I refer to people who is still blindly believes that the big leading media agencies are purely meant to bring the truth to the surface. And not serving to the goals of their owners.
And if no sources are reliable, then I guess I should stop listening to what's happening around the world completely.
Weird logic. You just have to know who the source represents, what the owner wants in general and what he wants us to believe. If you collect the information from different sides, you will be able to get the whole picture. And the most of information in the word is neutral so it is easier to understand, to trust. But on the topics like Libya you cannot get information just from one source. Also it is useful to understand, that some different from the first look sources represent are still the same side.
But generally yes, you cannot just go from time to time to a news site and get informed on the "hot" topics.
Information is a powerful weapon. The one who distribute information can make people think whatever he wants. He can make them kill each other or bring the money.
Libyan regime: Tribal meeting is sign of support, Associated Press http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_LIBYA?SITE=ALMON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT "Reporters were told that about 2,000 chiefs were present, that they represent 850 Libyan tribes and that the gathering was organized by the tribes, not the regime. ..Ibrahim said the tribal gathering was a counterpoint to Clinton's call for Gadhafi's ouster. "What voice is more important, Hillary Clinton's voice or the voice of 2,000 tribal leaders of Libya?" he said." answer from rebel: "Libya doesn't have 850 tribes," said the head of the political committee of the rebel's Transitional National Council, Fathi Baja, in the eastern city of Benghazi. "Gadhafi is just a big liar. ... He never had any legitimacy. The Libyan people did not choose him." Me: Libyan people did not choose him indeed, he does not have any formal position. He is just a leader of revolution. 850 not tribes, but "hamulah"s (a tribe consist of hamulahs). They gather hamulahs only on very important occasions.
Berlusconi says that the conflict is an internal civil war. What is NATO doing there then??? Sorry did not find it in English. "Qui si tratta di un conflitto interno di un potere che si è posto contro il potere centrale di Gheddafi e della regione di Tripoli, un'antica volontà indipendentista della regione della Cirenaica e di Bengasi. Quindi - ha concluso il premier - si tratta di una guerra civile interna.| "E' guerra civile per volontà indipendentista della Cirenaica" - I guess it is clear without translation. http://www.tmnews.it/web/sezioni/politica/PN_20110505_00198.shtml
Maybe they are considering dividing Libya as an option to military operation on ground? Most of oil is in rebels Cirenaica...
I don't think that western intentions are the main point now. I feel that we all agree on the fact that the UN never intended on protecting civilians to begin with.
We seemed, however, to have different opinions on which option was more likely to save more lives.
It is a civil war on a land rich in oil. Easy choice. Look at the Cot de Ivoire conflict, no body did anything other than proclaim one the true victor over the other, and let the people do what they want/can. Gaddafi is an enemy to the west and is dealt with as such. Tell me, do you think that after this "revolution" is over, the civilians holding ak-47's will just say "well we achieved our goals, take these weapons back" or " well, it looks like we have weapons!!"
Civil war is civil war. Western and Arab countries should not interfere in anyway other than forming an agreement, not selling the oil, taking a margin and then calling it supporting rebels. If the Libyans say "he is killing peaceful protestors we need help" well guess what, if you can handle that don't start revolutions. You think I am exagerating? Look at Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Syria.
Edit: I still remember where I stood when the UN resolution "to protect civilians in Libya" was signed.
@Petruccio: I wouldn't trust Roberts after reading up on his opionions but even if he is right you have to weigh both sides of the conflict.
In the beginning there were peaceful or at least unarmed protests in a bunch of cities in Lybia. The armed skirmishes and the revolt didn't start until Gadhafis troops shot protesters. He also started to use scorched earth-like tactics when the rebels started gaining ground in some cities.
Besides: Any leader should step down if armed conflicts break out because of his government. You just don't fight your own people... period. I know that's a utopian view and it will never happen, but that's what I think about all this.
Sure there are reasons to take ghadaffis stance, but what happened in Lybia was no big internal struggle between big parts of the society like before the US civil war or a small fanatic group attacking the government or civilians.
There is still no evidence that Gadhafis troops shot peaceful protesters. All you have is the media reports, based on eyewitness calls. This is how it works now - evidences are not needed anymore. Just trust what we say. And try not to think.
The protesters were not peaceful. They attacked police stations and military bases. According to medics, 2 days after the uprising they received men with legs wounds, on the third day it became more serious. The initial protests calmed down quickly because they do not have people's support. Gadhafis troops were about to enter to Bengazi and stop all this madness. But we have a war now thanks to NATO airstrikes. How helping the war going on protects the civilians? II am sure Gaddafi would punish some "protesters", but for sure he would not destroy all the city. Instead bombs are falling now, people are dying, also the soldiers from both sides are human beings. Civilians are dying. To bombs, to Gaddafi and rebels troops fire. Because it is a war, and West does not want to stop it. It is a crime, like it or not.
There is no more international law. UN resolution is taken based on media reports, without any commission/investigations, without Libyan representative. NATO took side in a civil war. The funds of a sovereign state are taken and frozen. All these actions are illegal.
The world is changing right now. The rule of law is over. More and more people understand that media lie. I guess this is just the beginning. The world financial system does not work well anymore. They need to reboot the matrix.
There is still no evidence that Gadhafis troops shot peaceful protesters. All you have is the media reports, based on eyewitness calls. This is how it works now - evidences are not needed anymore. Just trust what we say. And try not to think.
The protesters were not peaceful. They attacked police stations and military bases. According to medics, 2 days after the uprising they received men with legs wounds, on the third day it became more serious. The initial protests calmed down quickly because they do not have people's support. Gadhafis troops were about to enter to Bengazi and stop all this madness. But we have a war now thanks to NATO airstrikes. How helping the war going on protects the civilians? II am sure Gaddafi would punish some "protesters", but for sure he would not destroy all the city. Instead bombs are falling now, people are dying, also the soldiers from both sides are human beings. Civilians are dying. To bombs, to Gaddafi and rebels troops fire. Because it is a war, and West does not want to stop it. It is a crime, like it or not.
There is no more international law. UN resolution is taken based on media reports, without any commission/investigations, without Libyan representative. NATO took side in a civil war. The funds of a sovereign state are taken and frozen. All these actions are illegal.
The world is changing right now. The rule of law is over. More and more people understand that media lie. I guess this is just the beginning. The world financial system does not work well anymore. They need to reboot the matrix.
Gaddaffi was very clear about what he was going to do to the citizens of Benghazi. The fact that you would even go so far as to twist Gaddaffi's words to make him seem "not so bad" is very telling in how far you will go to make reality fit your view.
Gaddaffi wasn't being ambigious about what was going to happen. He was going to kill thousands. For some bizar reason you hate the US but people like you are very dangerous. The kind that will change reality when it doesn't suit his views.
On May 07 2011 02:15 zalz wrote: Gaddaffi wasn't being ambigious about what was going to happen. He was going to kill thousands. For some bizar reason you hate the US but people like you are very dangerous. The kind that will change reality when it doesn't suit his views.
The reality is that we are now looking at tens of thousands of casualties being the likely result of this conflict.
Studies have shown that civil wars with interstate interference lasts up to 300% longer on average, than civil wars that are just internal affairs without support from abroad.
There was proof that Gadaffi wanted to kill rebels. And did so. Historically, this is an area that has rebelled before (in the mid 90s), and doesn't have a good relationship with Gadaffi. So no reason to doubt that there would have been deaths.
That Gadaffi suppress his own people, and is perfectly willing to use armed forces against them, and kill them, jail them, just for being against him, isn't something I disagree about. I do not however agree that this saves lives overall. It may. But I don't think so. I think that, overall, it will end in more lives lost than doing nothing would have done.
What I disagree about, is the sudden need to go into Libya, compared to Ivory Coast, Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, etc etc etc. I just don't see it. In all of these cases, you have crazy dictators responsible for a lot of human suffering, and death.
It's an internal matter, that would have been best solved by Libyans. Now we are involved, and due to our extreme superiority in military power, we are basically the main force responsible for what's happening there. If we wanted to, we could end the war as we wanted it to end within a week.
But anyone thinking Gadaffi were just going to suddenly give up power and riches and everything just because we were dropping some bomb on military targets ... were just plain idiots. And sadly, I think that's what people were hoping would happen.
And I think we look like hypocrites.
Since we aren't protecting civilians, and haven't been, in so many other conflicts in so many other oppressive regimes all over the world - including the neighboring countries.
On May 07 2011 02:15 zalz wrote: Gaddaffi wasn't being ambigious about what was going to happen. He was going to kill thousands. For some bizar reason you hate the US but people like you are very dangerous. The kind that will change reality when it doesn't suit his views.
The reality is that we are now looking at tens of thousands of casualties being the likely result of this conflict.
Studies have shown that civil wars with interstate interference lasts up to 300% longer on average, than civil wars that are just internal affairs without support from abroad.
There was proof that Gadaffi wanted to kill rebels. And did so. Historically, this is an area that has rebelled before (in the mid 90s), and doesn't have a good relationship with Gadaffi. So no reason to doubt that there would have been deaths.
That Gadaffi suppress his own people, and is perfectly willing to use armed forces against them, and kill them, jail them, just for being against him, isn't something I disagree about. I do not however agree that this saves lives overall. It may. But I don't think so. I think that, overall, it will end in more lives lost than doing nothing would have done.
What I disagree about, is the sudden need to go into Libya, compared to Ivory Coast, Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, etc etc etc. I just don't see it. In all of these cases, you have crazy dictators responsible for a lot of human suffering, and death.
It's an internal matter, that would have been best solved by Libyans. Now we are involved, and due to our extreme superiority in military power, we are basically the main force responsible for what's happening there. If we wanted to, we could end the war as we wanted it to end within a week.
But anyone thinking Gadaffi were just going to suddenly give up power and riches and everything just because we were dropping some bomb on military targets ... were just plain idiots. And sadly, I think that's what people were hoping would happen.
And I think we look like hypocrites.
Since we aren't protecting civilians, and haven't been, in so many other conflicts in so many other oppressive regimes all over the world - including the neighboring countries.
I agree that it would have been solved quicker with no interstate interference, the issue is if it would have been solved better.
There is no debate. Our interference will cause more civilians to die than if we didn't and Gadaffi had marched into Benghazi. The only real question is if the Libyan people will be better off without him.
On May 07 2011 03:58 dp wrote: There is no debate. Our interference will cause more civilians to die than if we didn't and Gadaffi had marched into Benghazi. The only real question is if the Libyan people will be better off without him.
They would have been without him in a decade or so either way - because of old age.
The question is whether or not that decade under him, is worse, than what we are seeing now.
And, if the will actually end up, without him.
Since it doesn't seem he is likely to lose the war soon ... unless we actually decide to win it for the rebels (which we could, easily).
On May 07 2011 03:51 Krikkitone wrote: I agree that it would have been solved quicker with no interstate interference, the issue is if it would have been solved better.
I have no idea.
And I don't think anyone else have either, really.
So why are we risking it, without a clear goal or solution?
On May 07 2011 02:15 zalz wrote: Gaddaffi wasn't being ambigious about what was going to happen. He was going to kill thousands. For some bizar reason you hate the US but people like you are very dangerous. The kind that will change reality when it doesn't suit his views.
The reality is that we are now looking at tens of thousands of casualties being the likely result of this conflict.
Studies have shown that civil wars with interstate interference lasts up to 300% longer on average, than civil wars that are just internal affairs without support from abroad.
There was proof that Gadaffi wanted to kill rebels. And did so. Historically, this is an area that has rebelled before (in the mid 90s), and doesn't have a good relationship with Gadaffi. So no reason to doubt that there would have been deaths.
That Gadaffi suppress his own people, and is perfectly willing to use armed forces against them, and kill them, jail them, just for being against him, isn't something I disagree about. I do not however agree that this saves lives overall. It may. But I don't think so. I think that, overall, it will end in more lives lost than doing nothing would have done.
What I disagree about, is the sudden need to go into Libya, compared to Ivory Coast, Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, etc etc etc. I just don't see it. In all of these cases, you have crazy dictators responsible for a lot of human suffering, and death.
It's an internal matter, that would have been best solved by Libyans. Now we are involved, and due to our extreme superiority in military power, we are basically the main force responsible for what's happening there. If we wanted to, we could end the war as we wanted it to end within a week.
But anyone thinking Gadaffi were just going to suddenly give up power and riches and everything just because we were dropping some bomb on military targets ... were just plain idiots. And sadly, I think that's what people were hoping would happen.
And I think we look like hypocrites.
Since we aren't protecting civilians, and haven't been, in so many other conflicts in so many other oppressive regimes all over the world - including the neighboring countries.
its just another Gulf war, its also no surprise that nearly the entire middle east fucking hates us. The occupation only provokes them and reinforces Regimes like Al Qaeda. I think ima sum up my opinion with this video
How exactly can we ever talk about human rights when we as the world sit by and watch as Gaddaffi walks in and executes thousands? It's not a plus and minus game it's a matter of simply not being able to sit by and let it happen because a calculator says the end result is lower if we let him murder everyone.
In any war the path of least death is instantly surrendering when the war begins, but we can all recognize such a road is foolish. It's not simply about numbers, it's about context. Gaddaffi was going to murder thousands in Benghazi and we as the world would have sat there and watched. We didn't, we stepped in and prevented that massacre.
Now the civil war might last longer and it might not be over as quikly as possible, all true. But last i checked nobody wanted to put "boots on the ground". All we now do is provide air support and financial support. Both of those things are huge and without it the rebels would lose against a professional army like the one Gaddaffi has.
The difference is pretty big between Libya and others. Where is the organised rebellion in North-Korea? Where are the cities that are falling into rebel hands? Where is the organised opposition?
You don't have an organised opposition in NK, Syria, Bahrain or any of the other examples that people like to drag in. Libya did have this, it had a group of people, a big group, that was united in their goal and ready to take it to the end. You can't do the same for those other countries.
Libya will be won with limited support. Other countries you called out would require direct involvement.
(And by the way the french were active in the Ivory Coast)
How exactly can we ever talk about human rights when we as the world sit by and watch as Gaddaffi walks in and executes thousands? It's not a plus and minus game it's a matter of simply not being able to sit by and let it happen because a calculator says the end result is lower if we let him murder everyone.
In any war the path of least death is instantly surrendering when the war begins, but we can all recognize such a road is foolish. It's not simply about numbers, it's about context. Gaddaffi was going to murder thousands in Benghazi and we as the world would have sat there and watched. We didn't, we stepped in and prevented that massacre.
Now the civil war might last longer and it might not be over as quikly as possible, all true. But last i checked nobody wanted to put "boots on the ground". All we now do is provide air support and financial support. Both of those things are huge and without it the rebels would lose against a professional army like the one Gaddaffi has.
The difference is pretty big between Libya and others. Where is the organised rebellion in North-Korea? Where are the cities that are falling into rebel hands? Where is the organised opposition?
You don't have an organised opposition in NK, Syria, Bahrain or any of the other examples that people like to drag in. Libya did have this, it had a group of people, a big group, that was united in their goal and ready to take it to the end. You can't do the same for those other countries.
Libya will be won with limited support. Other countries you called out would require direct involvement.
(And by the way the french were active in the Ivory Coast)
You start off by talking about human rights. Well let me tell you something about guantanamo and abo ghreib and water boarding. Torture is way worse than straight up execution. Not saying that from a lesser of the two evils point of view, regardless of the fact that your claim about Gaddaffi is pretty much hearsay.
Next you talk about killing him killing his own people in a war. Will your country (from a legal standpoint) not call the army against armed rebels that took over a major city and are advancing towards the capital?
Then, the whole boots on the ground talk. "All means necessary" is stated in the UN resolution to protect Libyan civilians. Not only are they supported by airstrikes (which by the way is another way to say pre-invasion maneuvers, see iraq/afghanistan) and financially (government funds send to them, seriously?), the nato is sending military experts to advice the Libyan rebels on how to fight against a "professional army". What is that about boots on the ground again? Professional armies don't get involved in politics (see Syria/Bahrain) they stay on the side (see Tunisia/Egypt/Yemen). Professional armies don't defect and lead operations against the political system (See Libya).
Talking about organized opposition to TOPPLE a government and the system, by force or otherwise, is the bomb of your post. This is a coup de etat, and should be dealt with as such. Syria Yemen Tunisia and Egypt were/are peoples revolution with no political agenda behind it other than "enough is enough now we want change".
On May 07 2011 06:37 zalz wrote: How exactly can we ever talk about human rights when we as the world sit by and watch as Gaddaffi walks in and executes thousands? It's not a plus and minus game it's a matter of simply not being able to sit by and let it happen because a calculator says the end result is lower if we let him murder everyone.
In any war the path of least death is instantly surrendering when the war begins, but we can all recognize such a road is foolish. It's not simply about numbers, it's about context. Gaddaffi was going to murder thousands in Benghazi and we as the world would have sat there and watched. We didn't, we stepped in and prevented that massacre.
Now the civil war might last longer and it might not be over as quikly as possible, all true. But last i checked nobody wanted to put "boots on the ground". All we now do is provide air support and financial support. Both of those things are huge and without it the rebels would lose against a professional army like the one Gaddaffi has.
The difference is pretty big between Libya and others. Where is the organised rebellion in North-Korea? Where are the cities that are falling into rebel hands? Where is the organised opposition?
You don't have an organised opposition in NK, Syria, Bahrain or any of the other examples that people like to drag in. Libya did have this, it had a group of people, a big group, that was united in their goal and ready to take it to the end. You can't do the same for those other countries.
Libya will be won with limited support. Other countries you called out would require direct involvement.
(And by the way the french were active in the Ivory Coast)
I'd agree with you about the organized opposition, though in Syria we may very well have the same situation as libya, but I doubt there will be the same reaction from the west.
1.) becuase they are clearly failing to end the libyan conflict in a timely manner, and
2.) Syria is much more friendly to western interests than gadaffi.
Its always been my view that the libyan no fly zone was a half measure,and wouldn't end up saving lives. It should have either been boots on ground or staying out of it (or atleast remain covert). And I don't think libya would have turned into an iraq/afganistan style occupation because the difference in libyas case is the ground forces would be supporting a genuine uprising, not simply invading for western interests like previously.
On May 07 2011 06:37 zalz wrote: How exactly can we ever talk about human rights when we as the world sit by and watch as Gaddaffi walks in and executes thousands? It's not a plus and minus game it's a matter of simply not being able to sit by and let it happen because a calculator says the end result is lower if we let him murder everyone.
I don't know why we talk about it so much concerning Libya, it just doesn't fit with what we see elsewhere in the world.
Do I agree that it's probably good that Gadaffi leaves power? Yes. But I think it should have been left up to the Libyan people to make it happen. I don't see it as our responsibility to force a regime change, based on what had happened before we decided that was what we should do. We have allowed, and do allow, much worse crimes to go unpunished.
Libya just wasn't particularly bad. Compared to other conflicts.
You start off by talking about human rights. Well let me tell you something about guantanamo and abo ghreib and water boarding. Torture is way worse than straight up execution. Not saying that from a lesser of the two evils point of view, regardless of the fact that your claim about Gaddaffi is pretty much hearsay.
Pretty much hearsay? You people will really go to extreme lengths to defend Gaddaff or paint the west as the villain.
This "hearsay" came from Gaddaffis mouth. He said it himself. Stop trying to twist reality to serve your agenda. Gaddaffi made his promise and given history we also know it was very likely that he was going to carry through on it.
Professional armies don't get involved in politics (see Syria/Bahrain) they stay on the side (see Tunisia/Egypt/Yemen). Professional armies don't defect and lead operations against the political system (See Libya).
Proffessional armies isn't a term used in any way that you seem to think. It simply refers to their combat effectiveness. The difference between machete wielding mobs and a well organised army with a modern command structure.
Talking about organized opposition to TOPPLE a government and the system, by force or otherwise, is the bomb of your post. This is a coup de etat, and should be dealt with as such. Syria Yemen Tunisia and Egypt were/are peoples revolution with no political agenda behind it other than "enough is enough now we want change".
If the people of Zimbabwe decided to overthrow Mugabe, i would support them fully. For some strange reason you seem to make government out to always be justified. Horrid governments that get overthrown are a good thing in my book. You can believe that government may defend itself at all costs, i disagree completly.
1.) becuase they are clearly failing to end the libyan conflict in a timely manner, and
Gaddaffi will be gone in a month or two. Mark my words.
Syria. Iran. Sri Lanka. Rwanda. Congo.
Some of those are indeed good examples of where we should have stepped in. The fact that we did not doesn't make it alright to continue those mistakes.
Do I agree that it's probably good that Gadaffi leaves power? Yes. But I think it should have been left up to the Libyan people to make it happen. I don't see it as our responsibility to force a regime change, based on what had happened before we decided that was what we should do. We have allowed, and do allow, much worse crimes to go unpunished.
The people did want to make it happen. The blowback was the threat of mass murder on everyone that stood in the governments way.
We live in a modern world where it does not take many people to supress a lot of unarmed people. A single person with a good position and enough ammo can kill thousands of others. We don't live in a world where majority will instantly equalls results.
This government made the public promise that it was going to kill thousands of people. We stepped in and protected a public uprising.
This notion that people need to figure it out themselves is outdated. Modern armies make uprisings impossible with regimes that will go to extremes. When such a humans right violation is about to happen, we were right to step in and prevent it.
On May 07 2011 20:04 zalz wrote: The people did want to make it happen. The blowback was the threat of mass murder on everyone that stood in the governments way.
This government made the public promise that it was going to kill thousands of people. We stepped in and protected a public uprising.
The rebels are a couple of thousand or so people. They are not the majority of the people - even though I do believe the people overall don't support Gadaffi, quite a few do.
What we are doing now is protecting the rebels, and forcing a regime change. We are not limiting ourselves to protecting civilians, we are actively engaging Gadaffi's forces where we can identify them, taking the position that no peace treaty can be allowed that leave him in power. As a result, more people will die than if we had done nothing. My view at least.
In essence, we are using our military to take sides in a civil war, where we don't have regional control or clear foreign interests (unlike, say, former Yugoslavia).
To me, this should not our responsibility, and by taking sides, and trying to enforce a regime change, we are in essence responsible for whatever happens in the civil war - since our military power is so many times stronger than the forces on either side in Libya. We could take out Gadaffi in a week if we so chose to. Right now we are just doing it half way.
You are saying Gadaffi will be gone in a month or two: I hope you are right. I just don't believe it to be more than 25% chance of happening. Unless we chose to change our mission parameters.
One of the general principles of western society is that we are all equal under the law.
My premise is that this clearly shows that U.N. and NATO aren't treating people & regimes equally under the law, but picking and choosing where we would like to be involved based on different things.
Why would we not wish to do anything in Sri Lanka and Syria compared to Libya, to pick two recent conflicts? Why would we chose such a different response in the Ivory Coast? Why was suddenly Gadaffi such an important example to pick? Well ... because he looked weak, and easy to get rid of, and he has been a force to reckon with in Africa, working against France, the UK, and the USA foreign interests? Some decades ago, was a big supporter of terrorism...pPerhaps all of those ...
In my eyes, humanitarian interests, protecting civilians, moral responsibility ... isn't really the main reason why, since this conflict isn't really worse - and in many ways, much less worse, than other conflicts in the world. Where we don't do much at all.
EPT
