Uprising in Libya

[HMS Sophia]

From the BBC.

Libyan troops have opened fire with machine-guns and large-calibre weapons on anti-government protesters in the second city Benghazi, witnesses say.

An unknown number of people, including children, are said to have been killed.

Witnesses described scenes of chaos as snipers shot from the roofs of buildings and demonstrators fought back against troops on the ground.

A doctor at a local hospital said he and his colleagues were treating hundreds of injured protesters.

Reports are difficult to verify as Libyan authorities have not allowed foreign journalists into the country, but residents say Benghazi and another eastern city, al-Bayda, appear to be out of government control.
“Dozens were killed... not 15, dozens”

Eyewitness quoted by Reuters
Bengahzi
Tripoli 'key' to events in Libya
There have been no reports of major protests in the capital Tripoli.
...
A Benghazi resident told the BBC that security forces inside a government compound had fired on protesters with mortars and 14.5mm machine guns - a heavy machine gun typically produced in the former USSR.

They were, he said, machine-gunning cars and people indiscriminately. "A lot [of people] have fallen down today," he added.

Other witnesses spoke of snipers firing at protesters from rooftops and there were widespread reports of foreign mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa being brought in to attack protesters.

A doctor told the BBC that situation in the city was "like hell", saying he had been seeing people with gunshot wounds being carried into his hospital all day.

Full article in the link above. Sorry, I can't dress links, will someone help?
News of the World (its a piece of shit but its the first newspaper I saw this morning) reports a similar story but puts the death toll at 100 just from an assault by special forces on a protester encampment.

Edited link to dress it - SCRawl

[Setzer]

http://english.aljazeera.net//news/afri ... 44801.html

Al Jazeera puts the numbers as at least 15 with 150 being given as an upper limit.

[cosmicalstorm]

Well they will probably fail in their attempt to overthrow him, but at least this ought to wipe that confident smirk of his lips. Now, any time in the future when he tries to sell himself of as the poster-boy for Arab freedom, people will remember the Youtube videos of protesting crowds being machine-gunned.

[Sarevok]

So many innocent lives have been lost in the recent struggle for democracy in middle east.

May their sacrifice not go in vain !

[HMS Sophia]

Well they will probably fail in their attempt to overthrow him, but at least this ought to wipe that confident smirk of his lips. Now, any time in the future when he tries to sell himself of as the poster-boy for Arab freedom, people will remember the Youtube videos of protesting crowds being machine-gunned.

And shot with sniper rifles.... and mortared.... how the hell does he get away with this?
Isn't this the bit where the US (or hell, even the UN) steps up and tells him to piss off?

[Sarevok]

The US does not care about Gaddafi since he gave up overseas terrorism and supposed WMD efforts. Libya was a boogeyman during the 80s not because Gaddafi oppressed his countrymen but because hew was a thorn on the side of western interests. Just like the war in Iraq was not about Iraqi people US government will not intervene unless Gaddafi goes back to old practices. As long as he does not bother America he is free to kill people as he likes - Americans might even become his friends if he can offer them something in return like the Saudis.

[Thanas]

Also, Libya is an ally in the war against terror. He actually helped or helps americans with torture etc, so they got no interest to go up against him.

Well, at least not until his hold on power is almost over. Then he will be dropped like a hot potato in favor of democracy.

[Broomstick]

The US does not care about Gaddafi since he gave up overseas terrorism and supposed WMD efforts. Libya was a boogeyman during the 80s not because Gaddafi oppressed his countrymen but because hew was a thorn on the side of western interests.

Well, yeah, bombing airliners owned by westerners full of more westerners will tend to piss off the westerners. Among other things. Is this really that hard to understand? It's not like Gaddafi's hands are clean. A hundred or so corpses raining down over Scotland is a bit more than what I'd describe as a "thorn".

Just like the war in Iraq was not about Iraqi people US government will not intervene unless Gaddafi goes back to old practices. As long as he does not bother America he is free to kill people as he likes - Americans might even become his friends if he can offer them something in return like the Saudis.

Actually, I think right now it's more a matter of Americans are getting tired of multiple wars and don't care to start yet another one. If the rest of the world has issues with Gaddafi maybe they should deal with him - that way you don't have to either beg for American intervention or condemn American intervention. Really, Lybia is a catch-22 - we're damned if we do anything and damned if we don't.

As for gunning down peaceful protesters - did anyone actually believe this business of "peacefully" toppling governments was going to continue? (While Egypt and Tunisia had relatively low body counts people did die and were maimed, so I'm not sure "peaceful" is the correct description here). Gaddafi is not a nice person. He does not want to give up power. He sure as hell doesn't want any part of a western style democracy.

Sooner or later some government was going to use force instead of capitulating. And I don't think this will make him hesistate at all going forward, if it happens again he'll just order live fire again.

[HMS Sophia]

I'm not that surprised it's turned to violence. I was just kind of hoping the UN would say something. The US are not going to get involved in another war, I know, but isn't this exactly what the UN should be intervening in?

[Aaron]

I'm not that surprised it's turned to violence. I was just kind of hoping the UN would say something. The US are not going to get involved in another war, I know, but isn't this exactly what the UN should be intervening in?

Intervene how?

With force? How many divisions does the UN control?
Economically, with sanctions? Sure. But will the US allow that to happen now that Libya is their new stooge ally?

[Broomstick]

Describing Libya as an "ally" of the US is an abuse of the term. After several decades the US and Libya settled some disputes and have basically decided to stop jabbing at each other. That does not make them friends. Gaddafi basically wanted to find a way to protect himself from the US so what happened to Iraq didn't happen to him, basically, the minimum required to get the west to leave him alone, and in return he agreed to leave the west alone. Yes, this opens up the possibility of trade. Would you have preferred another war?

It wasn't until 2008 that the US even had an ambassador to Libya, m'kay? I don't know what you're smoking to think Libya is some sort of US "stooge", but it isn't.

Or are you just pissed that since 2009 Libya has basically banned Canadians from the country?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well they will probably fail in their attempt to overthrow him, but at least this ought to wipe that confident smirk of his lips. Now, any time in the future when he tries to sell himself of as the poster-boy for Arab freedom, people will remember the Youtube videos of protesting crowds being machine-gunned.

And shot with sniper rifles.... and mortared.... how the hell does he get away with this?
Isn't this the bit where the US (or hell, even the UN) steps up and tells him to piss off?

Why would they? All they can do is make some unhappy noises about how Gaddafi should let his people express themselves, and make the usual expressions of hand-wringing and finger-wagging. Sure, the UN can re-impose the sanctions on Libya they lifted in 2003; but that's not likely to hasten Gaddafi's departure from office.

In short, they can't really make him go anywhere. There is also the fact that with this crackdown, he's demonstrated that the Libyan military is firmly on his side, and that the only way he's going to go is by violent, messy, civil war. This is important because the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions were military coups in populist clothing. Take away the military support and both Egypt and Tunisia's uprisings would've ended in bloodbaths like Libya's is likely to.

[Aaron]

Describing Libya as an "ally" of the US is an abuse of the term. After several decades the US and Libya settled some disputes and have basically decided to stop jabbing at each other. That does not make them friends. Gaddafi basically wanted to find a way to protect himself from the US so what happened to Iraq didn't happen to him, basically, the minimum required to get the west to leave him alone, and in return he agreed to leave the west alone. Yes, this opens up the possibility of trade. Would you have preferred another war?

It wasn't until 2008 that the US even had an ambassador to Libya, m'kay? I don't know what you're smoking to think Libya is some sort of US "stooge", but it isn't.

Or are you just pissed that since 2009 Libya has basically banned Canadians from the country?

Also, Libya is an ally in the war against terror. He actually helped or helps americans with torture etc, so they got no interest to go up against him.

Well, at least not until his hold on power is almost over. Then he will be dropped like a hot potato in favor of democracy.

When I see Thanas post something like this --^ I tend to go with, the US isn't going to do anything or let anything happen, because I trust him.

As for the rest, I have, as usual no god damn idea wht your talking about. Why the fuck would I care if Libya banned Canadians from the country?

[Edi]

There is also the fact that with this crackdown, he's demonstrated that the Libyan military is firmly on his side, and that the only way he's going to go is by violent, messy, civil war. This is important because the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions were military coups in populist clothing. Take away the military support and both Egypt and Tunisia's uprisings would've ended in bloodbaths like Libya's is likely to.

Latest news reports from Benasi actually indicate that some military units may have switched sides and are now supporting the protesters. The Libyan ambassador to the Arab League has resigned his post, the implication being that he is also making a break with the current regime.

[Thanas]

Describing Libya as an "ally" of the US is an abuse of the term.

Really?

Libya being a partner in the rendition process:

While the Human Rights Watch researchers were unable to interview al-Libi, they did interview four other Libyan prisoners, at Abu Salim prison on April 27, whom the CIA had sent to Libya under the rendition process in 2004 to 2006. The men claimed that before they were sent to Libya, US forces had tortured them in detention centers in Afghanistan, and supervised their torture in Pakistan and Thailand.

Human Rights Watch

Libya, Iran, Sudan and Syria have all provided terrorist-related intelligence since 9/11. In this context, the USA finds itself in partnership with rogue states that have changed their view on international terrorism. In 2003, Libyan leader Moammar Quadafi pronounced Islamism "a threat to all regimes in the region" and began work with the United States that ulitmately led to the shutting down of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network.

Source from the US Naval war college, PDF


So pray tell me, how else would you classify this?

[xerex]

The son of longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi warned in a nationally televised address that continued anti-government protests that have wracked Libya for six days might lead to a civil war that could send the country's oil wells up in flames.

Appearing on Libyan state television after midnight Sunday, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi said the army still backed his father, who was leading the fight, although he added that some military bases, tanks and weapons had been seized.

"We are not Tunisia and Egypt," the younger Gadhafi said, referring to the successful uprisings that toppled longtime regimes in Libya's neighbors.

He acknowledged that the army made mistakes during protests because it was not trained to deal with demonstrators but added that the number of dead had been exaggerated, giving a death toll of 84. Human Rights Watch put the number at 174 through Saturday, and doctors in the eastern city of Benghazi said more than 200 have died since the protests began.

The younger Gadhafi offered to put forward reforms within days that he described as a "historic national initiative" and said the regime was willing to remove some restrictions and begin discussions for a constitution. He offered to change a number of laws, including those covering the media and the penal code.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110220/ap_ ... a_protests



rumours are flying fast that Gaddafi may be trying to flee to Venzuela tonight.

[Lord MJ]

May be off topic, but I was wondering if it would be a good thing if an Otto Von Bismarck style politician was able to take advantage of this and establish some sort of Federal Arab State. A politician with the savvy to both deliver needed reforms, able to play the chess game with the religious establishment, and create a relationship with the US akin to two modern nations dealing with each other instead of a modern superpower and a bunch of tinpot dictators.

[Big Phil]

It's pretty damned ironic that many of the same people who are the most vocal critics of American foreign policy (i.e., military interventions in other countries) are now being snarky and pissy because the US is almost certainly NOT going to intervene here, militarily or otherwise. Seems to me some people just want to bitch about the US for whatever reason.

[xerex]

I think it would be.

I personaly beleive the use of terrosim and the religious extremism is a result of the powerlessness of the arab states.

create a modern United Arab States able to influence the world stage and you eliminate the real underlying factor for violence.

[Metahive]

May be off topic, but I was wondering if it would be a good thing if an Otto Von Bismarck style politician was able to take advantage of this and establish some sort of Federal Arab State. A politician with the savvy to both deliver needed reforms, able to play the chess game with the religious establishment, and create a relationship with the US akin to two modern nations dealing with each other instead of a modern superpower and a bunch of tinpot dictators.

It took Bismarck three wars, a shitload of political savvy and quite a bit of luck to succeed, he also had the advantage that the german states were mostly homogenous in culture and ethnicity. Nasser tried something like this, but his dreams were shot down when he lost the Six Days War. Let's also not forget that certain players on the world political stage would not wish for something like that to ever happen.

[Broomstick]

Describing Libya as an "ally" of the US is an abuse of the term. After several decades the US and Libya settled some disputes and have basically decided to stop jabbing at each other. That does not make them friends. Gaddafi basically wanted to find a way to protect himself from the US so what happened to Iraq didn't happen to him, basically, the minimum required to get the west to leave him alone, and in return he agreed to leave the west alone. Yes, this opens up the possibility of trade. Would you have preferred another war?

It wasn't until 2008 that the US even had an ambassador to Libya, m'kay? I don't know what you're smoking to think Libya is some sort of US "stooge", but it isn't.

Or are you just pissed that since 2009 Libya has basically banned Canadians from the country?

Also, Libya is an ally in the war against terror. He actually helped or helps americans with torture etc, so they got no interest to go up against him.

Well, at least not until his hold on power is almost over. Then he will be dropped like a hot potato in favor of democracy.

When I see Thanas post something like this --^ I tend to go with, the US isn't going to do anything or let anything happen, because I trust him.

Thanas is good, but he's not perfect.

In fact, I'd like to see some sort of cite for his accusations that the Libya is torturing people for the US. It's not impossible, but I'd still like to see such a statement substantiated. I wish Thanas would do that when he first makes such statements rather than waiting for a request.

There's also the possibility that the US isn't going to do anything or let anything happen because the US doesn't give a flying fuck about Libya. Why should we? If we do anything we'll get shit on for intervening. If we don't, we'll get shit on for not intervening. With all the weeping and wailing about American interference why are you perturbed if there's a case were the US doesn't intervene.

As for the rest, I have, as usual no god damn idea wht your talking about. Why the fuck would I care if Libya banned Canadians from the country?

It's usually a sign that the two nations are in dispute. You're Canadian, right? Hey, if you don't want to bother to keep up with your own country's foreign affairs it doesn't matter to me.

[Aaron]

Thanas is good, but he's not perfect.

In fact, I'd like to see some sort of cite for his accusations that the Libya is torturing people for the US. It's not impossible, but I'd still like to see such a statement substantiated. But I don't expect it since I can't remember the last time Thanas had anything positive to say about the US, or responded positively to an American asking him to back up any of his statements.

There's also the possibility that the US isn't going to do anything or let anything happen because the US doesn't give a flying fuck about Libya. Why should we? If we do anything we'll get shit on for intervening. If we don't, we'll get shit on for not intervening. With all the weeping and wailing about American interference why are you perturbed if there's a case were the US doesn't intervene.

You mean like the stuff six posts above this one?

I also don't care if you intervene. Why the fuck should you? I was simply pointing out that you likely won't let anything past the U.N. but keep putting words in my mouth bitch, it's not like yours isn't big enough for the both of us.

It's usually a sign that the two nations are in dispute. You're Canadian, right? Hey, if you don't want to bother to keep up with your own country's foreign affairs it doesn't matter to me.

Yeah, see I don't actually care about Libya. Oh no! Canadians might be banned from there. Call me when it's important, like The Netherlands, or the US. You know, a country we have significant trade with.

[Thanas]

But I don't expect it since I can't remember the last time Thanas had anything positive to say about the US,

Oh, forgive me for not daily praising the USA. Tell you what - I'll praise your country when it doesn't hold people indefinitely without trial anymore.

or responded positively to an American asking him to back up any of his statements.

Whoa now. I don't care much what you think of me, but pray tell, when have I not responded positively to a request of evidence? You tell me where and I'll back up my words immediately.

There's also the possibility that the US isn't going to do anything or let anything happen because the US doesn't give a flying fuck about Libya. Why should we? If we do anything we'll get shit on for intervening. If we don't, we'll get shit on for not intervening. With all the weeping and wailing about American interference why are you perturbed if there's a case were the US doesn't intervene.

Ah, so explaining why the US would not intervene is wailing and weeping. Pray tell how you arrived at that conclusion?

For the record, I do not want the US or the UN to intervene in Libya. That way lies madness.

It's usually a sign that the two nations are in dispute. You're Canadian, right? Hey, if you don't want to bother to keep up with your own country's foreign affairs it doesn't matter to me.

This statement is so ironic coming from you of all people.....

[Broomstick]

Describing Libya as an "ally" of the US is an abuse of the term.

Really?

Libya being a partner in the rendition process:

While the Human Rights Watch researchers were unable to interview al-Libi, they did interview four other Libyan prisoners, at Abu Salim prison on April 27, whom the CIA had sent to Libya under the rendition process in 2004 to 2006. The men claimed that before they were sent to Libya, US forces had tortured them in detention centers in Afghanistan, and supervised their torture in Pakistan and Thailand.

Human Rights Watch

Libya, Iran, Sudan and Syria have all provided terrorist-related intelligence since 9/11. In this context, the USA finds itself in partnership with rogue states that have changed their view on international terrorism. In 2003, Libyan leader Moammar Quadafi pronounced Islamism "a threat to all regimes in the region" and began work with the United States that ulitmately led to the shutting down of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network.

Source from the US Naval war college, PDF
So pray tell me, how else would you classify this?

Ally in the sense of having a common enemy, perhaps, but "ally" usually has a connotation of friendship. In this case we'd be "allies" in the same sense that the US and Britain were "allies" with Stalin and the Soviets during WWII - and that started falling apart even before the official end of the war.

The official line, at least, is that Libya has renounced terrorism and is now working with others to suppress it. Is that really so inconceivable? Gaddafi doesn't want a bunch of Islamist extremists muscling in on his territory any more than he wants the Americans to install a western democracy there.

For fuck's sake, Thanas, it's not like nations that don't like each other have never worked in a common cause before. Are you now going to claim that the US and the USSR were staunch allies because of the Apollo-Soyuz joint missions?

But more specifically - your cite for the rendition process mentions torture in "Afghanistan, and supervised their torture in Pakistan and Thailand" but not in Libya. I can certainly see the possibility that torture occurred in Libya but that particular cite does not support it, though it does support torture in other places. If you're propping up your argument shouldn't you use cites that explicitly mention torture in Libya? Seriously, you couldn't find something more explicit from Human Rights Watch?

As for your second one - it shows that states that are normally in conflict with each other are, apparently, willing to work together to prevent at least some types of terrorism (presumably that which potentially targets all of them). If you use that to support the idea that Libya and the US are now "allies" then you will have to assert that the US is also allies with Iran of all places as, apparently, they have done the same thing.

All your cites prove is that the US and Libya have cooperated on certain matters, which the US has been known to do with explicit enemies (such as the USSR) as well as with its allies. Way to blow it out of proportion. Unless you have something better than that.

And yes, I'm open to the possibility that the US and Libya were both involved in mistreatment of people but like I said, some actual proof would be nice to see when such accusations are put on the table.

[Aaron]

It's called an "ally of convenience."