I havent been following this thread but ive decided to throw in what ive seen on news and blogs n such.
Please assume this: America has a govermental system compared to that of lybia
One thing that everyone seems to have down as a concrete fact is that there are protests in libya however from here facts start to diverge or get morphed by opinion i belive. i wana try and paint a hypothetical example in USA because that where i live and everyone here sprechens english.
Imagin civilians start to riot in cities all across the country with the goal of overthrowing the goverment and changing their leader. Look at it from the goverments and loyal to goverments citizens posiition. people are standing up and threatening your way of life that you were content with. for the goverment these protestors are threatening stablity. As soon as this happens these people are treated as a threat. now im not talking about enemy combatant threat but a threat nontheless.
Since the protests of these people are very distracting and a huge problem they are not doing anything to further their cause of govermental change the goverment wont use lethal force on its protesters. there will be riot police set up to protect key bridges building and people. there will be attempts to dispurse the crouds but nothing really will change.
Now put guns into the arms of the rioters. It doesnt matter if they recive them from aid, from captureing stockpiles or from defectors these rioters are armed and now they have a real threat to the govement and its people.
this is what has happened in libya.
These are no longer nice peaceful harmless civilians these are combatants by choice. they wear no regulare military atire and are represented by no one. they are terrorists. by geneva convention they are illigal and have no rights. execution and torture is acceptable.
So now back to scenerio. cities are ocupied by armed mobs. they fire on goverment buildings and police. they start to actually remove all govermental control. some military units probably defect to and this is a civil war. from the goverments point it is their duty to stop this upriseing and bring peace. this cant be done if the armed people dont want to stop and put down their weapons. The goverment has no choice but to use force to remove these armed mobs from its cities and streats. if they dont put their weapons down they are a DIRECT threat and will be shot and killed. they will be bombed because this is no longer a friendly riot but a war.
these are my thoughts. I am Russian and am living in america. my english has greatly improved but i still have problems. sorry.
i am just frustrated that when you turn on cnn and u see civilians being bombs. they are not civilians when they pick up a gun against their goverment.
Spoilers for length.
Following your analogy to the US: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Not that you would expect the government to do anything other than what they are doing, but that doesn't make it right.
On March 08 2011 11:16 slyboogie wrote: I respect your post here and your point of view. However, I strongly disagree with you. I mean, I could not disagree with you more. Victor Hugo once said "When despotism is a fact, revolution becomes a right." These people have a natural right to criticize, protest and revolt! This is right given to them by social contract, by God or nature. To call them terrorist and a mob is to mock their sacrifice and to belittle the horrors of their conditions.
all people have a right to chnage their govement but not to do so by putting other people in danger. As soon as they become anything more then a protesting mob unarmed that is when they become a danger and that is when they are made to sacrafice so that the rest can live in peace
At this point, I feel like I'm piling on an unpopular opinion..but,
How is an assembled group supposed to affect change without consent from the established government OR violence? Peaceful demonstrations by the Libyan people were disregarded - you can not expect a revolutionized peoples to surrender the use of violence. I would prefer that all change could be peaceful - like American Civil Rights in the 1960s or the expulsion of British imperialism from India or, to some extent, the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
However, history has shown us to efficacy of violence. The French Revolution, the Paris Commune, Mao Zedong in China, Ho Chi Mihn in Vietnam, etc, etc. The Libyan people have willfully armed themselves and, as you said, should be prepared to suffer the consequences - but don't equate a peoples fighting for, what I believe to be fundamental human rights, with some kind of ruthless mob or terrorists. Malcolm X said: "You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom." These people are prepared to die and kill for that freedom and peace. Of course it is uncomfortable to deal with, of course we cringe at some issues of morality but this group of people have exercised their agency against tyranny - I will support this.
Libyan state television has denied a report by Al Jazeera and two Arab newspapers that Colonel Gaddafi has sought a deal with the rebels that would see him step down with certain guarentees.
It was reported that a Gaddafi representative made the proposal to the opposition's so-called "National Council" based in Benghazi. The council apparently rejected the offer.
5:35am
Japan approves sanctions against Libya, including an assets freeze and travel ban against several regime leaders, in line with a UN resolution agreed last month, officials say.
Prime Minister Naoto Kan's cabinet decided to immediately freeze any assets held in Japan by Muammar Gaddafi and five others, and ban them and 10 others from entering and leaving Japan.
3:52am
Al Jazeera has received pictures that purportedly show Libyan army officers killed for refusing to fire on the rebels.
It is claimed the soldiers refused to shoot rebels in the mountainous region west of Tripoli. The pictures were sent to Al Jazeera by a rebel group in the area.
A survivor of the killings says the men were rounded-up, their legs tied before being shot in the head or back from close range.
The pictures emerged as rebel fighters face perhaps their greatest challenge yet as they take stock of what seems a slowing of momentum in their campaign.
I understand that my opinion is only of of many sides and usually isnt seen. most people dont look at a revolution from the perspective of a country as a whole i belive.
i also understand that if change cannot be done to the goverment in their favor people have no choice but to take it to the next level. be it organized protests or even a plan for revolution. look at egypt. the country mobilized to start a new goverment. the movement had leaders organization followers. libya does not there is no muslim brotherhood there that is popular. there are no leaders. this revolution was a spurt that the people caught in the moment and they also want change. but this is not how it is supposed to be done. there are npo plans to rebuild the goverment. this is in no was healthy for the future of the country. because if thise revolt works to throw the prez out there will be a vacume and it will be filled by whom ever. crime and regional war will take the country to provide stability that the previouse prez the people overthrew provided. A country might have to step in for "humanitarian" reasons and from then on it could go which ever way. i do understand that humans have rights to change every part of the world around them. however they dont have the right to change it however they want.
On March 08 2011 14:59 Mimic wrote: I understand that my opinion is only of of many sides and usually isnt seen. most people dont look at a revolution from the perspective of a country as a whole i belive.
i also understand that if change cannot be done to the goverment in their favor people have no choice but to take it to the next level. be it organized protests or even a plan for revolution. look at egypt. the country mobilized to start a new goverment. the movement had leaders organization followers. libya does not there is no muslim brotherhood there that is popular. there are no leaders. this revolution was a spurt that the people caught in the moment and they also want change. but this is not how it is supposed to be done. there are npo plans to rebuild the goverment. this is in no was healthy for the future of the country. because if thise revolt works to throw the prez out there will be a vacume and it will be filled by whom ever. crime and regional war will take the country to provide stability that the previouse prez the people overthrew provided. A country might have to step in for "humanitarian" reasons and from then on it could go which ever way. i do understand that humans have rights to change every part of the world around them. however they dont have the right to change it however they want.
There are, in my opinion, quite a few problems with this post, but the main ones are highlighted in bold. I'd suggest reading the news more because every single one of the bolded statements is untrue, silly, or unprovable.
One particular segment stands out, that, "if change cannot be done to the government, people have to step up to the next level and organize protests or even plan for a revolution". First off, if a despotic government cannot be changed, then it's stupid to organize more protests and merely plan for a revolution. Secondly, Libya already tried the protesting thing, something that was covered by major news outlets for weeks* before Gaffadi ordered airstrikes on the protesters**, at which point revolution became the only conceivable method of booting him out. How did you miss the news coverage?
*I'm exaggerating here. But only slightly.
**Admittedly, shooting live ammo at the peaceful protestors probably did him in before the airstrikes. But that's also not acceptable.
On March 08 2011 14:59 Mimic wrote: I understand that my opinion is only of of many sides and usually isnt seen. most people dont look at a revolution from the perspective of a country as a whole i belive.
i also understand that if change cannot be done to the goverment in their favor people have no choice but to take it to the next level. be it organized protests or even a plan for revolution. look at egypt. the country mobilized to start a new goverment. the movement had leaders organization followers. libya does not there is no muslim brotherhood there that is popular. there are no leaders. this revolution was a spurt that the people caught in the moment and they also want change. but this is not how it is supposed to be done. there are npo plans to rebuild the goverment. this is in no was healthy for the future of the country. because if thise revolt works to throw the prez out there will be a vacume and it will be filled by whom ever. crime and regional war will take the country to provide stability that the previouse prez the people overthrew provided. A country might have to step in for "humanitarian" reasons and from then on it could go which ever way. i do understand that humans have rights to change every part of the world around them. however they dont have the right to change it however they want.
There are, in my opinion, quite a few problems with this post, but the main ones are highlighted in bold. I'd suggest reading the news more because every single one of the bolded statements is untrue, silly, or unprovable.
One particular segment stands out, that, "if change cannot be done to the government, people have to step up to the next level and organize protests or even plan for a revolution". First off, if a despotic government cannot be changed, then it's stupid to organize more protests and merely plan for a revolution. Secondly, Libya already tried the protesting thing, something that was covered by major news outlets for weeks* before Gaffadi ordered airstrikes on the protesters**, at which point revolution became the only conceivable method of booting him out. How did you miss the news coverage?
*I'm exaggerating here. But only slightly.
**Admittedly, shooting live ammo at the peaceful protestors probably did him in before the airstrikes. But that's also not acceptable.
Look thanks for just blatently proving me wrong. but i dont see any problem whith your highlights so show me wrong.
"First off, if a despotic government cannot be changed, then it's stupid to organize more protests and merely plan for a revolution." ya your right. stop planing pick up your gun and shoot the authorities. when the goverment is gone everyone is gona put down their guns, become honost and enjoy democracy.
Look you talk about protesters getting shot at onto soldiers. imagine this. your and 30 others are told to hold a street. infront of you there is a croud of 30,000 people marching chanting death to your leader. they are threatening you. you tell them to hault they keep comming. you tell em to hault and you see they have rocks, axes, clubs. you see that this is no longer a peaceful march. they intend to hurt you. i garantee you wont give a shit who those people are you will shoot to protect yourself. now whos fault was this?? the person who did the shooting? or was the threat reason enough for defence?
also about bombing his inicent people you mean this?
ya those peacefull protesters where just useing their right to bear arms with that AA gun. innocents are getting killed in the blasts im sure. however targets of rebel organization are being bombed
The six US-allied Gulf Arab nations have condemned killings by pro-government forces in Libya as "massacres".
Abdul Rahman Hamad al-Attiyah, Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), says "the massacres committed by the regime'' in Libya against its own citizens amount to "crimes against humanity".
The protection of Libyan citizens is an absolute priority.
9:17am
Rebel-controlled eastern Libya is at risk of running out of petrol within a week after refineries in the region halted operations, Gulf News reports.
Dwindling supplies of vehicle fuel in Benghazi and throughout eastern Libya were a rising concern for the rebel movement, the Dubai-based newspaper reported.
A spokesman for eastern Libya's rebel-controlled interim government, Tarek Bu Zaqiya, told the newspaper the region faced "severe shortages" of fuel soon.
While oil is still flowing in eastern Libya, regional refineries had cut crude processing, the report said.
Rebels were discussing plans to obtain imported fuel, including from Italian refineries, the report said.
The rebels, who already control huge areas of Libyan territory, rely on a steady supply of fuel to wage battle soldiers loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in a push to topple his regime.
It will be interesting to see how Gaddafi forces use this to an advantage unless others can somehow covertly get them fuel alongside munitions etc.
Mimic, you are clearly ignorant of how the events occurred.
First, the comparison does not work since the people are angry because of torture, repression and poverty while Ghadaffi lives in a palace and his sons toy with soccer teams. Second, violence first came from the government, long before the protests actually. And the first peaceful protests were interrupted and attacked by the police. If people aren't allowed to even WALK to show their despair, then what can they do?
Please Mimic, I beg you, just google "Libya Ghadaffi" and read. That's all I can say, really.
Also, protesters got AA guns because Ghadaffi used his airforce against them in the first place. How did you want them to react? Just ACCEPT the fact that a Mirage is bombing them from the sky with no hope of defense or retaliation? You say that every man alive should ACCEPT his misery? That the French revolution should've NEVER happened?
After many rumors of tactical withdrawals by Gaddafi forces, Hoda Abdel-Hamid just said that rebel soldiers are rushing forward against the orders of the self proclaimed leaders and the military officers that switched sides. This comes after rebels lost their first battle yesterday in Ben Jawad.
Kukaracha, be less argumentative. You are doing it again.
Rebels will not pursue Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi over crimes they say he has committed if he steps down from his post in the next 72 hours, the head of the rebel National Libyan Council has told Al Jazeera.
"If he leaves Libya immediately, during 72 hours, and stops the bombardment, we as Libyans will step back from pursuing him for crimes," Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the opposition National Council, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday.
He said the deadline would not be extended beyond 72 hours.
"Based on our love for our country we have proposed to the [Gaddafi's] indirect negotiators that a solution can be reached," Jalil told Al Jazeera.
"Conditions are that firstly he stops all combat in the fields, secondly that his departure is within 72 hours; thirdly we may waive our right of domestic prosecution ... for the crimes of oppression, persecution, starvation and massacres.
"We will have to wait and see what the regime's response is."
Libyan state television on Tuesday denied reports that the Libyan leader tried to strike a deal with opposition forces seeking his removal. An official from the Libyan foreign ministry described the reports as "absolute nonsense".
However, a spokesman for the opposition National Council in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi confirmed that a representative had sought to negotiate Gaddafi's exit.
Gaddafi was reported to have sent a representative to Benghazi on Sunday night to discuss a conditional plan to step down, Al Jazeera learned. The offer was provided on the condition that Gaddafi would be able to keep his assets and avoid prosecution.
On March 08 2011 14:59 Mimic wrote: I understand that my opinion is only of of many sides and usually isnt seen. most people dont look at a revolution from the perspective of a country as a whole i belive.
i also understand that if change cannot be done to the goverment in their favor people have no choice but to take it to the next level. be it organized protests or even a plan for revolution. look at egypt. the country mobilized to start a new goverment. the movement had leaders organization followers. libya does not there is no muslim brotherhood there that is popular. there are no leaders. this revolution was a spurt that the people caught in the moment and they also want change. but this is not how it is supposed to be done. there are npo plans to rebuild the goverment. this is in no was healthy for the future of the country. because if thise revolt works to throw the prez out there will be a vacume and it will be filled by whom ever. crime and regional war will take the country to provide stability that the previouse prez the people overthrew provided. A country might have to step in for "humanitarian" reasons and from then on it could go which ever way. i do understand that humans have rights to change every part of the world around them. however they dont have the right to change it however they want.
There are, in my opinion, quite a few problems with this post, but the main ones are highlighted in bold. I'd suggest reading the news more because every single one of the bolded statements is untrue, silly, or unprovable.
One particular segment stands out, that, "if change cannot be done to the government, people have to step up to the next level and organize protests or even plan for a revolution". First off, if a despotic government cannot be changed, then it's stupid to organize more protests and merely plan for a revolution. Secondly, Libya already tried the protesting thing, something that was covered by major news outlets for weeks* before Gaffadi ordered airstrikes on the protesters**, at which point revolution became the only conceivable method of booting him out. How did you miss the news coverage?
*I'm exaggerating here. But only slightly.
**Admittedly, shooting live ammo at the peaceful protestors probably did him in before the airstrikes. But that's also not acceptable.
Look thanks for just blatently proving me wrong. but i dont see any problem whith your highlights so show me wrong.
"First off, if a despotic government cannot be changed, then it's stupid to organize more protests and merely plan for a revolution." ya your right. stop planing pick up your gun and shoot the authorities. when the goverment is gone everyone is gona put down their guns, become honost and enjoy democracy.
Look you talk about protesters getting shot at onto soldiers. imagine this. your and 30 others are told to hold a street. infront of you there is a croud of 30,000 people marching chanting death to your leader. they are threatening you. you tell them to hault they keep comming. you tell em to hault and you see they have rocks, axes, clubs. you see that this is no longer a peaceful march. they intend to hurt you. i garantee you wont give a shit who those people are you will shoot to protect yourself. now whos fault was this?? the person who did the shooting? or was the threat reason enough for defence?
also about bombing his inicent people you mean this?
ya those peacefull protesters where just useing their right to bear arms with that AA gun. innocents are getting killed in the blasts im sure. however targets of rebel organization are being bombed
There are two issues in your posts that bear greater examination: what happens afterward and the killing of innocents.
You are absolutely correct that innocents have, are, and will die in this revolution. People who are neither with Ghadaffi nor the Rebels will be killed by stray bombs and/or gunfire. The problem is that you consider this an overriding reason not to start a revolution.
If that's the case, then basically all Ghadaffi or any other despot has to do is say, "Think of the innocent people!" and no one would be able to rise up against them. He'd be able to use people who aren't a part of the revolution as human shields even without having to abduct them from their homes and marching them into the warzone.
In war, there is death; that is its nature. If people have decided that they need a revolution in order to improve their lot in life, then they have accepted that people will die. Their own people, the enemy people, and even innocent people. That doesn't mean they shouldn't go to war. You cannot base your decision to start a war solely on the fact that innocents will die as a result. That fact does mean that you must be considered and reasoned about going to war. But it doesn't automatically mean that you can't go to war.
As for the issue of what happens after. Could things get worse? Absolutely. Could they get better? Yes. The fact that things could get worse does not mean that they will. You cannot go through life only doing things that have a certain outcome. This revolution is certainly a risk. But for the people of Lybia, it is a risk that many of them feel is worth taking.
Lastly, don't forget: Ghadaffi shot first. The protests were peaceful until he decided to have his soldiers start shooting at the unarmed protesters. Ghadaffi started the war; the Rebels are just trying to end it.
Zawiyah is heavily assaulted and reports say that the assailants are shooting fighters and civilians! This is looking like a massive slaughter!
In the crowds were children, mostly young boys. They looked around eight, maybe 10 years old. "Go Gaddafi, go," the crowd shouted.
We were constantly stopped by the demonstrators. "Tell the UN we need their help," one man said. "Gaddafi is killing Libya. Send your report. We need to show people this."
Then, as the crowd came close to the first tank, near an intersection, the soldiers opened fire.
The crowd appeared to flinch but carried on walking - the firing carried on too. It caused a stampede as people fled. The firing continued.
We saw ambulances being driven at high speed to pick up the first casualties and they too were fired on.
Seems like rebels have hit a brick wall and can no longer advance in certain areas. Stalemate?
Also:
Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi have scored a significant victory, recapturing the closest city to the capital to have fallen in rebel hands. On another front near the opposition-held east, loyalists trying to stop anti-government fighters from advancing toward the capital pounded the rebels with airstrikes and rockets.
If the rebels loose their momentum it would appear ever more likely that Gaddafi will come out of this victoriously.
Gaddafi has an organized army, he has mercenaries and he has the support of his own tribe.
The rebels are made up out of several tribes, the odds of infighting are far greater in this newly formed faction then in the long established 42 year long rule of Gaddafi.
Just look how they reacted at this false report of Gaddafi willing to settle. Several more of these confusions and the rebellion might very well fall apart.
As things stand i believe the rebels have lost their flow and Gaddaffi will slowly regain control of Lybia. A bloodbath is unavoidable, Gaddafi will want to deal with opposition and what little was left of his sanity has certainly been shattered with this uprising.
In the end the Lybians are probably going to end up more fucked then they were before. Better to have fought and lost or better to not fight and not lose?
Ooh well, let's be realistic. This uprising was never going to become anything more then a civil war anyway. Once Gaddafi was done for the tribes would have turned on each other.
I think a stalemate is more likely because I have no doubt there is smuggling of supplies already in motion if not in the planning stages medical, food etc are already heading into Rebel held areas not Gddafi areas so they are getting help. Add to the fact that after the SAS debacle it is clear that foreign powers are viewing the Benghazi council as legitimate thus supporting the cause. Also if Gaddafi did retake control the army would suffer even more as he would distrust it even more. Europe is already in a PR mess for having bought majority of Oil from Gaddafi and being linked to his crimes etc.
Also what is stopping the Revolutionaries from torching the oil fields?
On March 09 2011 08:55 Alshahin wrote: Why would they torch their own oil fields? It will only damage them seriously in several ways.
You believe torching their own assents will force the west to make a move? That's a huge gamble they can only consider when they are already lost.
If Gaddafi does regain control of Libya you honestly think he will allow the tribes that controlled the oil fields beforehand, the tribes in those areas are with the rebels, to again control them?
EPT
