phrased it. I believe that a majority of the people in Col. Qaddafi's personal compounds - the places he goes to sleep and eat - are probably hostages and human shields, yes. We know from the Libyan government itself that they were "invited" there.

Assuming this is true,(since we don't know at present time), should we go ahead and bomb the place knowing the civilians are there, whether voluntarily or as hostages? Does it make much of a difference if they are there voluntarily or as hostages?

Does it hurt to twist like that? We're not bombing the compounds, we're not going to bomb them, we have stated repeatedly that if we think there are civilians on site we will not bomb them. Look, admit it, you will not be convinced to give up your support of a man whom has driven his own people into revolt and who has told them, in no uncertain terms, that there will be no mercy.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Assuming this is true,(since we don't know at present time), should we go ahead and bomb the place knowing the civilians are there, whether voluntarily or as hostages? Does it make much of a difference if they are there voluntarily or as hostages?

Do you have any evidence that the place was bombed now that civilians are there?

Did I say it was?

[Laerod]

Do you have any evidence that the place was bombed now that civilians are there?

Did I say it was?

So why are you asking? Why are you worried that civilians are getting bombed when there's evidence that the Coalition is calling off bombing runs when civilians are there and there's no evidence that they've done anything of the sort?

Also:

And you lie everytime you say there are no civilian deaths from the western attacks on Libya.

Show me where I said there were no civilian deaths due to Western attacks on Libya.

A source for your allegation or an apology are in order.

[Caninope]

I'm a rightist who can't stand these right wing commentators and senators screaming about intervention. They did the exact same thing in Iraq 8 years ago. The only difference is that Obama issued this one.

Seriously, the Republican obcession with declaring Obama a failure and removing him from the White House is just overwhelming. I mean, if Dubya had called for a No Fly Zone in Libya these Quislings would be cheering and calling any objection to it traitorous.

There's a great deal of the right supporting it.

Including the Heritage Foundation.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Assuming this is true,(since we don't know at present time), should we go ahead and bomb the place knowing the civilians are there, whether voluntarily or as hostages? Does it make much of a difference if they are there voluntarily or as hostages?

Does it hurt to twist like that? We're not bombing the compounds, we're not going to bomb them, we have stated repeatedly that if we think there are civilians on site we will not bomb them. Look, admit it, you will not be convinced to give up your support of a man whom has driven his own people into revolt and who has told them, in no uncertain terms, that there will be no mercy.

I didn't say we were. However, at least one compound was hit by what the media are saying was a US made missile. It is worth noting the alliance fired at the compound blindly, without regard for whether there were civilians or not. As one said, on CNN, "If we think there are no civilians, we don't have to recheck."
This was in reference to the fact that modern Tomahawks have technology that allows it to loiter so controllers can view the target to double check before diving in. There was no double checking and that is what's troubling.

It's something I expect from Gaddafi, not the US military.

What's the point of having the technology to prevent potential civilian deaths if you aren't going to use it?

[Laerod]

Does it hurt to twist like that? We're not bombing the compounds, we're not going to bomb them, we have stated repeatedly that if we think there are civilians on site we will not bomb them. Look, admit it, you will not be convinced to give up your support of a man whom has driven his own people into revolt and who has told them, in no uncertain terms, that there will be no mercy.

I didn't say we were. However, at least one compound was hit by what the media are saying was a US made missile. It is worth noting the alliance fired at the compound blindly, without regard for whether there were civilians or not. As one said, on CNN, "If we think there are no civilians, we don't have to recheck."
This was in reference to the fact that modern Tomahawks have technology that allows it to loiter so controllers can view the target to double check before diving in. There was no double checking and that is what's troubling.

It's something I expect from Gaddafi, not the US military.

What's the point of having the technology to prevent potential civilian deaths if you aren't going to use it?

How many civilians were killed by that particular attack? According to Gaddafi's representatives: 0.

CNN's Nic Robertson was among several Western journalists taken inside Gadhafi's bombed compound in Tripoli by Libyan officials early Monday to survey the destruction.

Robertson reported a four-story building was heavily damaged.

A Libyan government official said the building had been used by Gadhafi officials but said there were no casualties from the strike.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/afric ... tml?hpt=T1