Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[The Archregimancy]

ModEdit: Please do not post graphic images of a dead/captured Gaddafi to this thread without including spoiler tags. Even then consider whether posting the images adheres to site rules.

Israel considers the Fall of Gaddafi a “Strategic Danger”, Lieberman considers Gaddafi to be a "Credible Leader" * Asharq Al-Awsat الشرق الأوسط

TEXT: "...Israeli military sources consider the fall of the Gaddafi regime to pose a “strategic danger” especially on the Zionist entity's southern front. Israeli army radio said Friday morning that Libya had greatly improved its relations with Israel as of late, and pointed out that the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, made special efforts to complement Gaddafi during the board of ministers and security board meetings. He said that Gaddafi is a “credible leader”..."

"...The source said that secret relations developed between Gaddafi and Israel during the last few years, especially after his decision to get rid of his unconventional weapons. These sources complemented his austere decision relative to extreme Islamic movements. The sources added that Israel participated in Libyan and French efforts to block Islamic expansion in the Arab region. It is noted that Libyan authorities released an Israeli Mossad agent who was arrested in Libya in August 2010, after spending five months in prison. The Israeli daily *Maariv* said at the time that he was released as a result of efforts by Lieberman, through relations with Austrian Jewish billionaire, *Martin Schlaff*, who has relations with Gaddafi, and other Libyan leaders. The sources added that Israeli security organizations are reviewing the present conditions in light of the changes taking presently taking place, starting with the fall of Mubarak, the end of which are still unclear. Islamic Jihad in Palestine accused Muammar Gaddafi of facilitating the assassination of its leader and founder in Malta 15 years ago by the Mossad..."

So people who claim the popular revolution is "racist" in nature are find themselves on the same side of the fence as the Zionists.

[Mediterreania]

Israel considers the Fall of Gaddafi a “Strategic Danger”, Lieberman considers Gaddafi to be a "Credible Leader" * Asharq Al-Awsat الشرق الأوسط

TEXT: "...Israeli military sources consider the fall of the Gaddafi regime to pose a “strategic danger” especially on the Zionist entity's southern front. Israeli army radio said Friday morning that Libya had greatly improved its relations with Israel as of late, and pointed out that the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, made special efforts to complement Gaddafi during the board of ministers and security board meetings. He said that Gaddafi is a “credible leader”..."

"...The source said that secret relations developed between Gaddafi and Israel during the last few years, especially after his decision to get rid of his unconventional weapons. These sources complemented his austere decision relative to extreme Islamic movements. The sources added that Israel participated in Libyan and French efforts to block Islamic expansion in the Arab region. It is noted that Libyan authorities released an Israeli Mossad agent who was arrested in Libya in August 2010, after spending five months in prison. The Israeli daily *Maariv* said at the time that he was released as a result of efforts by Lieberman, through relations with Austrian Jewish billionaire, *Martin Schlaff*, who has relations with Gaddafi, and other Libyan leaders. The sources added that Israeli security organizations are reviewing the present conditions in light of the changes taking presently taking place, starting with the fall of Mubarak, the end of which are still unclear. Islamic Jihad in Palestine accused Muammar Gaddafi of facilitating the assassination of its leader and founder in Malta 15 years ago by the Mossad..."

So people who claim the popular revolution is "racist" in nature are find themselves on the same side of the fence as the Zionists.

Anyone who calls it the "Zionist entity" generally has an agenda...

[Wamitoria]

Israel considers the Fall of Gaddafi a “Strategic Danger”, Lieberman considers Gaddafi to be a "Credible Leader" * Asharq Al-Awsat الشرق الأوسط

TEXT: "...Israeli military sources consider the fall of the Gaddafi regime to pose a “strategic danger” especially on the Zionist entity's southern front. Israeli army radio said Friday morning that Libya had greatly improved its relations with Israel as of late, and pointed out that the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, made special efforts to complement Gaddafi during the board of ministers and security board meetings. He said that Gaddafi is a “credible leader”..."

"...The source said that secret relations developed between Gaddafi and Israel during the last few years, especially after his decision to get rid of his unconventional weapons. These sources complemented his austere decision relative to extreme Islamic movements. The sources added that Israel participated in Libyan and French efforts to block Islamic expansion in the Arab region. It is noted that Libyan authorities released an Israeli Mossad agent who was arrested in Libya in August 2010, after spending five months in prison. The Israeli daily *Maariv* said at the time that he was released as a result of efforts by Lieberman, through relations with Austrian Jewish billionaire, *Martin Schlaff*, who has relations with Gaddafi, and other Libyan leaders. The sources added that Israeli security organizations are reviewing the present conditions in light of the changes taking presently taking place, starting with the fall of Mubarak, the end of which are still unclear. Islamic Jihad in Palestine accused Muammar Gaddafi of facilitating the assassination of its leader and founder in Malta 15 years ago by the Mossad..."

So people who claim the popular revolution is "racist" in nature are find themselves on the same side of the fence as the Zionists.

Anyone who calls it the "Zionist entity" generally has an agenda...

That, and I'm pretty sure Israel and Gaddafi don't get along...

[Minotzia]

That, and I'm pretty sure Israel and Gaddafi don't get along...

I should think that Israel is more concerned about

taking power than Gadaffi remaining in state. A true democracy would almost certainly (as in the case of Turkey, Egypt, etc.) lead to an Islamist government. That's bad news for Israel.

[Wamitoria]

That, and I'm pretty sure Israel and Gaddafi don't get along...

I should think that Israel is more concerned about

taking power than Gadaffi remaining in state. A true democracy would almost certainly (as in the case of Turkey, Egypt, etc.) lead to an Islamist government. That's bad news for Israel.

Because, BROWN PEOPLE MUST BE ISLAMISTS!

[Minotzia]

Because, BROWN PEOPLE MUST BE ISLAMISTS!

Or, you know, because that's the majority agenda of the Libyan rebels...

“In cities across Libya, Islamist groups have proved more efficient at responding to the collapse of authority. While council members squabble for positions inside the courthouse, Islamist leaders escorted by followers with walkie-talkies emerge from their tents to mobilize the large crowds with sermons and open-air prayers in the square below. Mosques formerly required to close between prayer times are now open round the clock, and imams call for an armed jihad against Gaddafi in Friday sermons—where politics was previously banned. Salim Jaber, who heads the religious affairs office of the Benghazi council, has transferred responsibility for food distribution to Benghazi’s poor from the local markets to the mosques. Unlike in Egypt where the beltagiya, or street thugs, rampaged for several days through downtown Cairo, religious injunctions against looting ensured that attacks quickly subsided. Mosques organised collections of local weapons. And sheikhs on Benghazi’s new Free Libya radio have called on their followers to take over the jobs left by departing migrant workers.”

[Nazis in Space]

Since when did a Middle East Megathread become a discussion about Europe?

This should get you back on track, (article from Spiked Online)

'Why a no-fly zone means no freedom for Libyans' by Mick Hume
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10288/

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!

[Rokartian States]

Since when did a Middle East Megathread become a discussion about Europe?

This should get you back on track, (article from Spiked Online)

'Why a no-fly zone means no freedom for Libyans' by Mick Hume
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10288/

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.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Since when did a Middle East Megathread become a discussion about Europe?

This should get you back on track, (article from Spiked Online)

'Why a no-fly zone means no freedom for Libyans' by Mick Hume
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10288/

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!

Not once in the articles does either Mick Hume nor Tim Black mention Gadhaffi as a pal, but a dictator,you completely missed the point.

[Rokartian States]

Not yet at least.

When he does, I'll gladly label him as just as bad as Ghaddafi.

And whether it's a thousand, a hundred or ten, people were killed. A less bad thing is still a bad thing.

Sure.

Last point, Bahrain has an atrocious record on human rights, treating Shia as second-class citizens.

I don't know terribly much about Bahrain, but given the way Al Khalifa has treated the protesters, I wouldn't be surprised.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I'm a leftist who supported American intervention.

Read this part more carefully..

'With the world’s media focused on the disaster in Japan, perhaps it seemed like a good day for desperate tyrants to try to bury bad news. That doesn’t just apply to Colonel Gaddafi’s attempts to bomb Libyan rebels into submission. Over in the Middle East’s smallest nation, Bahrain, current king Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa was busy adding 1,000 soldiers from Saudi Arabia to his own 10,000-strong security force. Whichever way this is viewed, it did not look like the act of a regime ready to make democratic concessions to the thousands of protesters amassed in Manama, the capital city, since the ‘day of rage’ over a month ago.'

'The gulf between rhetoric and reality' by Tim Black
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... cle/10297/

Yet no one is calling the King of Bahrain a monster, a dictator that must be forced out of office. No one has suggested that the King of Bahrain is just as nasty a dictator as Gadhaffi.

Yeah, geo-strategic considerations, limits the extent to which U.S policy can fully align itself with moral/ideological values, including its own. It's not a historically recent phenomenon. Sargon of Akkadia set the precedent I think.

The U.S can't be overcritical of Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, because they have important military bases there; partially as deterrence to any revisionist aspirations on the part of Tehran with regards to the Middle Eastern balance of power.

You really do have to see this in the context of the regional military rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is partly being narrated as a Sunni/Shi’ite conflict. Bahrain, which is mostly Shi’ite, without Sunni leadership would be vulnerable to becoming part of an Iranian sphere of influence, one that Tehran has very skilfully been manoeuvring to grow.

In normal circumstances, such a blatant act of aggression on the part of the Saudis would be unlikely to go unpunished, and a regional war in the Middle East would lead to a staggering death toll, on top of which the Global economy would be devestated.

Without a powerful third party deterring the incentive for retaliation, that is precisely what could happen. That is where the U.S military bases comes in.

Qaddafi, is neither a U.S ally, nor is he geo-politically useful. He is a rambling monster that can be slayed to prevent further massacring of his own people. Surely the prospect of being able to align principles with policy, which is a rare opportunity in foreign policy, isn’t a bad thing? Certainly better than a thousand more dead rebels.

In the meanwhile you can either acknowledge that there is a shade of grey to these things, or confirm my opinion that the average person should not interfere with the governments policy making. Especially foreign policy.

If you were talking about the average person, and not the government administration, I would probably agree with you.

[Nazis in Space]

I'm a leftist who supported American intervention.

Then my comment obviously doesn't apply to you :) I was really aiming at the article's author and his 'Hyper-Idealist' (Read: Staggeringly hypocritical) ilk, not at everyone left of centre.

Though I'll grant you that my post was sweeping enough that it could easily be interpreted as a general attack on 'The Left'.

[Cyreno-Libya]

I get annoyed when people think the Libyan people are not capable of liberating Libya from the regime. Why can't some respondents on here accept a revolution from below rather than from above? I cannot think of anything more disastrous for liberty in Libya than patronising stooges from the Arab League, NATO or UN thinking that they need to use a no fly zone in some sort of white man's burden mentality. This is the type of attitude that equates to, 'we in the West have moral superiority and need to liberate brown people because these 'children' need saving from themselves.'

Once again I'm repeating myself from earlier posts. The Libyan demonstrators can and will liberate Libya There. And the evidence is: The only Libyan city Gadhaffi really controls is Tripoli, and the demonstrators are closing in with many army defectors giving arms to the people to protect themselves, in some cases some army members are joining in with the rebels. Why is it when an overthrow of the regime in Libya is on the verge of succeeding through the people, the west believes in imperialist intervention, (dressed up as humanitarian intervention - see below)?

'Ignorance is strength'
'Freedom is slavery'
Imperialism is humanitarianism.

But doesn't Col. Godawful still have his Air Force? That seems to be the rationale for an NFZ. On the other hand, I don't think Western nations are really serious about this, they're just pushing it as PR. If an NFZ were established, it'd first be necessary to bomb Libya to destroy the anti-aircraft batteries. I doubt anyone is really up for that. 'Course that's just my personal opinion.

Anti-Gaddafis have also fighterjets. Yesterday they destroyed three warships of Gaddafi, crashed into Bab alAzzyah (where Gaddafi lives) and destroyed some Gaddafi's fighterjets.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I'm a leftist who supported American intervention.

Then my comment obviously doesn't apply to you I was really aiming at the article's author and his 'Hyper-Idealist' (Read: Staggeringly hypocritical) ilk, not at everyone left of centre.

Though I'll grant you that my post was sweeping enough that it could easily be interpreted as a general attack on 'The Left'.

Well there's liberals, and there's the portion of the left that see the world through some kind of Manichean prism, with imperial Westerners and the "anti-imperialist" rest, being the main antagonists and protagonists in world affairs. They usually have a hammer and a sickle on their flag.

The "Iraqi-resistance"/Qaddafi types being anti-imperialist non-Westerners I should ,(perhaps redundantly) state.

[Rokartian States]

I'm a leftist who supported American intervention.

Then my comment obviously doesn't apply to you I was really aiming at the article's author and his 'Hyper-Idealist' (Read: Staggeringly hypocritical) ilk, not at everyone left of centre.

Though I'll grant you that my post was sweeping enough that it could easily be interpreted as a general attack on 'The Left'.

Gotcha, my mistake then.

Unrelated to the aforementioned article, I've been convinced that intervention would no longer be effective at this point and would only serve to cause more bloodshed.

[Nazis in Space]

Yeah, geo-strategic considerations, limits the extent to which U.S policy can fully align itself with moral/ideological values, including its own. It's not a historically recent phenomenon.

The U.S can't be overcritical of Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, because they have important military bases there; partially as deterrence to any revisionist aspirations on the part of Tehran pertaining to the balance of power status quo.

You really do have to see this in the context of the regional military rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is partly being narrated as a Sunni/Shi’ite conflict. Bahrain, which is mostly Shi’ite, without Sunni leadership would be vulnerable to becoming part of an Iranian sphere of influence, one that Tehran has very skilfully been manoeuvring to grow.

In normal circumstances, such a blatant act of aggression on the part of the Saudis is unlikely to go unpunished, and a regional war in the Middle East would lead to a staggering death toll, on top of which the Global economy would be devestated.

Without a powerful third party deterring the incentive for retaliation, that is precisely what could happen. That is where the U.S military bases comes in.

Qaddafi, is neither a U.S ally, nor is he geo-politically useful. He is a rambling monster that can be slayed to prevent further massacring of his own people. Surely the prospect of being able to align principles with policy, which is rare in foreign policy, isn’t a bad thing? Certainly better than a thousand more dead rebels.

In the meanwhile you can either acknowledge that there is a shade of grey to these things, or confirm my opinion that the average person should not interfere with the governments policy making. Especially foreign policy.

If you were talking about the average person, and not the government administration, I would probably agree with you.

Of course, intervention in Libya comes with its own problems, insofar as perception is concerned. While it's staggeringly far-fetched to call it an imperialist move (A move partially motivated by economist interests on the other hand, is perfectly valid. Though consensus seems to be 'Costlier than doing nothing, so unless public pressure...'), it would certainly be perceived and constructed as an act of imperialist aggression against the Arabs by the West. The rebels themselves (Who are now increasingly changing their opinion concerning their desire to fight it out themselves, after noticing that Gaddafi's elite formations are perfectly capable of beating the shit out of them. And I'm still happy that I called exactly this happening within a few days of the conflict starting, while every Idealist Young Western Liberal thought Gaddafi would be gone within a week ^^) would undoubtedly remain grateful towards the West - the Mujahedin that actually were directly supported by the West (Rather than the Saudis or the Pakistani) did remain so, too, after all. The rest of the Arab world, on the other hand...

Though one reckons that ultimately, true gratitude beats vague resentment, so it's not that big an issue.

The really, really big issue is Libya's tribal division - Gaddafi's still sitting on his pretty presidential chair because he has the loyalty of his own, and some allied tribes (Where 'Tribe' means 'A million people or so'), who received heavy preferential treatment in the army, as well as economically. If the rebels win, the guys loyal to Gaddafi for historical and familial ties stretching generations past Gaddafi's own freakin' birth will lose... And Libya remains a powder keg, with the top dogs of today simply becoming the rebels of tomorrow.

Whether the rebels win or Gaddafi wins is thus ultimately irrelevant - the source of the conflict remains. About the only positive thing that can come out of a West-assisted rebel success is that the west could limit the degree of genocide that's essentially inevitable in the aftermath, something it's in much less of a position to do if Gaddafi wins.

Frankly, the ideal scenario would be the Arab league enforcing a division of Libya, Sudan-style. Not that the Arab league has either the means or the will - I imagine it'll be quite happy having the West pay for such a move, while simultaneously using it as a bogeyman and defusing a situation that has the potential of further destabilising their domestic situation. And, with all due respect to the people presently dying in Libya - but Libya's oil, though nice for the Italians, isn't exactly sufficiently relevant to justify the West starting yet another military adventure outside its zone of immediate influence. And Libya's rebels being paragons of democracy... Eh, I've my doubts. I don't particularly object to Islam now playing a larger role in the 'Liberated' areas (The local church always takes over this role in this kind of situation, crying zOMG militant extremists is a bit early, IMHO), but their tribal affiliations and remarkably poor organisation aren't inspiring confidence. If we're to spend billions on randomly helping people to free themselves without any immediate benefits, we should expect more than a vague 'Well, at least they're not that other guy!'.

Let the Arab league sort it out. Fuck, let Egypt sort it out, it just had its own 'Democratic' revolution, the military is in charge there, its military is actually competent, and its military receives remarkable benefits from America, anyway. Oh, and it borders Libya. Then the Arabs can't complain about western imperialism, the intellectual elity can't cry their eyes out about western imperialism, and the west keeps its money and potentially lives.

[Alien Space Bats]

Seems to me that the US and Isreal have decided that (al-)(G)(K)(Q)ad(d)(')(h)af(i)(y) is a pall, and won't stop him from his ever-more successful counter-attacks against the rebels. I see the situation falling into a protected guerilla war. Maybe AQ and similar groups will take advantage. We lost our chance to get rebels on our side by helping them, and now it looks like the Mad Colonel's regime is going to see 43. Looks like, after decades of sponsoring terrorism and threatening to flood the US and Europe with "millions of suicide bombers," (al-)(G)(K)(Q)ad(d)(')(h)af(i)(y)'s brief investment in making nice to the west, especially US and Isreal, by playing off fears of Islamic extremists, has payed dividends.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What's this "U.S." garbage?

I see a game of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If we were to go in unilaterally, without U.N. (or at least NATO) support, you'd be screaming about how that was an "imperialist" intervention aimed at co-opting the Glorious Libyan Revolution and creating another "puppet state" through which we could suck the country dry of its oil wealth.

So we put conditions on intervention, and what happens? France hesitates, Germany says they're not comfortable with intervention, Turkey and Greece oppose us, and Russia and China cluck about violations of national sovereignty and threaten a veto in the U.N. Security Council. That means we don't have the kind of clear international support we say we need to impose a NFZ, and so now we've made a conscious decision to support Qaddafi?!?!? WTF is that sh-t?!?!?!?

You can't have it both ways. Either you give us carte blanche to play Globocop, or you don't. If you don't, and the rest of the world goes weak at the knees, then blame the f-ck-ng rest of the world, not us.

Don't threaten to accuse of being vile imperialist aggressors for going in, and then accuse us of being vile collaborators and tacit supporters of mass slaughter for not going in.

---

I think that the world is going to come to regret this moment. We've boxed ourselves into a corner now, one in which we're going to have to impose and maintain sanctions against Libya that will harm the Libyan people and push Qaddafi back into his old habits of terrorism. Worse still, Qaddafi won't live forever; this revolution will eventually return. Between now and then, the very people most of us don't want to see triumphant (the Islamic radicals) will have the inside track in organization, virtually guaranteeing that, when the revolution finally comes, they will be the ones who emerge at the top of the heap.

There are other consequences to this failure. I'm not happy that our military has been making open remarks about being stretched too thin, remarks that suggest that we don't have the manpower to assist a rebel movement overthrown a loyalist army that is probably smaller than a single U.S. combat brigade at this point. If a certain whacked out Asian leader is listening, we have just inadvertently told him (whether it is, in fact, true or not) that we don't have the ability to defend a certain important and loyal Asian ally (after all, we can't spare so much as a single combat brigade to help out, can we?), and this at a time when another important Asian ally - and one who's infrastructure would be vital to us in the event of said potential Asian war - is struggling to recover from a certain massive natural disaster that badly damaged said infrastructure - and is utterly freaked out about all things nuclear right now to boot.

Nothing says, "Hey, this is your moment, seize it!" better than that kind of loose talk. Nothing.

<shakes head>

Don't people think before they shoot off their god-damned mouths any more? Apparently not.

[Parti Ouvrier]

But doesn't Col. Godawful still have his Air Force? That seems to be the rationale for an NFZ. On the other hand, I don't think Western nations are really serious about this, they're just pushing it as PR. If an NFZ were established, it'd first be necessary to bomb Libya to destroy the anti-aircraft batteries. I doubt anyone is really up for that. 'Course that's just my personal opinion.

Anti-Gaddafis have also fighterjets. Yesterday they destroyed three warships of Gaddafi, crashed into Bab alAzzyah (where Gaddafi lives) and destroyed some Gaddafi's fighterjets.

Solidarity.

[Laerod]

But doesn't Col. Godawful still have his Air Force? That seems to be the rationale for an NFZ. On the other hand, I don't think Western nations are really serious about this, they're just pushing it as PR. If an NFZ were established, it'd first be necessary to bomb Libya to destroy the anti-aircraft batteries. I doubt anyone is really up for that. 'Course that's just my personal opinion.

Anti-Gaddafis have also fighterjets. Yesterday they destroyed three warships of Gaddafi, crashed into Bab alAzzyah (where Gaddafi lives) and destroyed some Gaddafi's fighterjets.

Source?

[Cyreno-Libya]

Anti-Gaddafis have also fighterjets. Yesterday they destroyed three warships of Gaddafi, crashed into Bab alAzzyah (where Gaddafi lives) and destroyed some Gaddafi's fighterjets.

Solidarity.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

Solidarity.

Anti-Gaddafis have fighterjets?
Really?
What kind?

[Nazis in Space]

:)

Anti-Gaddafis have fighterjets?
Really?
What kind?

Nobody knows. The rebels just claim they did. Or maybe it was just one of the Al Jazeera bloggers - the link's outdated, dunno whether there was an interview, or just ze text.

It's perfectly possible, though. Parts of the military did join the rebels, after all.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

Anti-Gaddafis have fighterjets?
Really?
What kind?

Nobody knows. The rebels just claim they did. Or maybe it was just one of the Al Jazeera bloggers - the link's outdated, dunno whether there was an interview, or just ze text.

It's perfectly possible, though. Parts of the military did join the rebels, after all.

Maybe they got them from the benghazi air strip?

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... n_uprising

It has been reported that many eye witnesses have seen the Rebel flag being flown in Sirte. As well it is claimed that Sirte's airport, Al Gurdabiyaa air base, and two Gaddafi battalions are currently under the control of the defected 36th battalion and the revolutionaries.
I hope this is true......

[Kazomal]

Seems to me that the US and Isreal have decided that (al-)(G)(K)(Q)ad(d)(')(h)af(i)(y) is a pall, and won't stop him from his ever-more successful counter-attacks against the rebels. I see the situation falling into a protected guerilla war. Maybe AQ and similar groups will take advantage. We lost our chance to get rebels on our side by helping them, and now it looks like the Mad Colonel's regime is going to see 43. Looks like, after decades of sponsoring terrorism and threatening to flood the US and Europe with "millions of suicide bombers," (al-)(G)(K)(Q)ad(d)(')(h)af(i)(y)'s brief investment in making nice to the west, especially US and Isreal, by playing off fears of Islamic extremists, has payed dividends.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What's this "U.S." garbage?

I see a game of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If we were to go in unilaterally, without U.N. (or at least NATO) support, you'd be screaming about how that was an "imperialist" intervention aimed at co-opting the Glorious Libyan Revolution and creating another "puppet state" through which we could suck the country dry of its oil wealth.

So we put conditions on intervention, and what happens? France hesitates, Germany says they're not comfortable with intervention, Turkey and Greece oppose us, and Russia and China cluck about violations of national sovereignty and threaten a veto in the U.N. Security Council. That means we don't have the kind of clear international support we say we need to impose a NFZ, and so now we've made a conscious decision to support Qaddafi?!?!? WTF is that sh-t?!?!?!?

You can't have it both ways. Either you give us carte blanche to play Globocop, or you don't. If you don't, and the rest of the world goes weak at the knees, then blame the f-ck-ng rest of the world, not us.

Don't threaten to accuse of being vile imperialist aggressors for going in, and then accuse us of being vile collaborators and tacit supporters of mass slaughter for not going in.

---

I think that the world is going to come to regret this moment. We've boxed ourselves into a corner now, one in which we're going to have to impose and maintain sanctions against Libya that will harm the Libyan people and push Qaddafi back into his old habits of terrorism. Worse still, Qaddafi won't live forever; this revolution will eventually return. Between now and then, the very people most of us don't want to see triumphant (the Islamic radicals) will have the inside track in organization, virtually guaranteeing that, when the revolution finally comes, they will be the ones who emerge at the top of the heap.

There are other consequences to this failure. I'm not happy that our military has been making open remarks about being stretched too thin, remarks that suggest that we don't have the manpower to assist a rebel movement overthrown a loyalist army that is probably smaller than a single U.S. combat brigade at this point. If a certain whacked out Asian leader is listening, we have just inadvertently told him (whether it is, in fact, true or not) that we don't have the ability to defend a certain important and loyal Asian ally (after all, we can't spare so much as a single combat brigade to help out, can we?), and this at a time when another important Asian ally - and one who's infrastructure would be vital to us in the event of said potential Asian war - is struggling to recover from a certain massive natural disaster that badly damaged said infrastructure - and is utterly freaked out about all things nuclear right now to boot.

Nothing says, "Hey, this is your moment, seize it!" better than that kind of loose talk. Nothing.

<shakes head>

Don't people think before they shoot off their god-damned mouths any more? Apparently not.

You seem to have put a whole fucking lot of words into my mouth, so let me clarify my position here:

I never said the whole thing was the US's responsibility, or fault, nor did I say we made a decision to support Qaddafi. What we did was not make a decision to support the rebels. Why is that a bad thing? Basically, because of everything you said from "I think that the world is going to come to regret this moment," on. Like I said, we have no responsibility to react, but I think it would be in our best interests to have done so.

If the US had established a NFZ without UN or NATO cooperation, I certainly would not be criticizing.

If they had invaded, set up a puppet regime, and syphoned off their wealth, then I would have criticized them for that.

If they didn't, I wouldn't.

Clear up my position for you?