UNICEF: Snipers targeting kids in Libya

[al bupp]

Source: Associated Press

GENEVA (AP) - Snipers are targeting children in the besieged rebel-held Libyan city of Misrata, the U.N.' s children agency said Friday.

Hundreds of residents have been killed and wounded in the assault by Gadhafi's forces on Libya's third-largest city, and residents are running short of water, food and medicine.

"What we have are reliable and consistent reports of children being among the people targeted by snipers in Misrata," UNICEF spokeswoman Marixie Mercado told reporters in Geneva.

The information was based on local sources, Mercado said. She was unable to say how many children have been wounded or killed in this way.



Read more: http://www.wane.com/dpps/news/international/unicef-says-snipers-targeting-children-in-libya-city-wd11-jgr_3768273

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. If an eighteen-year-old with a gun gets killed

is that the death of "children"?

Yes, or no, depending on the agenda of the reporter.

We need to keep dropping bombs on Libya, and possibly send in troops. For the children.

[tabatha]

3. You missed the point.

These are unarmed CHILDREN (not adults) being targeted.

I believe an 18 year old is an adult.

[al bupp]

16. Having now been removed as part of a deleted sub-thread...

I think your excellent post on false equivalencies (surely not the impetus for the removal, I trust) perhaps deserves its own thread, or at least a repost here.

[tabatha]

25. Thanks.

I don't have the time right now to do that. Wish I had saved the post.

My brain HURTS when I read how people throw out trite, superficial comparisons to things that if they took a second to research or think about would obviously be false.

I think this culture is too used to bumper stickers slogans and 15 sec ads.

[No Elephants]

18. Maybe you missed the point of Reply # 2?

[Igel]

69. Odd.

The article doesn't say "unarmed." It just says "children," and leaves the question of whether they're carrying unaddressed.

The NYT ran an article that it tried to spin positively on child soldiers fighting with the "rebels." They were brave, they were fighting for life and liberty--not just theirs, but also their family's. They were clear: these were kids, from 13 on up.

"Children," in this article, is undefined. The reporter doesn't say he checked IDs and doesn't say they were 3 or 4 years old or 16 or 17. It's reasonable to assume that if they look young, if they look like kids, they're children. Perhaps information was edited out and he *did* check IDs and state ages in his original filing.

One side wants to assume that these are prepubescent unarmed kids. That's as unmerited an assumption as believing that they're 19 and armed. They could be either. And that's the problem: You don't know, so it could be either. We don't know of we're being spun like a top or if a real emergency's being reported. We don't know if the information sources are with the rebels and have a vested interest in generating as much sympathy and guilt on the part of the Westerners as possible or if it's a neutral party who is simply reporting on the status of 10-year-old boys in the streets of Misrata. Remember, truth is usually the first casualty of war.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

78. Yes, that's the point I was trying to make in post 2

but you do a better job of it.

Obviously, 3- and 4-year olds are children. And 30-year olds are adults. 16- to 19-year olds? Well, it depends on your point of view, your agenda, what you're trying to accomplish by labeling them adults or children.

Same as other labels that can be applied to the 18-year-olds: rebel, freedom fighter, troublemaker, radical, hooligan, innocent civilian. Whoever is writing/publishing the story gets to use the description that suits their goals.

The article linked to in the OP says children are targeted. It seems like a meaningless statement without numbers, ages, and their relationship to the so-called rebel forces.

We got sucked into Iraq in 1991 with bogus stories of atrocities, which we lapped up with enthusiasm as we sent our troops to war. I just don't want to get fooled again by bad reporting.

[defendandprotect]

47. An 18-year old is an adult -- !! And only YOU are suggesting these "children" are armed!!

These are snipers on roof tops -- a handy and repetitive way that Gaddafi uses to keep

control over his citizens -- especially in Tripoli where he has snipers on roof tops of

Mosques to prevent anyone from even speaking out against him!



I'd highly suggest that DU'ers look in on the Libyan Revolutionary threads --

there's obviously a lot of information they're not aware of!!

[CoffeeCat]

4. We are being propagandized...

All you have to do is look at the PNAC plan. It's the neocon's blueprint
for how they want to infiltrate and eventually dominate the Middle East for
profit.

They list their target counties that they want to militarily overpower:
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Lybia

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

They're pulling out all of the stops, in an attempt to soften our acceptance
of more war. We're being played.

Since when have the neocon warmongers--who want us in this war--ever given one whit about
CHILDREN? Oh please. They are currently crafting legislation that will STARVE poor
women and children in this country--and they have made it clear that poor women and
children in this country are just lazy dregs on society who are exploding the national
debt.

People, please. Don't fall for this nonsense. More war is utterly ridiculous--no matter
how they try to sell it to us.

[FLPanhandle]

5. So you think UNICEF is lying?

I've worked with the folks at UNICEF and you'll not find a more diverse and liberal group out there.

[WatsonT]

9. UNICEF is a front for the Koch Brothers and the PNAC

Everyone knows that.

And those little boxes they put out for change? That all goes directly to Halliburton.

[No Elephants]

20. 'the PNAC?" That's a new one.

[WatsonT]

45. PNAC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac

[joshcryer]

74. Absolved 5 years ago.

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

73. Saying that insults all the good work UNICEF has done.

Of all of the great big NGOs UNICEF has done some of the best work on the planet. An insult.

[WatsonT]

82. .. .

:sarcasm:

Did you not see where people were claiming UNICEF was lying to propagandize for the war?

[CoffeeCat]

10. It is true that children are victimized all over the globe...

I am not doubting Unicef. I'm sure it's true.

I am sure Unicef and other credible organizations could spend hours telling us of
atrocities against children happening RIGHT NOW--all over the world.

The question you must ask yourself---Why is Libya being spotlighted right now? Simple
answer, because the neocons want Libya.

There are atrocities happening in every country on this planet--against women and children.
Any warmongering public-relations guru could help the neocons make a case to invade any country.

They're making the case for Libya now. They've previously identified it as a target.

This is not a big surprise.

Let's just not all be so naive and fall for the neocon marketing plan.

[FLPanhandle]

12. True.

However, since it's impossible to get involved in every situation, does not mean we should never get involved in any situation?

I'm not entirely thrilled about our participation in Libya, but I can see why Obama did so (without calling him an neo-con).

[defendandprotect]

49. Think you missed the fact that Libyans ASEKED FOR NFZ ... and help -- !!

This is a UN Humanitarian mission --

and certainly Afghanistan and Iraq are NOT -- essentially they want us OUT of their countries!!

DU'ers do need their BS meters turned up higher -- that couldn't be truer -- but they have to

now figure out who is "Wagging the dog" and who isn't!!

Certainly Afghanistan and Iraq are fakes -- wars based on lies of 9/11 by W and Cheney.

Obama, surprisingly, reacted correctly in their first instincts to help Libya --

Gates didn't like it -- and we pulled out abruptly!


That isn't to say that any mission can't be distorted -- but we have to have a better understanding

of what is really going on -- and I'd recommend the Libyan Revolutionary threads for that kind

of insight!

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. UNICEF has been telling us for years about the wars in central Africa,

where the death toll is in the millions, where children are forced to join militias and rape is a daily threat.

Where are the calls to invade Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, DRC, Burundi, Uganda, Rawanda?

Just because UNICEF is telling us what is truthfully happening, that does not automatically result in war fever. If people are using UNICEF as an excuse to put boots on the ground in Libya, that are propagandizing. They WANT this war.

Why do they want this war?

Read the PNAC papers.

[joshcryer]

75. All of those calls were pre-R2P.

R2P works. Look at the Ivory Coast where we intervened, albeit on a smaller scale, and arguably averted a serious war of ethnic attrition. The Ivory Coast appears to be coming to a close. For over 6 months DU hardly gave a shit about it. I am ashamed I didn't know about the Ivory Coast until the Arab Spring and Libya brought it to my attention. Ashamed.

[Vinee]

43. "The information was based on local sources"

Chalabi was a local source at one point too. We aren't the world's police. We don't need to go to war every time something happens that offends our delicate Christian sensibilities.

[defendandprotect]

53. All information is based on "local sources" -- !!! That's why the investigations come about--!!

Chalabi was a right wing tool used by W and Cheney to confuse the public --

Chalabi is a controversial figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the INC, with the assistance of lobbying powerhouse BKSH & Associates,<5> provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Most, if not all, of this information has turned out to be false.<6> That, combined with the fact that Chalabi subsequently boasted, in an interview with the British Sunday Telegraph, about the impact that their alleged falsifications had on American policy, led to a falling out between him and the U.S. government. Furthermore, Chalabi has been found guilty of the Petra banking scandal in Jordan (see below).

Initially, Chalabi enjoyed close political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, and Richard Perle, who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq.<7> He was a special guest of First Lady Laura Bush at the 2004 State of the Union Address.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi


The Libyan NFZ was requested by the protesters --

This is a UN humanitarian mission -- and Obama's initial instincts were correct --

though he seems to have been pulled back by rightwing since then --

It's not simply sufficient to be aware of "Wag the dog" and "False Flag" operations --

duplicitity and corruption of our government -- and I'd suggest that you read some of

the Libyan Revolutionary threads.

Certainly Afghanistan and Iraq are wars of aggression by US -- immoral and illegal.

And I see no daily complaints here about Obama keeping us in these wars!!

[Vinee]

56. this is where I disagree

I don't see any difference between Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan. I don't care how anyone justifies any of them. We have no more business interfering in Libya than we did in Iraq especially with a 1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit looming over our heads. These wars are ruining us. I do not support them. It's time to end them, not escalate them.

[defendandprotect]

61. Who would possibly try to "justify" Iraq or Afghanistan?

They are two wars intended to be "perpetual" by the right wing -- immoral and illegal

wars of agression put in place by W/Cheney lies re 9/11 -- and they are bankrupting our

Treasury for 10 years now. But do you see daily threads asking for them to be STOPPED

here at DU? Why not?


Libya is a UN Humanitarian effort -- and Obama's instincts to to respond to Libya's long

calls for a NFZ was the right thing to do. Evidently Obama has been pulled back by rightwing

influences -- looks like Gates was also being pressured to turn from the mission?



Agree that the right wing uses wars like Iraq/Afghanistan to ruin us -- and our society

programs -- peaceful societies. Where is the daily pressure here at DU to get out?

I'd like to see it !!


Meanwhile, let's not be a country which knows the price of everything and the value of

nothing!

One day we here may be in a position similar to Libya -- fighting fascism in our own country!

Who will come to our aid?

[Vinee]

64. You think Libya is a humanitarian war?

Identical arguments were made to justify Iraq. We all knew it was about oil and position just like we all know this is about oil and position. You are engaging in moral equivalency. Furthermore, I find it a bit alarming when folks claim it is legal and moral for America to fight wars at the behest of a foreign authority i.e the UN but illegal and immoral to do so when our own President and Congress have authorized it. That is an even worse argument than the moral equivalency argument IMHO. While I do believe we should be wrapping these wars up, I do not believe that America should be abrogating its sovereignty to any foreign entity for any reason. I won't be adding anything further to this debate before Sunday night btw. It's gonna be 83 degrees tomorrow, I am out of here. peace.

[defendandprotect]

79. You think UN and NATO have declared "war" on Libya?

No -- identical arguments were not made about Afghanistan and Iraq --

Since when did the UN call either of those a "Humanitarian Mission"?

They are both immoral and illegal wars of aggression -- and both based on lies.

Nor do I have any disagreement that both Afghanistan and Iraq are about controlling

oil -- and heroin production.

The UN is a "foreign authority" ... ???

No matter what our President and Congress "agree to" -- if it is based on lies, as the

Gulf of Tonkin Act was -- and as 9/11 was -- then there is no legitimacy to it no matter

who votes for it -- and same goes for Patriot Act!


While I do believe we should be wrapping these wars up, I do not believe that America should be abrogating its sovereignty to any foreign entity for any reason.

Wow -- didn't expect to hear anything like that except from a Republican Congress!!

We do not "abrogate our sovereignity" to the UN, btw.

Thanks for telling me your schedule -- I also hope to be at the shore tomorrow!!




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along -- !!

:)

[plumbob]

67. Thank you! I completely agree.

I was against the others from day one, and I am against this one from day one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. And that holds true even if 100% of the incidents are completely true.

There is no better propaganda than the truth.

When Sarevjo was under siege and snipers were shooting women and children, and gang rapes were a daily occurrence, did NATO rush in to stop the slaughter? There was no oil in Bosnia. It took literally YEARS for NATO to respond.

Yet the response in this PNAC target country was almost instantaneous.

Why is that?

[Turborama]

7. Why was the response to Libya quicker? Because Right to Protect was signed in 2005, 9 years after...

...the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo">Siege of Sarajevo ended.



Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document

Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

140. We fully support the mission of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.

From: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/398-general-assembly-r2p-excerpt-from-outcome-document

http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/world%20summit%20outcome%20doc%202005(1).pdf">Read the full text of the Outcome Document (1MB PDF)

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Oh. THAT explains our lighting response in Darfur, too, then.

C'mon, we are obviously picking and choosing which conflicts to intervene in - is it really surprising that those we DO choose to intervene in match up with PNAC goals?

[Turborama]

14. Sorry, I don't do conspiracy theories. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. PNAC is not a conspiracy theory.

It is a real life honest-to-god conspiracy.

Try reading it.

After reading it, come back and tell me that the Libya interventions doesn't deserve a second look.

[Turborama]

23. Your linking of the Libyan intervention to PNAC = A Conspiracy Theory.

As I said, I'm not into conspiracy theories.

There's a few other venues full of people who are, though. ;-)

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Again - READ the damned thing.

Then tell me there is no connection.

(on edit) Admittedly, you will of course say the same thing again - but will do so despite the information rather than due to lack of information. IF you actually read the PNAC papers.

[tabatha]

29. There is no f***ing connection.

France which was one of the promoters of this intervention had nothing to do with PNAC - in fact they were lambasted by PNAC types for not getting involved in Iraq. The Arab League asked for this intervention.

Btw, France is also involved in the Ivory Coast.

So please tell me the connection - France, Libya, Ivory Coast, Arab League and Sweden which is flying military planes for the first time in 50 years and PNAC.

Goof grief !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. Using that logic, we should also be involved in the Ivory Coast.

We signed up for a no-fly zone, which somehow morphed immediately into attacks on ground forces. What was intended to give the civilians respite from air attacks and allow the rebels to either re-group or get away, turned into a blatant action intended to overthrow Kadaffi.

And overthrowing Kadaffi was in the PNAC plan from day one.

Don't get me wrong - I think a protection mission in Libya is just as valid as the protection mission in Kosovo was - but let's not fool ourselves about the underlying reasons for it morphing into an action geared to regime change.

[Turborama]

40. The UN is and has been for years.

Look it up.

[psychopomp]

32. No, the reason action was swift was that an opportunity presented itself

Europe wanted its own oil grab as a quid pro quo for Iraq. They let us do our Mideast oil grab, now its time for them to secure their own oil supply. Just look at the map:



The east, where the rebellion began, sits on top of a large portion of the oil in Libya.

[Turborama]

37. Yawn!

I've http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=696024">rebuffed this oil conspiracy theory so may times it's getting very boring and old.

Look at the map you yourself have produced. It actually shows that European countries were ALREADY there owning most of those "concession blocs"!

Good grief!

[psychopomp]

41. I read what you wrote at your link, thank you

Is this what you call "rebuffing"? You wrote only two sentences, here they are:

There's no guarantee that the revolutionaries will want transnational oil corporations setting up shop AGAIN in their country. They might actually even want to own their oil industry.

If you think that having the might of Europe's war-making capacity on their side will not render them beholden to European interests you are quite naive. Putting in a government that is friendly to Europe will ensure Europe's oil supply far into the future. With the Colonel in power there is no such assurance.

Quid pro quo.

edit: formatting

[Turborama]

42. You're welcome. I said "so may times" because there was a fashion for it when it started

That was the 1st OP I posted about it, I have made multiple replies to rebuff the oil conspiracy theory since then, including in the rest of that 90 reply thread.

That was going on ad-infinitum when the oil conspiracy theory was all in fashion and I can't be bothered to dig up all the links.

You're a bit behind the times. Seems like the latest fad is PNAC.

The next big thing will probably be someone tangentially linking PNAC with Europe's dastardly plan to get rid of poor unfortunate Gaddafi so they can take the oil they were already getting.

[psychopomp]

77. Welcome for what? You said nothing. This isn't a war, it is a renegotiation of contracts

[Turborama]

81. You said thank you, I said you're welcome. Just being polite.

NJFO.

[defendandprotect]

54. The true conspiracy re OIL, is that anyone is still burning it!! Notice Global Warming -- !!!

Which, btw, is also bringing us increased earthquakes with increasing severity

of those earthquakes --

and earthquakes create volcanic activity which we are also seeing increasing!!

We can no longer burn fossil fuels!!

[No Elephants]

19. "There is no better propaganda than the truth." Brilliant.

(I bow in the general direction of North Carolina.)

[tabatha]

31. See post #30.

[tabatha]

30. Because there is a different group of people

in government - including Samantha Power.

Btw, Steve Clemons is as liberal as they come. He also thinks straight, unlike some of the posters on this thread.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2011/03/obama_moved_at/

I don't agree with everything this White House does -- but I have tremendous respect for the fact that Obama and his team have changed the dynamics of response to potential and real mass human tragedy.

Do you think that POSSIBLY the faster response is because lessons have been LEARNED. Or do people never PROGRESS?

[Turborama]

33. Exactly.

Seems like some people think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol etc are still in charge. :crazy:

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. You do realize, don't you, that PNAC is a bi-partisan neocon organization,

and a number of signatories were DLCers? And who are the top people in this administration? DLCers?

We had a fast response to a potential slaughter in Libya - and ignore a very real slaughter in Ivory Coast. Which one was the PNAC target?

A little critical thinking helps.

[Turborama]

39. FYI: 219 Arab Organizations Called For A Libya No-fly Zone & A U.N. Investigation Into Atrocities

On February 25, well before even France had put anything on the table: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x705275

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. You know, I'll bet I could come up with an equally impressive list from most of those

same NGOs and persons calling for the complete withdrawal from the West Bank and dismantling of the Palestinian security wall.

When do we start bombing Tel Aviv?

[Turborama]

51. Dupe. Here's a pretty picture instead...

[Turborama]

52. This is about Libya and what was looking like an impending massacre on Benghazi

Here's a complete list of attendees at the Paris summit after the resolution was signed:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy as:
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero
German Chancellor Angela Merkel
Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk
Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou
Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg
Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme
British Prime Minister David Cameron
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa
European Council President Herman Van Rompuy
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari
UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh
Moroccan Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi Fihri

These are the people who are currently in power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any PNACers there pulling strings.

Also...

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has held a meeting of its executive committee in Jeddah on the situation in Libya.
The body has called on member-states to begin establishing contacts with the Benghazi-based opposition's National Council. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the body's secretary-general said:

"Since legitimacy emanates from the people and if force is utilised against the people, legitimacy loses its foundations. Therefore we call upon the OIC members states to establish contacts with the Libyan interim national council."

Source: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-19

[defendandprotect]

48. This is a UN humanitarian aid mission -- based on Libyans asking for NFZ -- !!

Do you think the Afghans or Iraqis ASKED us to please come and attack us?

Or that they haven't asked us to leave?

Ten years and you aren't challenging these two wars on a daily basis --

but you want to challenge Libya -- ?

Read something about what Gaddafi has done to Misurata and other cities --

go watch the video on Misurata which is up now --

and about is plans to wipe out Benghazi!

This is genocide against his own people -- and Gaddafi has certainly committed war crimes!!

[BOG PERSON]

50. two terms that have been abused so much they've lost all meaning

"genocide" + "war crimes"

[defendandprotect]

55. Then, obviously, they don't exist ... right?

Without doubt what G is doing is "genocide" vs his people --

and ICC has called what Gaddafi and his officials have been doing "war crimes" --

I'd recommend that you try reading something of the Libyan Revolution thread --

we're all suffering here from the majority of DU'ers have insufficient info --

HOWEVER, Obama began correctly here re Libya in moving against this human tragedy

in Libya -- but has been pulled back by the rightwing, evidently?

[BOG PERSON]

60. no, it's not a genocide

not every civil war is a genocide. what if every time one side starts losing a war - what if they can't even get a decent war started, because they're too undisciplined and disorganized to fight, much less ever govern - are we supposed to just drop everything and bomb their enemies because they cried genocide?

[defendandprotect]

62. This is not a "civil war" -- this is an uprising by Libyan's against a dictator --

and yes it is genocide --

Again, you're greatly underinformed about Libya and the uprising --

try to read something of the threads.

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. As said above - lost all meaning.

Websters:
Genocide fm Greek Genos - race, kind + cide
First applied to the attempted extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany // the systematic killing of, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group
-----

Wholesale murder is not genocide, unless the other side is of a distinctly 'other' ethnicity or nation. Libyans slaughtering other Libyans is not genocide.

It definitely does fall under 'war crimes' however.

And it is the Neocons' wet dream. They predicted that by imposing 'regime change' on the four most repressive regimes in the middle east (not counting their friends in Saudi Arabia) - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya - that it would engender popular democratic uprisings across the region. They saw such uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and just creamed their jeans. Now, if the rebellion in Libya is defeated it will be a defeat not just of a bunch of people they don't really care about anyway, but of their own ideology. That's why the rebel military commander is a CIA guy - to ensure it happens the way they want it to. No sense in having a popular revolution if Islamic radicals take over.

They are pulling out all the stops - as someone else said - to make sure we jump in to save the day.

It is doubtful that the goals of the rebels and of the American cheerleaders for war are the same.

[al bupp]

65. I agree w/ you, sir, that the conflict in Libya has not yet risen...

to the level of genocide. However, I think your PNAC theory has to be shoe-horned to fit the facts across the Middle East. In the case of Egypt, the events there hardly dove-tailed w/ either Israeli or US policies and diplomatic stances. At the time, there was much tut-tutting of events in Tahrir Square by Israeli authorities, and the, shall we say "measured" response of the US has been well documented, as well.

I think ascribing the popular uprisings across the ME to PNAC machinations gives them rather too much credit, and diminishes to the point of absurdity the crucial role of youth movements. These protests started organically, and spread to Libya, where they unfortunately encountered a ruler not too squeamish about opening up, more or less indiscriminately on his own populace. Some might call it the Arab street waking up. I somehow doubt that such an awakening really serves neo-con interests. After all weren't they happy to do business w/ Mubarak for 30 years?

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. There are two different points here -

First, Libya can NEVER rise 'to the level of genocide' because people of an ethnic and national group killing other people of the same ethnic and national group does not fit the definition of genocide, no matter how horrific the killing might be. The proper term is 'mass murder' (for civilians) or civil war.

RE PNAC - I didn't say they were responsible for the uprisings. In fact, if anything, PNAC machinations in the middle-east may well have delayed such popular uprisings by covering the entire region with the shroud of 'War on Terror'. But I feel just as sure that they would like people to THINK they are responsible for it - it falls right in line with their world view. That's why the PNACers want to double-down on Iraq - the legitimacy of the rebel movement has NOTHING to do with their reality.

The PNAC is entirely about establishing incontestable US hegemony across the world, and securing vital assets for US use. If they can make a case that the US was instrumental in gaining Libyan freedom, then they will be rewarded with access to Libyan oil. They could not care less about Tunisia or Egypt - they have no oil or other vital resource that serves US hegemony. That's why they were perfectly happy with 'friendly' dictators.

And if the rebels are successful, I anticipate a huge backlash when all of a sudden they find they've lost control of their own resources to US & European corporations.

I don't know how many different ways I can say it - the US does not get involved in foreign wars for altruistic purposes. If we did, we'd have done something about Central Africa, Darfur, Ivory Coast, and any number of other places where horrendous things have been happening.

You have to look at what the payoff will be, and who in the US benefits.

[al bupp]

83. Picking up the thread...

I am inclined to grant the point on genocide, in general it seems a reasonable line to draw, though I'm guessing to the unfortunates involved the distinction between that and a mass killing is negligible. By your definition, what was Cambodia under Pol Pot genocide or not? Hard to think of it otherwise, and not calling it that seems mere semantics.

I think Libya is actually more of a European concern than an American one. The payoffs at this point are difficult to guess since so much depends upon outcomes which simply haven't yet come to pass. Since business was humming along quite nicely 4 months ago in Libya, I fail to see why they would gamble so much on a questionably successful popular uprising, even one they thought that they could co-opt.

Obviously, the US, along w/ every other major power has managed to (mostly) ignore truly horrific conflicts across Africa, particularly when they happen away from important resources. Regardless, I think Obama made the right decision in Libya. I suppose we will see what happens.

I also have to say that I appreciate having this discussion honestly, and w/o any rancor.

Cheers,

[defendandprotect]

58. You're always being "propagandized" -- the trick is to find out where truth lies...

It isn't sufficient to only know that "Wag the dog" or "False Flag" operations

exist -- you still have to work out which side the right wing is on --

Look for violence --

In the case of Libya -- that is Gaddafi.

In the case of Misurata and other cities destroyed in Libya -- that is Gaddafi.

In the case of TORTURE and violence against his own people over 40 years -- that is Gaddafi.


Again, I'd enourage DU'ers to read the Libyan Revolutionary threads --

stay in touch with them --

[BOG PERSON]

71. that's silly

everybody knows violence in defense of the state isn't the exclusive domain of the right. violence in itself is not political.

[defendandprotect]

80. It is, only if you haven't given non-violence much thought ....

You're saying that Gaddafi has a right to kill his citizens because allegedly he is the

state -- and defending it?

And maybe he has the right to TORTURE his citizens for 40 odd years, as well?

We have an information gap here at DU -- and I'd encourage more DU'ers to read the

Libyan Revolution threads.



Patriarchy and violence are mirror images of one another --

[WatsonT]

8. So let's start bombing the snipers

shouldn't be that hard. Really glad we're in the middle of this. :eyes:

[tabatha]

27. What an unbelievably well considered

contribution to the conversation.

[WatsonT]

46. I do what I can

What have you contributed?

[Turborama]

13. A lot more detail on what's been going on in Misurata, for anyone who may have missed it...

...in these OPs and replies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4800047">Libyan wounded describe "hell" of Misurata - Gaddafi using tanks & snipers to carry out a "massacre"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=569799">Turkey Sails In To Evacuate Wounded Libyans From Misurata

[al bupp]

15. Another recent video from Misrata

Misrata on April 6th after a Gaddafi attack - translated

The English translation is in text, below the video widget, on the page at the link above.

[defendandprotect]

57. Thanks to you and Turborama -- DU'ers need to be seeing much more of what is happening in Libya!!

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabatha]

26. How pathetically superficial.

I guess the intervention in Bosnia was for the same reason, and the non-intervention in Rwanda or Zimbabwe was because there were none.

Please do some reading - Robert Gates, who says there will never be boots on the ground in Libya on his watch, also said that Libya was unique because it was the first time that the Arab League had asked for intervention.

[plumbob]

68. There'll be US boots on the ground by Easter.

Just wait and check it out.

If you know anyone in the USAF in a logistics unit, you might have a casual conversation with them.

[No Elephants]

22. Glad I don't have to make decisions like libya.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, al bupp.

[al bupp]

36. ICRC Update (from libyafeb17.com)

16:57 (GMT +2) The International Committee for the Red Cross says it is sending a team to Misrata by boat to assess the situation and to investigate reports of snipers targeting children

http://www.libyafeb17.com

[defendandprotect]

59. K/R --

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SpartanDem]

72. LOL so now UNICEF is part of the conspiracy?

Some DU'er are straight up :crazy: :crazy:

[joshcryer]

76. Seriously. WTF.

Damn, mind boggling.