BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 11 - 02:49 PM

I was a kid in London who played on bomb sites.
I do not see the relevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 11 - 02:39 PM

Apparently neither Libya nor the USA have signed up the War Crimes Tribuneral.

Just heard that Col Gadaffis compound has been hit by five huge bombs
So much for "care for civilians"

It is quite obvious that Gadaffi will be killed and anyone else who is anywhere near him.
Yet other states are killing protesters all around him

Thank fuck it wont be long till Scotland is free from the warmongering bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 May 11 - 09:35 AM

McGrath says .... "Kids in London used to play on bomb sites" ... in fact I recall a song by Duncan Browne called "On the Bombsite" which he recalls fond memories when he was a child playing on the bombsites.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 11 - 09:25 AM

Kids in London used to play on bomb sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 May 11 - 08:09 AM

Continued access to Libyan oil is certainly one factor in this drama but as others have pointed out there was no problem with Western access to Libyan oil before the protests and armed insurrection. In fact access to oil in the short run is jeopardized by UN/NATO intervention, at least as long as there is a stalemate. The market price for Libyan oil will not change, regardless of who governs Libya, as that is set by the world oil market (and the oil speculators).

It's possible that foreign oil companies will get a better deal afterwards from a new government. Or not.

It's also possible that a greater share of the oil revenue will be channeled to economic development projects and social programs rather than lining the pockets of Gadhafi and his family. Or not.

The Rebels appear to be in control of Brega again this morning. So it goes.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 11 - 08:03 AM

So what do you who have been defending the regime's actions against the "armed insurgents" have to say about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:55 AM

From Al Jazeera:

"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor has sought arrest warrants for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, his son, Saif al-Islam, and another Libyan official on war crimes charges.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo will hand a 74-page dossier of evidence to a three-judge panel at the court in the Hague, the Netherlands, on Monday.

They will decide whether the case is strong enough for them to confirm crimes against humanity charges, and issue international arrest warrants.

"We are almost ready for trial," Moreno-Ocampo said in a statement earlier. "The office collected good and solid evidence to identify [those] who bear the greatest responsibility."

The third official named was Abdullah Senussi, Gaddafi's intelligence chief.

Moreno-Ocampo said that Muammar Gaddafi had personally ordered attacks on Libyan civilians. He described Saif al-Islam as Libya's "de facto prime minister". Senussi was the "executioner" of the regime's campaign against its opponents, he said.

"The office gathered direct evidence about orders issued by Muammar Gaddafi himself, direct evidence of Saif al-Islam organising the recruitment of mercenaries, and direct evidence of the participation of al-Senussi in the attacks against demonstrators," said Moreno-Ocampo.

Moreno-Ocampo's investigation into potential human rights violations has spanned several countries and involved sorting through around 1,500 documents, Al Jazeera's Rory Challands said.

But the two-and-a-half months it has taken to come up with a petition for arrest warrants is a "heartbeat in international justice," he added.

On Monday, Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini said Gaddafi was looking for a "suitable place" to find exile.

"Messages have been arriving from the regime's restricted circle," he said. "Certain [members] have spoken under cover and are beginning to say that Gaddafi is looking for an honourable way out," he added."

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:43 AM

That really was me, but link no good.
Picture here.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387454/We-bomb-Gaddafi-says-UK-general-tyrants-hideout-childrens-playground.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:37 AM

"the stories we are being given about children's playgrounds being placed as human shields might be true, it's equally possible that such stories are being put out as cover"

Would Andrew Gilligan conspire to do that McG.?

By Andrew Gilligan, in Tripoli 8:00PM BST 14 May 2011
Even for an Arab dictator, it is an unusually cynical variant of the "human shield" gambit. On the roof of his Tripoli command bunker, Colonel Gaddafi has installed a children's fairground.

Forty feet away from the crater made on Thursday by a NATO bomb, young boys and girls played happily on a roundabout shaped like a giant tea set.

We had been brought deep inside Gaddafi's leadership compound, which takes up at least a full square mile of Tripoli city centre, to witness what the regime called "Nato's madness" in attacking women and children.

But the trip succeeded only in showing that if anyone has put civilians in harm's way, it is the government of Libya. Also near the top of the bunker, which is covered with grass, civilians have been brought to live in tents, ready to sacrifice themselves for the good of their leader.
(Picture too)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8513982/Tripoli-despatch-Nato-tightens-squeeze-on-Gaddafi.h

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:30 AM

NATO was already getting oil from Libya. If human rights were not an issue, why rock the boat with needless military involvement?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:18 AM

According to the reports I've seen, the slaughtered imams were in the house next door to the one with "the bunker".

What's the difference between a bunker and an air-raid shelter anyway?

It occurs to me that while it's possible that the stories we are being given about children's playgrounds being placed as human shields might be true, it's equally possible that such stories are being put out as cover for anticipated incidents where children are liable to be killed by misdirected bombings.

Back in the First Gulf War there was the case where a shelter in Baghdada was destroyed by US "smart bombs", and it was at first asserted that it was a military command site and that those killed were military personnel. In fact it appears that the signals identified by "intelligence" were from a site 300 yards away, and the shelter was being used by hundreds of civilians, as it had been in the war against Iran. 408 civilians were killed on that occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:18 AM

"...considering the reputation lawyers already have with the general public,"

As they say, it's ninety eight percent of lawyers that give the other two a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 11 - 05:37 AM

Christian civilians being butchered daily in the new "democratic" Egypt" (today's Times)

Israelis kill Palestinian unarmed protesters on their "border" (today's Times)

When are we sending in the drones?

Why Libya?.....Regime change in the hope of securing oil rights....pure and simple......and illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 11 - 04:31 AM

"Gadaffi was not planning genocide, he was dealing with an internal armed insurgency.

He behaved exactly as Cameron would behave if a section of the UK population took up arms and threatened his government."

Not quite borne out by either time line or what was stated by Muammar Gaddafi was it Akenaton.

1: First there was no armed insurrection only peaceful protest as there had been in Tunisia and in Egypt

2: Second Gaddafi turned his troops on his own population and when they looked doubtful about shooting down unarmed civilians Gaddafi engaged the services of mercenaries to do the killing for him

3: When this occured large sections of his armed forces deserted and the "people" raided the massive armouries to get weapons in order to defend themselves.

In short Gadafi started the killing and the UN was asked to step in.

All perfectly legal Richard - ANYTHING THE UN JOINTLY DECIDES AND AGREES TO DO IS LEGAL.

But then that is the trouble with the legal profession they get confused law has got nothing whatsoever to do with justice or what is right - Law is simply law.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 11 - 03:23 AM

"Should NATO or the U.S. have interfered in Rwanda?

Gadaffi was not planning genocide, he was dealing with an internal armed insurgency.
He behaved exactly as Cameron would behave if a section of the UK population took up arms and threatened his government.

Whether you like to admit it or not lighter, this was opportunism on the part of the West, to rid themselves of someone whom they find troublesome.......Regime change by force...as Richard says,
illegal under the UN charter.

However, the even bigger mistake is becoming apparent, as the Islamists take advantage of their new "democracy" all over the region.
Israel shot and killed many unarmed protesters on their "border" yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 May 11 - 02:05 AM

I'd like, Ron, people to behave legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 11 - 01:11 AM

So several clerics have been killed--certainly a tragedy. And what is Richard's reaction?    Is he sorry for the loss of life?    Not precisely.    He seems in fact overjoyed.

Hard to tell if he's happier--knowing his attitude toward religion--that clerics have been killed--or that he gets a chance to jump up and down yelling:   "I told you so."

Either way his behavior is remarkably close to that of a perfect slimeball.   Who knows, maybe a bit of religion in his life might improve the situation. He obviously needs something.

Somewhat remarkable, considering the reputation lawyers already have with the general public, that he would want to confirm the stereotype.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:36 PM

And those "guests" were less than "human shields." They were sacrificial propaganda items. G knew well that in event of war, all of his C & C HQs would undoubtedly be hit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:05 PM

"Early on Friday, alliance jets struck what NATO said was a command-and-control bunker in the eastern frontline town of Brega, but the government claimed that the building was actually a guest house and that 11 imams had died in the attack, while 40 others were injured.

A Dutch engineer told Sky News that he had helped build the guest house and the underground bunker for Gaddafi in 1988, and that the bunker was meant to be a communications hub."

The point being that Gadhafi is quite capable of planting innocent civilians in his guest houses/command & communications bunkers. Richard, you might make a reply with regard to "I've told you so" post above. But, what the fuck, you're mind's made up.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 May 11 - 04:52 PM

Unfortunately, international relations are impossible without a certain amount of hypocrisy.

Should NATO or the U.S. have interfered in Rwanda?

Any answer will open somebody to the charge of hypocrisy or else breach of international law or morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 11 - 04:28 PM

I would agree with that Mr McGrath, unfortunately on our part it is now about not losing face.
I feel certain that they will bomb Col Gadaffi and his family to pieces and if necessary many of his supporters.

The "protection of civilians" was simply a smoke screen for regime change....we care nothing for international law or peoples rights.

As always might is right, I feel disgusted and ashamed of our hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 11 - 02:54 PM

No one is ever going to be able to say for sure whether the numbers who will have been killed because of outside intervention in Libya when the conflict is over is greater than the number who would otherwise have died.

In many historical precedents the number killed because of outside intervention has arguably been far higher - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, for example. In others the reverse applies - Sierra Leone, possibly in the endgame of Bosnia.

In the case of Libya it's impossible even to guess since the numbers are still building up.

One thing is for certain - we should always assume that the people involved in organising the killing (on both sides) are likely to be telling us lies.

There are two alternatives. One is to continue and escalate the bombing in the hope that at time it will achieve the desired result. The other is to agree to a ceasefire from both sides and try to negotiate an acceptable result.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 11 - 02:14 PM

all foreign troops should withdraw from libya,
all this talk about protecting peoples rights is hypocritical crap, no one bothers invading countries like Zimbabwe, or Chile[ when it was under pinochet]

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 15 May 11 - 02:02 PM

A step further... the right to peaceful assembly for any reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 11 - 01:57 PM

So Richard, are you saying that governments have the right to slaughter their citizenry for the act of peaceful assembly? Do you defend that right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 11 - 01:39 PM

Oh FFS bobad.

Demonstration illegal (under local law)

Government police say "go home".

Demonstrators say "no".

Government troops say "go home".

Demonstrators say "no".

Government does as UK did at Peterloo or US did at Kent State, or US federal government did in 1792.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 11 - 12:49 PM

Those who are against the UN intervention seem to forget that the revolt began as a peaceful protest in which unarmed civilians were set upon and murdered by Gaddafi's goons and helicopter gunships and were forced to take up arms in self defense. Once that die was cast there was no turning back as large numbers of civilians would have been butchered by the tyrant. As it stands he has lost all legitimacy as the leader of Libya, in the eyes of the world and the International Criminal Court which will likely issue a warrant for his arrest by the end of the month. This will effectively make it impossible for him to escape into exile, thus sealing his fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 May 11 - 12:26 PM

When millions rose against the established government of the United States and fought against it through four years of war, Washington made no threats of postwar executions.

And, in fact, except for the commander of Andersonville prison for war crimes (the justice of which is disputed) there were none. Rebel soldiers were not only allowed to go home in peace, they were allowed to keep their personal weapons.

Execution of political enemies is not "normal enough."

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 May 11 - 11:52 AM

Damn, I have to agree with Akenaton.

If the Libyan people want to overthrow their established government, it's up to them.

As I recollect the words used at the time of the alleged "threat to murder civilians" the actual threat was to convict and to execute those who had risen against the established government. Normal enough.

Money benefits of Gadaffi to the people of his country. Fact. Learn to live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 11 - 11:06 AM

Ake, unfortunately the citizens of Libya don't share your admiration of Col(self proclaimed) Gaddafi, that's why they are willing to sacrifice their lives to get rid of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 11 - 10:12 AM

Bobad....don't worry, I dont think a few dozen kids will stop these murderous assassins.

They are what we call collateral damage......this is nice war, sanitised, just like the movies.....when our boys fly back to base, the fairies come and put all the little arms legs and heads back together again.
.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:55 AM

There is only one question....Who's business is it to deal with an armed insurrection in a sovereign country?

Gadaffi provided for his people better than any other leader of any other state in the area.....according to information available.

He was against the excesses of Muslim Fundamentalism.....so why are we involved here and nowhere else, even in countries who are shooting their unarmed citizens daily in cold blood?

Oil Rights......and the fact that Gadaffi is a "loose cannon" as far as supplying the West is concerned, is disliked by other Arab puppets, and is not "our monkey"

Col Gadaffi, most of his family and thousands of civilians, will be sacrificed for what the West believes is their interests, just as Saddam, his family and almost a million Iraqis were sacrificed in another illegal and immoral war.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:15 AM

Consider Egypt and Tunisia: at least those military forces stood with the democratic aspirations of the people, and those dictators resigned rather than let their countries dissolve in bloodshed.

Does anyone seriously think that once Gaddafi decided slaughter his opponents rather than resign there was *any* solution that would adequately protect human life?

Gaddafi announced also that once the rebel cities had fallen, he would be ruthless in destroying individual lives.

So what it comes down to, from a humanitarian point of view, is

A. who's killing more people - Gaddafi or NATO

B. whether the total casualties will finally be less or more than they would have been if Gaddafi had been allowed a free hand

C. whether the hoped-for overthrow of Gaddafi is worth [X number] of human lives

D. whether NATO's actions, taken (at least in part) to prevent G's announced slaughter, are morally superior to G's actions, taken solely to keep himself in power.

Anyone who has a clear, indisputable answer to A, B, or C, please share it and explain why it is so obvious to you and not to the rest of us.

And is there anyone who doesn't know the answer to D?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 11 - 08:15 AM

Good article in The Telegraph    Handwringers take note.

Highlights:

"Even for an Arab dictator, it is an unusually cynical variant of the "human shield" gambit. On the roof of his Tripoli command bunker, Colonel Gaddafi has installed a children's fairground.

Forty feet away from the crater made on Thursday by a NATO bomb, young boys and girls played happily on a roundabout shaped like a giant tea set."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The reporter speaking to random citizens in Tripoli:

"Within thirty seconds, I had turned a corner and was out of sight in the narrow covered passages of the souk. And within ten minutes, I had spoken to three people who told me, quite bluntly, that they despised Gaddafi and wanted him gone.

"He is mad," said the man in the striped shirt, having first taken the precaution of checking my passport to make sure that I was indeed British."I want to be able to criticise him – why shouldn't I? He has ruined this country."

Another trader told me about the year he had spent in southern England. "Sarkozy, Cameron, they are doing what we all want," he said. "Tell everyone that we don't mind the bombing at all. We want the government to change." A third person said that the shopkeepers in the souk had been ordered to stay open, even though there was very little business, to preserve an appearance of normality."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Even at the bomb sites themselves - visited on official trips in the middle of the night, just after they happen, or the next day - almost no-one is hostile. It must have something to do with the fact that, in two months of attacks, almost none of Tripoli's civilians have been harmed. "We know that the regime's claims about civilian casualties are b----," said one customer who approached me in a shop as I was buying a soft drink. "There is a lot of opposition to Gaddafi in Tripoli.""

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 11 - 05:06 AM

Well said G.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 15 May 11 - 04:06 AM

Akenaton - I could have written exactly the same as your post. Not surprising as I generally agree with your posts.

And I agree with Richard Bridge. There's a first time for everything.

To Ron Davies, Charley Noble, bobad and any other victims of the US propaganda machine - you don't protect people by bombing the shit out of them. Wasn't it the Vietnam debacle that came up with "fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity".

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 11 - 10:53 PM

"None of our business to interfere internal Libyan law and order any more than it's there place to interfere here."

There is an international norm known as Requirement to Protect.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 11 - 07:59 PM

So when a bunch of Islamists call for an assassination attempt on Cameron or Obama will that be right? Apart from the beneficial effect generally of killing Cameron. It's a jurisdictional issue. None of our business to interfere internal Libyan law and order any more than it's there place to interfere here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 May 11 - 02:50 PM

akenaton-

"Without Nato assisination attacks the insurgency would have been over and forgotten about weeks ago......now the West must kill Gadaffi and all his family and probably thousands of civilians to justify being there to begin with.

What a shower of fucking idiots"

It's probably true that the Rebel insurgency would have been suppressed and many of the "Rebels" slaughtered by Gadhafi's forces a month or so ago without NATO assistance.

Calling people "fucking idiots" doesn't necessarily improve the logic of what you're saying.

Your rational for non-intervention would be what?

Intervention would not have been politically possible without the call by the Arab League for UN intervention, nor without the UN authorizing NATO to intervene on its behalf.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 11 - 12:05 PM

Without Nato assisination attacks the insurgency would have been over and forgotten about weeks ago......now the West must kill Gadaffi and all his family and probably thousands of civilians to justify being there to begin with.

What a shower of fucking idiots

Just like Blair in Iraq.......Cameron is a proven liar and manipulator, who is now being manipulated by a gang of Islamists, opportunists and dreamers.

And like Iraq its being done in our name!

And why no brave assasination attempt on Assad or his family?

Stp Press.....Muslim Brotherhood to fight the Egyptian elections
Once again I find myself with Richard........"I told you so"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:04 PM

Richard-

And it's entirely possible that 12 clerics were killed in a NATO bombing raid or Brega, as Gadhafi has gleefully pointed out. If the story is true, it's very unfortunate. So it goes.

Meanwhile the Rebels seem to have had some success in clearing Gadhafi's forces from in and around Misrata, including the airport.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:42 PM

Ah, yes, "Nato" (=US) attack on party of young clerics.

As posted elsewhere, this is my "told you so" day.

Told you so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:52 PM

Proof of the pudding....

Unless you are convinced of course that there is no difference between Obama and GWB.



As I have noted already, there are huge differences between the Libya and Iraq interventions. To find a tortured parallel, you would have to posit that in 2003 in Iraq before the first Western bomb fell, half the country, including half his own military, had already deserted Saddam.   And that the rebels had already appealed directly to the West for aid several times. Neither of which was the case. As is obvious to anybody who takes off his leftist goggles.



Again there's not much time.


But there are scads of articles about the provisional government and the rebels.   Not hard to find.

Just one more example for tonight:

Christian Science Monitor:

(Anybody who gags at the word Christian need not read further).

Voice of Free Libya:    a song "written in 2002 by...a medical student who spent three years in jail in the 1990's for speaking out against Gadhafi.   The patriotic song was soon banned from the airwaves and is now a favorite among protestors downtown waiting for the fall of Tripoli."

"It's all about love of country and identifying with the people's suffering." "It doesn't mention Gaddafi and he hated this. He wanted to be the symbol of all good things in Libya,   That kind of patriotism was threatening to him " says one Libyan.

Lots and lots more examples of the rebels' attitudes.   No time now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 12:45 PM

The U.S. has stepped into another civil war in a Muslim country.

No boots on the ground? Don't count on it.

Nato's boss is the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:57 AM

Ron-

I certainly agree with that reasoning.

I also acknowledge that better access to oil has a lot to do with the interest of most NATO members in displacing Gadhafi. Of course Gadhafi did a reasonable job of keeping them all supplied for years but he was, and remains, a wild card. Who's to say if access to oil will be any more reliable or on more favorable turns under a new rebel regime?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:59 AM

I'll leave Ake to answer his own question--not that there's any purple prose in it. Of course not.

Mine for him is:   yet again:    Are you just fine with Gadhafi slaughtering his own dissidents? If not, how will you prevent it?

For Charlie, and other reasonable people this is a start on his answer. I will have a lot more--no time now.   I read constantly everything I can get on the Libyan crisis--whether it supports Western intervention or not.

It's clear to me the only reason not to intervene with everything the rebels have asked for--that is, everything but ground troops, is the fear that the rebels would form a worse regime for Libya than Gadhafi.   Specifically that al-Qaeda would benefit.    On this point, it is clear from my reading that al-Qaeda is the refuge of the desperate.    The way to encourage al_Qaeda in Libya would be to let Gadhafi win--and watch the annihilation of his opposition that would follow.    The bitter survivors would turn to the ideology which sees violence as the solution to problems--that is, to al Qaeda,    The "Arab spring" would be harshly discredited in the cruelest way.


More later.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 11 - 03:48 AM

Cameron......opportunist
Blair .......opportunist
Sarkosy......opportunist

It's all about access to Libyan oil rights......fools

We are being used by a bunch of pirates, fundamentalists and immature young kids blinded by the mirage of Western "democracy"(consumerism)

Do you people really want to promote a fullscale civil war in Libya, with all the thousands of deaths that will involve?
Or is your stance simply ideological masturbation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 May 11 - 10:11 PM

Oh yeah .... Libya ..... forgot about that.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:26 PM

Ron-

My only disagreement with you is my willingness to acknowledge that I don't know what will replace Gadhafi, whether it will be worse. I'm willing to assume nothing could be worse but that may not be true. I'm not picking up any reservations from you with regard to supporting the rebels, and I find that frankly puzzling.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:25 PM

Bobad is right.   And the longer the delay the more dead--on both sides. And of course the more expense to the West--if people are concerned about budgets, as seems the case.

Among other things, more drones--and more flights by them--are needed.

Nobody , neither the opponents of Western involvement nor those in favor of it, wants this to drag on.    Nobody but Gadhafi--since the longer it lasts the more likely the West--or the rebels--will give up.    Then comes the Brother Leader's payback on " the rats".    Which doesn't seem to bother some Mudcatters.

Let's lance this boil.


The only really good development I've seen recently is that it appears the West is preparing to release about $4.5 billion of the frozen funds to the rebels.

Supposedly only for food and other humanitarian purposes. But I've also seen "military salaries" named.   If this money becomes as fungible as is likely, the rebels can actually buy some of the weapons they need.

We also need to try to cut off oil sales by Gadhafi's regime--and promote those of the rebel government.

And there is no excuse for every member of NATO involved in this operation not to recognize the rebel provisional government as the only legitimate government.

The legitimacy of Gadhafi's regime is long gone.