NATO strike kills at least 16 in Brega: report

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Yahoo News

CAIRO (Reuters) – A NATO air strike killed at least 16 civilians and wounded up to 40 at a guest house in the eastern Libyan city of Brega on Friday, state television reported.

It said the attack occurred at dawn and most of the victims were clerics who had gathered for a religious ceremony.

"They were a group of Muslim sheikhs (religious leaders) were holding a religious ceremony in the area of a Brega," a witness said in the report, broadcast on the Jamahiriya and Al-Libya channels.

"This is a civilian house," he said, pointing to a destroyed building. "Look at what the Crusaders have done, what NATO had done."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110513/wl_nm/us_libya_brega_attack

[Arctic Dave]

1. I have it on good authority that the militias and coup plotters only kill soldiers.

This is just propaganda. Go back to sleep.

[makhno]

2. Come on, people, NATO uses "sophisticated means" to avoid civilian casualties

I am deeply disturbed at the political agenda exhibited by some elements at Reuters in spreading what is obviously yet another pathetic effort by Libyan state propaganda.

We could all learn from Sqn Ldr Bracken's mature attitude and accept the fact that since we, as mere citizens, are not privy to any specific "attack or incident" that might have caused what some anti-democratic elements may call a war crime, nothing untoward took place.

Thankfully, the more politically aware editors at Reuters kindly informed us that no independent confirmation of any civilian casualties could be obtained. Thus, we should treat this non-story as nothing more than a pathetic effort by the desperate Gaddafi regime to besmirch the heroic actions of NATO aviators who risk their lives in support of the courageous fight for national self-determination by the oppressed people of Libya.

We must remain vigilant in the face of libelous statements by the illegitimate Libyan government and its few remaining acolytes in the international community, as they appear to be mounting a final desperate propaganda stand in the face of overwhelming popular will. I am specifically referring to the baseless accusations against valiant NATO sailors and aviators that briefly appeared in the yellow anti-revolutionary press after the tragic death at sea of several African migrants driven from Libyan shores by the relentless oppression of the Gaddafi regime.

We must support our servicemen and women in their mission to further democracy and the rule of law on the African Continent. Failure to do so will undermine our nation's long tradition of selfless championship of the rights of oppressed people from Iran to Panama and beyond.

Respectfully,
Nina Andreyeva

[Fuddnik]

4. Well, at least cancel the smart bombs Mensa membership.

Further democracy my ass. We want their oil. Period.

The rights of the Oppressed people of Iran? Like when we threw out their elected president and installed the butcher Shah. When we replaced one CIA asset in Panama for another? After their leader's plane was "mysteriously" blown up?

[ixion]

5. I don't support murderers

not matter who sanctions the killing.

[makhno]

3. Who keeps unreccing those threads?

Massive cognitive dissonance up in this place.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[ixion]

7. well said... and spot on

In my opinion.

When Obama was elected, this group mobilized. I was on this board for 8 years, and rarely had to defend my position. I seem to be doing so more often than not now.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

9. It is sad that many of us who initially supported the Libyan revolutionaries

but began to see some strange things and decided to hold off until there was more information, as soon as anyone stated any doubt that just maybe, we were not informed enough about the situation, that some of what was happening was not consistent with a 'peaceful uprising' and preferred to hold off making decisions, were trashed for even expressing those doubts.

Not long after people began to have doubts, many of them were confirmed, some by the original rebels themselves. I remember an interview on NPR with one of the rebels who had managed to get back from a 'mission' he was told to go on. He was furious, stating that they were being urged to go up against heavily armed Qadaffi forces while being lied to about what they were about to face. He stated that they were in no way properly prepared or armed to have a chance of succeeding, that they were being placed in serious danger and he did not like it at all.

He also stated that he was going home, that he did not trust the 'leaders' of the revolution anymore and that he had 'seen things that had outraged him'. He would not elaborate on what he had seen, but he was clearly angry. And that was only one incident that confirmed for me that things were not as they had seemed originally and those sending these insufficiently armed, untrained people to confront a trained and armed military, definitely did not have their best interests at heart. In all conscience it seemed to me wrong to continue to support what were essentially suicide missions. And those missions were then used to get NATO involved.

The final straw for me was the support suddenly on the US media from the PNAC crowd. I feel so sorry for the people of Libya, I think their revolution was hijacked. That is my opinion from all I have read and from what I have observed going all the way back to the beginning. But try to express any doubts, and you are attacked.

[joshcryer]

13. Their revolution was not hijacked.

They're succeeding beyond measure.

When Gaddafi uses cluster munitions I remember all the hang wringing, when he used air deployed landmines, I remember people not making a peep. I remember when NATO was blamed for migrants drowning but when it came out that Gaddafi was putting the migrants on to overflowing boats at gunpoint and the captains were abandoning them after they set off I didn't hear a peep from the NATO bashers.

Some of us are condemning all nasty acts in this war. Rebels laying landmines? Bad. TNC tells them to stop. Good. But oops, when that happened the same people who bashed them for doing it didn't make a peep when they vowed not to do it. So spare me.

[sabrina 1]

14. Saddam Hussein did many bad things which no one denied either

But neither did most rational people want to see an occupation of that country on the pretext that it would create a democratic government. What they got was the theft of their resources, a puppet government which is currently brutally quashing THEIR peaceful protests, their Arab Spring, shooting UNARMED people down in the streets, banning peaceful protests and jailing dissidents. Nice democracy.

Everyone supported a free Iraq. Few in the world, including most Arab countries, supported what they got. And now they are worse off than they were before. Your problem is you cannot accept that other people have a different view of how to help achieve what the people want. You appear to have forgotten that the Libyan people stated over and over again that they did not want their country turned into another Iraq. I respect that.

They were encouraged to go up against a powerful, well-armed regime and we and they were led to believe they had any chance of toppling that regime by 'marching on Tripoli'. That was insane, and anyone telling them it was possible was lying. Even now, with help from NATO they would be crazy to try.

They will end up being occupied, by 'peace-keepers' no doubt and they will get a puppet government and their oil will go the way Iraq's oil went, with the Libyan people, like the Iraqi people, having little to say about it.

I did not support the western occupation of Iraq, why would I support it for Libya, another country on the PNAC's list of countries to 'democratize'. You have a right to your opinion, as do I. Who is right, no one knows, but I will not support another Iraq in the Arab world, and that is what Libya is headed for at this point.

I hope you are right, but considering who is 'helping' the Libyan people, the chances of that, imo, are slim.

[joshcryer]

15. If we didn't invade Iraq in 2003 what are the chances they'd be having an uprising now?

I think the chances would've been damn good since the Arab Spring has affected practically every Arab country in that region of the world. Comparing Libya to Iraq is just disingenuous bullshit. There is no occupation of Libya. Libya is undergoing an internal uprising.

Here's a video for you that I doubt you'll even watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z41kQvx4uKw

[sabrina 1]

16. Iraqis made many attempts to topple Hussein over the years.

You have forgotten, there were 'rebel groups' we were told, who were working with the US against Hussein before the invasion. Once the PNACers got the right president installed here, with Saddam no longer an 'ally', those groups were used to go to Congress to make their case against him. They have all disappeared mostly since then. Although Chalabi is still around somewhere.

While he was our friend back in the eighties, all internal attempts to topple him were foiled with our help. Without interference from the West they might have succeeded sooner. But yes, if we had stayed out of their country, eventually they would have succeeded. People will not live that way forever.

I see the same people who were around before the Iraq invasion pushing for military intervention in Libya. As long as they are involved, everything is suspect.

I will watch your video. Don't know why you think I would not, I have no problem learning new information AND changing my mind if I am proven wrong.

[joshcryer]

17. There was a popular uprising against Hussein during Desert Storm and the world turned a blind eye...

...as Hussein massacred thousands of Kurds. Yeah, that's the kinda of world the moral relativists love fucking living in. :puke:

And no, I wouldn't expect anyone to change their mind who decided the revolution "wasn't as it seemed" and that ultimately it's composed of evil CIA expat Al-Queda black African racists oil imperialists, despite that the video clearly shows that the protests happened in 21 cities across Libya, and per-capita makes Tunisia and Egypt look like little jokes.

[sabrina 1]

18. That uprising was the fault of George Bush Sr, who led the Kurds

to believe they had backing from the US, which they did not. They would never have taken that risk had they not expected assistance. Then it was used later to bolster the case for the Iraq War.

Nice, first telling people they have a chance to defeat a dictator with a huge and powerful military, then leaving them to be slaughtered and later using the slaughter you instigated to get support for your next venture. The Kurds never trusted the US after that.

Your nasty assumptions about people who have a difference of opinion, are the reason why you are not a good representative for the people of Libya. There are no moral relativists here. There are people who simply don't agree with you. People who fear for the Libyan people, who are now caught between a Dictator and the Colonial Western Powers. Your willful blindness to the reason why people are concerned is stunning.

I could think of a lot names to call people who would irresponsibly support a revolution that has no chance of success, that will lead to mass slaughter or the other awful choice, occupation. But I am not in the habit of calling people names simply because they disagree with me. The Western powers are now doing exactly what they did with Iraq, using the people of Libya's suffering as an excuse to gain control over Libya's oil. Nothing ever changes with them.

I watched the video, it was beautifully done and it made me sad. I remember most of it as it happened and was like them, sure they would succeed at that point. But that was because I did not know enough about what they were facing, nor did I think at that time, that there was any support for Qadaffi. That was what we were waiting for, the military to do what the Tunisian and Egyptian militaries did. But except for a few, there was no mass support or attempt to protect the rebels by the military. I'm not into getting people killed, especially when those sacrifices will only benefit foreign invaders.

I still hope they can succeed without the West having the excuse to 'put boots on the ground' which they are already talking about.

But one of the comments on the video summed it up. They did not want to have to ask for help from NATO. They wanted to do it themselves or to get help from the Arab nations. But in the end they had NO CHOICE! Why did that happen? Why were they led into a situation where they had to do what they least wanted to do?

[joshcryer]

21. How were they "led" into such a situation?

Are you saying that they should have just put up and shut up and let Gaddafi's regime come and take over the cities and arrest people en mass and then call them dissidents and then execute them? That's the better solution? In the first three days they ran Gaddafi's goons out of their city, mostly unarmed protesters. Yes there were a few of them who had arms but they weren't the majority by any means. You look at the video again, we're talking a million plus people in all of Libya. Then you look at the reported mass graves outside of Az Zawiya after Gaddafi crushed the resistance there after 3 weeks (they were defending themselves).

See, you have this propagandistic false pretense. When the Kronstadt rebellion happened the people were merely defending themselves from the authoritarians. They lost because they didn't have outside help. People who are being openly oppressed are going to rise up against their oppressor. It's easy to arrest a dozen kids a month and then put them in jail, it's easy to keep people silent by invoking "dissident laws" and arresting them and disappearing them one at a time. Syria did that really fucking well. But when you openly fire upon protesters and it lasts 3 days straight the protesters are going to defend themselves. Benghazi being liberated was the only outcome. Now, Gaddafi could've just "let it go" and stepped down, but since he'd already killed civilians he chose not to, and decided to escalate things, as testified by the convoy going to "liberate" Benghazi (remember, that video shows that Benghazi was almost assuredly completely behind the revolution, a recent poll done shows that the east is behind the revolution by some 90%+).

If Gaddafi's regime didn't have an arsenal of hundreds of jets, thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of mortar munitions and heavy DU containing anti-tank munitions (which were used to mow down protesters!), mines, cluster munitions, the list goes on, then he wouldn't be able to suppress the people as he has. Instead I see it simply, the west provided Gaddafi with weapons that he has used to suppress and murder his own people, therefore it is the wests responsibility to destroy those weapons.

For some it appears that a revolution is only "acceptable" if the military "backs the protesters." That's unacceptable to me. I support all people rising up against a tyrant and I condemn all military people that back the tyrants.

The west will not put boots on the ground, except for maybe contractors, but the Libyan people will be condemned for that, you know, letting westerners build stuff and fix the oil infrastructure, and maybe even get a bit of oil out of the deal. I expect years of veiled insults over them for what they have clearly done, yes with outside help, but let's be clear that if the west wasn't selling weapons to Gaddafi, he would not have been able to even put up a fight. As testified by the liberation of Benghazi by a few hundred rabble rousing youths.

[Bosonic]

23. Can you be *specific* about "The West" arming the Libyan state?

I have seen you make this claim a few times, it is often used to bolster the moral obligation of the West to intervene in this conflict (as distinct from humanitarian and 'spreading democracy' reasons). However I get the sense that the vast majority of the heavy weaponry used by the Libyan state is sourced from the USSR/Russia & former satellites (Grad rocket launchers for instance). The wikipedia entry on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Armed_Forces">Libyan Armed Forces appears to back up my intuition:

...Though the Libyan army has a large amount of fighting equipment at its disposal, the vast majority was bought from the Soviet Union in the '70s and '80s and is largely obsolete. A high percentage remains in storage and a large amount of equipment has also been sold to various African countries. No major purchases of equipment have been made in recent years largely due to the decline of the economy and military sanctions experienced throughout the nineties....

Do you have contrary, specific evidence of Western supplied arms in regular use in this current conflict??

[joshcryer]

25. Yes, you'd be correct, I should say Russia, China, and the west.

The cluster munitions were recently purchased from Spain I believe. The mine laying rockets are from China. Russia abstained from 1973 which gives us effective permission to destroy the weapons that they sold to Gaddafi's regime.

I think that the arms deals that were made were helping Gaddafi rebuild his tattered soviet era army: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8350862/Western-arms-helping-Libyan-forces-massacre-anti-regime-rebels-EU-documents-reveal.html

Just going by what was sold, my opinion only. eg, Germany's spare parts, etc.

edit: more comprehensive link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/eu-arms-exports-libya

Note the military planes, which the No Fly Zone successfully rid Libya of (at least by grounding them). Now the Responsibility to Protect gives the international community the right to attack Russian tanks, etc.

In any event it remains likely that without these heavy weapons Gaddafi's regime would have no chance.

[joshcryer]

26. Look at this report where rebels learn that they're being shot at by western weapons:

http://cjchivers.com/post/5401976501/arms-libya-where-east-meets-west

[Bosonic]

29. I'm sure there are western manufactured weapons in Libya

Either supplied directly by the manufacturing countries or through shadier third-parties. However I think it would be incorrect to say that Western arms are significant in comparison to arms sourced elsewhere (and the facts/numbers seem to back me up), and as such cannot really be used in the 'you created this monster!' type arguments for Western intervention.

Specific critiques:

(1) The EU arms sales figures are isolated, in that no information about sales to Libya from outside the EU is available. Would these figures be comparable/bigger/smaller than those from Russia/China/Brazil? Who knows as they are not given.

(2) Most of the Western sales seem to be light arms and electronics, apart from the military planes. Whilst 278M euros seems a lot, aircraft are high-ticket items and this would probably buy 10 reasonable aircraft. In Russian stock, the Libyan airforce has Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 – 22; Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 – 68; Sukhoi Su-22 – 90.

[joshcryer]

40. The fact that Russia and China abstained shows that they know they were cupable.

It is only embarrassing that they refuse to take care of their mistake.

Next time I make that analogy I will not say "the west" I will say "the west and Russia and China." Ever since Putin I've considered Russia part of the west and given China-US relations it just didn't cross my mind to distinguish them.

I was fully aware that the US and Eu didn't provide all of Gaddafi's weapons. It is just fact that the UNSC actually passed resolution 1973, including two states who could've vetoed but didn't.

[makhno]

42. I don't think "culpability" exists in the geopolitical dictionary

As far as Russia and China are concerned, there was little to be gained by vetoing 1973. If either of the two states wanted to block UN-sanctioned action in Libya, they could have easily delayed the vote for a couple of weeks, which would have given Gaddafi's forces ample time to quash the insurgency.

[Turborama]

31. Britain Sent The SAS To Train Gaddafi's Elite Troops In 2009 & Sold Him Sniper Rifles In 2010...

Details: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Turborama/568

[Bosonic]

32. I'm sure

But the rebels have proved adept at removing snipers without NATO assistance, and I'd be surprised if these were the first sniper rifles in Libya or the most numerous. You'll have to fill me in on the actions of Gaddafi's Elite Troops (which I am assuming are size limited special forces unit(s) similar to the SAS), I'm not aware of any specific mention of them during this conflict. Presumably in a popular revolution, some of these highly trained units might well defect to the rebel side.

But I will ask you the same general question: Are western arms (on the Libyan state side) pivotal to this conflict, such that if they had not been supplied the rebels would have been much more successful?

[Turborama]

33. Google results for: snipers Libya

13,400,000 of them dating back to the middle of February: http://www.google.com/search?q=snipers+Libya&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

I am being succinct when answering a specific question about ""The West" arming the Libyan state" for a reason, I'm a very busy person. And I certainly don't have any time to spend on tengential arguments.

The facts are what they are. Make of them what you will.

[Bosonic]

34. That's a shame

As it was Josh's assertion that "let's be clear that if the west wasn't selling weapons to Gaddafi, he would not have been able to even put up a fight" that compelled me to first reply, and I know you are also pro-intervention so it seemed a relevant question.

[sabrina 1]

28. The West armed Qadaffi for several reasons. They wanted

business contracts in Libya, he wanted weapons. But the West and Qadaffi had one mutual interest, the US believed that parts of Libya were 'hotbeds' of extremists'. Those 'extremists' were a problem for Qadaffi also. So, basically the West used him, and he used them, to keep those factions under control.

Do you think this was the first time Qadaffi suppressed a potential uprising? It was not.

All that you have said only confirms the reasons why there are so many concerns about the situation the rebels are now in. You point out the problem, the West supporting and arming dictators, when it suits them. But when dictators do something that may threaten their interests, they will not think twice about ousting him. Ask Noriega and Saddam among others.

Qadaffi's plans which would have cut profits for western contractors were HIS downfall as far as the West, especially France, were concerned.

You talk about the revolution without knowing or even asking, why did those people decide to rise up at that point? Did they really not know that Qadaffi could and would brutally suppress it if he thought the goal was to take over the country? What did they think he was going to do, just pack a bag and leave? I don't know for how long the peaceful demonstrations, which started out small, were allowed to go on without Qadaffi doing anything about them. Nor do I know at what point it became clear to him that this was not just peaceful protests asking for reforms.

I do know that when I first began paying attention, there was no response from the regime, just people gathering and protesting, unarmed. And then it changed.

Do you know, eg, at what point Jibril turned on the government? And how much do you know about him? The Wikileaks cables have provided a lot of info on him.

Once the government began responding and the rebels began arming themselves, it became clear they would need outside help.

What no one knows is what prompted the people to escalate the protests into a full-fledged revolution, a decision that drove them into the no-win situation they are now in. It is either Qadaffi or a Western installed government.

You, on the one hand, vilify the West, rightly so, for arming Qadaffi, while on the other you are willing to support that same untrustworthy, brutal organization currently operating in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen to do what is right for the people of Libya? Since all they have done in every other country is to cause corruption, death and destruction, just what makes you think they will act differently in Libya?

What happens after Qadaffi goes, or is assassinated? What will his supporters, also Libyans, be subjected to? Many of them are not in the military but are ordinary people too. Will they be treated the same way the Sunis, once the favorites of the West, were in Iraq? Will there be death squads to find and kill anyone who did not join the revolution or does not support the interference of the West? Will THEY continue to fight as happened in Iraq?

It's going to be hard for the West. What will they do with the extremists, being used now because they always opposed Qadaffi, but normally the 'enemy' of the West? Will both factions in Libya, former Qadaffi supporters and the rebels be able to live together without continued fighting?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. But it all looks like the same situation that happened to the Kurds. And if that is the case, someone exploited those people. And they will continue to be exploited just as the Iraqis are. However, it is too late to go back now so they are facing the choice of the lesser of two evils. And that is sad.

[joshcryer]

38. Since when is supporting the Libyan's people request for outside assistance...

...the same as being "willing to support that same untrustworthy, brutal organization currently operating in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen"? This is a baseless slander, it's untrue. I don't support NATO and I don't support US imperialism.

I do not support NATO. I do not trust NATO. Between Gaddafi and NATO I put them on the same ground of support and respect. NATO bombs facilities and says no civilians were there, don't believe it. Gaddafi's facilities get bombed by NATO and he says it was full of clerics, I don't believe that shit either. You, the OP, and everyone else wants me to believe Gaddafi over NATO. Sorry, they're both liars. We won't know until after the fact what has happened. But there are clues. For example, Gaddafi officials released the coords of the NATO attack in Brega (where the "clerics" were supposedly killed). A Dutch contractor says that he built a bunker there that was strong enough to withstand an atomic blast. Therefore it appears NATO was the one not lying and Gaddafi is more likely to be lying. This is a man that builds playgrounds over his bunkers. It's fucking atrocious.

The "extremists" you speak of is just gross Trotskyite propaganda, but fortunately for the people in Derna (where the "extremists" live) we live in the information age, and such slanders can easily be squashed. It is utterly insulting to keep repeating this meme. George Orwell would be proud (I find it amusingly ironic that you basically do exactly what Orwell admonished the communists in the Spanish Civil War for doing).

[sabrina 1]

45. Talk to the US and Europe about the presence of extremists in

Libya, THEY are the ones who made the claims and paid Qadaffi to keep that region of the country under control. Did you rail against them before when they made those claims? It was all part of the GWOT. And Qadaffi was only too happy to oblige them. This is NOT new news, this is well known. The difference between me and you apparently is that I never accepted that the people the West called 'extremists' actually were. I have ALWAYS questioned their motives and because of Libya's resources always questioned everything coming both from the GOL and from the West. So it is YOU who are feeding into the notion that just because the West calls people 'terrorist's they are.

I am reporting facts, and the fact is, the West targeted those people as terrorists, and paid Qadaffi and armed him in order to keep them under control. Maybe you should educate yourself before you go off on people. Now they are hung by their own petard as they are being reminded of their claims. And that is why the US cannot arm them, at least openly, or give them money. Because too many people remember what they were saying just a few months ago. If they were lying, they will have to admit it now, but so far they have not.

Spare my your whining and your references to Trotsky, someone you appear to know a whole lot more about than I, and Orwell and whoever else pops into your mind. I am immune, try it on someone who cares about your insults.

Meantime facts are facts, and the claims made by the West are well known, no one is 'spreading them' or 'making them up'. In fact right from the beginning of this revolution, I was waiting for the US to condemn it using that very claim, as they initially tried to do in Egypt and Tunisia.

The information age doesn't seem to be helping you to understand what's been going on over the past number of years.

[joshcryer]

46. Hey, I admitted my previous ignorance.

I admit my ignorance of Libya. I admit that I didn't know about half of the Arab world before the Arab Spring happened. It's shameful, really. But I have educated myself. The "terrorist" presence in Libya was never very large even when the US was using it as a boogieman. It's actually cute how history plays out. It was so insignificant it never even came up on my radar, but as soon as the west helps them at their request, so called "leftists" are the first to pull the "terrorist card." I got direct quotes of Castro condemning the US for invoking Al Qaeda as a boogieman, then when the Libya tragedy happened, Castro says that we should heed Gaddafi's concerns about Al Qaeda (ie, invoking Bush's boogieman for the past decade). Funny how Al Qaeda appears to be usable by just about anyone as a boogieman. You'll note that I never once said that those reports weren't real, merely that they were insignificant, irrelevant, silly, unimportant.

The information age has helped these people counter the slanders, back in the Spanish Civil War the freedom fighters didn't have much outside help (except those from Cuba and I believe Mexico). The information age is behind the Arab Spring, completely.

[Turborama]

30. It would be very useful to know the dates of the Tripoli protests in that video

I couldn't stop thinking of these (barely noticed) news reports when I saw those protesters. The protests in the vids could possibly be one of the last times anyone saw a lot of those people...

LIBYA: Reporters Blocked In Hotel As Protests Are Expected (Early Friday March 04, 2011 to present)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4756862#4759027

Intense gunfire in Tripoli before dawn--witnesses (Sunday March 6, 2011 4:00am GMT)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4758707#4759021

I am very worried that weekend will be recorded in history as when the "Tripoli Massacre" happened, and I strongly suspect the Gaddafi family are too.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Thanks. I neglected to add that they also like to get posts they don't like removed

as you'll note they did mine to which you're replying.

It's more moral righteousness crap, and even if within the spirit and letter of the law for the board, dissent will be crushed.

[EFerrari]

10. My post about revenge killings sank like a stone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1096877

[joshcryer]

12. The TNC denounced that today at the Bookings Institute.

Of course, I don't weep much for former Gaddafi torturers, and I understand why they were killed (for every Nazi prosecuted hundreds were executed extra-judicially; France was particularly efficient at it).

[joshcryer]

11. I neither rec or unrec Gaddafi propaganda lies.

But there is a small group of people here who soak them up as unadulterated truth.

[makhno]

20. Gaddafi propaganda lies

There is no reason to soak up Gaddafi's propaganda as unadulterated truth, and I doubt many people here do. By the same token, there is little reason to blindly give credence to the constant stream of unsubstantiated information provided by the TNC.

Reports from both sides should be approached critically and yet, this is not what I see Western media do, as it has clearly taken sides in the Libyan civil war. This helps create a tidy, black and white narrative of "good vs. evil" and will ultimately be used to secure popular support for further military action, including the likely occupation of Libya by NATO ground forces.

Pointing out possible war crimes by Libyan insurgents or NATO does not imply in any way that one supports Gaddafi's dictatorial regime. It is simply a cautious approach to events that bear not a passing resemblance to what we have witnessed in Kosovo, Iraq and elsewhere.

[joshcryer]

22. The media is correct in being sketpical of Gaddafi's obvious shows.

I would be appalled if the media reported his shows as if they were reality at this point. The key is that those who point out the obvious issues with the insurgents are doing it in such a way as to portray the whole as evil. As Orwell said in Homage to Catalonia, "Just imagine how odious it must be to see a young 15-year old Spaniard brought back from the front lines on a stretcher, to see, poking out from under the blanket an anemic, bewildered face and to think that in London and Paris there are gentlemen dressed to the nines, blithely engaged in writing pamphlets to show this little lad is a covert fascist."

It's the same thing here. A modern variant, but it's the same. People using reports (a few Gaddafi torturers for example, were executed in revenge killings which is tragic but to be expected in war), and those reports are used to attempt to portray a false image, while totally ignoring Gaddafi's similar crimes. NATO reportedly ignores (but it is denied) a single ship full of migrants where possibly 61 dies, holy shit the west is evil! Gaddafi reportedly files migrants on to ships at gunpoint to the point of being overloaded and the captains of those ships disembark on a dinghy, silence.

Kosovo had revenge killings and likely Libya will, too. But so did German occupied France during and after the occupation (for every person convicted during Nuremburg hundreds were executed extra-judicially, read up on France's atrocities against the Nazi's). It fucking sucks. No one is going to support that shit.

But don't pretend that it's a balanced narrative to say that Gaddafi's side isn't doing it either. When you assume both sides are doing the same stuff, and you compare who has more force and who is using more force, it's clear that Gaddafi is the worse side.

Rebels might rape, Gaddafi soldiers reportedly rape. Rebels reportedly do revenge killings, Gaddafi soldiers do, too (there is video of Gaddafi loyalists executing men for not saying their allegiance to Gaddafi). Gaddafi soldiers mine the ground, so do the rebels with mines they captured, oh wait they stopped when HRW asked them to (Gaddafi's regime just denies that they do it!). Gaddafi soldiers use cluster munitions, the rebels don't have cluster munitions. Gaddafi soldiers have hundreds of tanks which are being blown up by NATO daily, the rebels have a few captured tanks that they don't even use because NATO will simply blow them up (under protecting civilians). Gaddafi turns off water and electricity to an entire city because it had a popular uprising (watch the video I posted up thread, tens of thousands of people protested in Misrata), the rebels turn it back on. See how the narrative is actually going? The reality of the situation actually is? Gaddafi is a tyrant. So OK NATO might, because of what Gaddafi claims, kill some civilians in a strike. That is a tragedy. But no more than Gaddafi's relentless shelling of Misrata was a tragedy. No more than Gaddafi forcing migrants on to overloaded boats at gunpoint is a tragedy.

[makhno]

27. As another poster said, we need more crayons

How do you make the leap from someone's pointing out issues with NATO operations and questioning the motivations behind Western intervention to the poster's portraying the Libyan insurrection as evil? Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the many interests and actors with differing motivations represents the very archetype you purport to condemn in your posts. Taking TNC communiques at face value while ignoring the fact that there is no centralized, well-disciplined military structure on the insurgents' side that would apply the promises made to appease Western bien-pensants is, at best, disingenuous.

I have yet to see a post that condemns Libyan insurgents for their fight against the tyranny of the Gaddafi regime. Some of us simply refuse to buy into the simplistic narrative being put forward by the media, primarily because it has the familiar stench of the kind of propaganda we were fed in the lead up to prior imperialist adventures.

It is truly deplorable that one would consciously decide to turn a blind eye to NATO's growing record of collateral damage by claiming that the other side is no better. Libyan government forces' use of cluster mortar rounds and mines does not morally justify the deployment of similar types of munitions against poorly designated targets by NATO and insurgent forces. Forcing migrants onto unseaworthy boats does not excuse NATO's criminal behavior in ignoring the law of the sea. The "silence" you might hear is simply frustration at the moral ambiguity that permeates any discussion of the Libyan civil war.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Well said, and hopefully people will listen to this kind of thing

The goody two-shoes self-aggrandizing of some of the more emotional interventionists here shows a need to be morally right, and correspondingly, those opposed as utter fiends. Even with the standard caveat of Qaddafi being a skunk when speaking out against intervention, one will still be portrayed as one of his fans.

There's a lot going on here, and it just plain reeks of bad stage management. It's like a traveling medicine show or a bad religious cult: there simply wasn't sufficient support for the revolution. It wasn't viable. The French oil deal issues and their little defense pact with the British--including a conveniently timed and months planned wargame against a southern dictator--are very transparent. The cloak of "saving civilians" when they weren't necessarily threatened was just a sham literally from day one when the French attacked military vehicles outside of Benghazi.

Then there's the money thing.

More importantly, a leader who won't be compliant is bad enough, but once nationalization is threatened, that's tantamount to war to imperialists.

The way we were sold this is just plain hackneyed melodrama, and the sheer illegality of the operation is disgusting. The fact that people aren't outraged by the flagrant violation of the UN Participation Act AND the War Powers Resolution is deeply, deeply telling: laws only apply to people we don't like, and although it's incorrect to characterize the interventionists as necessarily Obama acolytes, that nasty streak of hero-worshiping slap-down group tyranny is very evident in many of these threads.

The sheer cynicism of the whole thing is also appalling: setting up a bank before setting up a government, threatening countries that those who didn't recognize the rebels would suffer in future oil deals, the crypto-racism of the evil mercenaries and a host of other little ploys leaves a very bad taste in one's mouth. Our involvement is basically an embarrassment, too: we're trying to do it on the cheap and not really committing. We don't really have much of a plan, and we're perfectly willing to let it drag on with stacks of real dead bodies piling up. We openly talk about taking the Libyan Government's money from banks and giving it to the rebels. We let the Qataris play fast and loose with the arms embargo, as well as brokering the oil. The very idea is a real strike at the covenant of nationhood, as is the ugly violation of sovereignty.

We own this mess now, and we're not doing right by the world or our fellow man. Sadly, we're so anesthetized to distant wars that such things will become more and more commonplace, just as the War Powers Resolution gets more and more toothless. This is a great shame from so many different perspectives, and to have our heartstrings tugged on and emotions insulted by those who demand stark simplicity and goose-stepping loyalty is both melodrama and farce.

This whole episode is a great shame, and it will destroy many lives as it ambles on.

[joshcryer]

39. You apparently weren't here when Resolution 1973 was passed.

There were thousands of posts by the same posters who are posting now about how the rebels were everything from CIA expats to oil grubers. Their revolutionary actions were dumbed down and ignored and all the focus was on how evil NATO is and how the rebels were played.

NATO is operating under the auspices of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, legally. Pretending otherwise is just absurd. Gaddafi's regime is disobeying international humanitarian law, illegally. By Monday there will be an arrest warrant for him for the things he's done.

Of course, you're trying to manipulate me into saying NATO is better than Gaddafi. That remains to be seen. We cannot know until after the fact if the Libyan people are glad for NATOs involvement. When NATO hit some rebels they were certainly thinking twice. I remember the first few images of the convoy that was destroyed outside of Benghazi. The people in those pictures looked somewhat pensive, as if the destruction was possibly not what they bargained for. But Misrata would not be free if it were not for NATO.

[makhno]

41. No one outside of the ruling class is trying to manipulate you, don't worry.

On a more serious note, two issues stand out here.

First, one really should avoid conflating insurgents with the Libyan population at large. For instance, are there people in Iraq who have benefited from Western intervention and are therefore glad for Western involvement? Absolutely. Has Western intervention improved the lives of the majority of the people in Iraq compared to their existence under the previous regime? Absolutely not.

Second, let us not pretend we don't know where this latest imperialist adventure is heading. The pattern of condemnation, limited UN resolution, liberal interpretation of said resolution through ever-increasing military involvement finally leading to occupation and the installation of a puppet regime has occurred so many times that there is no historical basis whatsoever to assume that any situation involving Western military intervention will proceed according to a different, never-before-seen scenario. I have no doubt the Libyan situation will evolve according to the established historical pattern.

Hopefully, NATO's blatant overstepping of the mandate proffered by UNSCR 1973 will result in future vetoes rather than abstentions, thereby removing the fig leaf of legitimacy provided by the UN flag. I doubt it, however, since it is clear to me that Russia and China decided that it was not worth expending geopolitical capital on what they perceive as a fight outside of their spheres of influence. The expectation, perhaps unfounded, being that the U.S., France and the UK will not interfere in future "RTP" operations in potential areas of interest to the Russian or Chinese regimes.

[joshcryer]

43. Unlikely, there will be no occupation because the revolutionaries won't have it...

...and the more R2P is invoked the better. I assume you also were against France ending the Ivory Coast conflict sooner rather than later, too. I assume you were against the UN firing on Gdabgo's armed camps which were mortaring a town. Nah, more likely you didn't even care about that.

[Azathoth]

19. Man, that's some hardhitting investigative journalism

The reporter even managed to flip to a second channel for confirmation. I smell a Pulitzer...

[Mimosa]

24. US 'help ' is likely to boomerang

US interference in the middle east countries is unlikely to earn 'us' gratitude.

And if we KILL Gaddafi, without letting him have a trial, America is once again showing we use extra-judicial methods. In this case there is no flimsy excuse that Gaddafi has been at war against the US.

The future isn't going to be pretty. Violence begets violence, as we have seen time after time.

[defendandprotect]

37. Can you throw up a link to the latest Libyan Revolution thread in General Discussion -- ??

Thanks -- :)

[joshcryer]

44. As Libya Buries Airstrike Victims, Mourners Hint at Deception

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/africa/15libya.html">As Libya Buries Airstrike Victims, Mourners Hint at Deception
...

Earlier in the week, the propaganda apparatus had been focused on a gathering of tribal leaders in support of Colonel Qaddafi. Now, the deaths of the imams appeared to lay the ground for marshaling an even wider body of opinion. Calling the NATO attackers “crusaders” set the tone, as did the assertion, common in all the bombings, that NATO was lying when it identified the Brega target as a “command-and-control” center for pro-Qaddafi forces.

But the funeral itself seemed strangely flat, at least in political terms. For one thing, despite the location being broadcast on Libyan state television, and circulated in cellphone text messages, barely 500 people showed up, in a city of two million. No important government officials attended. For all the browbeating directed at foreign reporters by mourners who vowed their love for Colonel Qaddafi and their hatred for NATO, the event, taken as a whole, seemed underwhelming.

Part of the problem lay in the contradictions and uncertainties that flowed from official accounts, and those given by the mourners.

According to officials, the nine coffins, with bodies wrapped in the green of Islam, were those of the dead Muslim clerics. But some mourners offered differing counts. Two men whispered that their uncles, among those being buried, were soldiers, and one of those said the man concerned had been dead for weeks. Another identified one of the dead as a driver.

Tsk tsk... Gaddafi's regime is all lies. All lies.