Baby Snipers...Propaganda? Or are they just that evil?

[Captain.Sassy]

..GENEVA - 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.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it is sending a team to Misrata by boat Friday and would investigate the reports of snipers targeting children.

A spokesman for the Geneva-based aid group, Christian Cardon, told The Associated Press that children and other civilians not involved in hostilities are never a legitimate target in an armed conflict. "But without having any more information, we can't comment on what is happening there," he said.
...

Now I can imagine that stray bullets killing kids could be reported as snipers shooting children, and in the current media climate there probably won't be many voices putting forward alternatives to the 'snipers' discourse.

Then again, there are instances where belligerents do really horrible things. The Liberia hand-choppers, inter alia.

So are the Libyan government forces just that evil? Or is this getting overblown?

 

[egslim]

Following the casualty-reports from Libya, casualties have been relatively low. That indicates fighting has not been very intensive, which correlates with the rebels running from direct combat. It also indicates there haven't been any widespread civilian massacres.

Therefore I don't buy this report, unless the rebels use children as couriers and such.

When belligerents do horrible things in war, there's always some kind of rationale behind it - though it can be quite twisted. But I see no reason why anyone would specifically target innocent children unless they're massacring civilians in general, and the casualty figures indicate that's not happening.

ETA: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/01/135033263/libyan-rebels-says-conditions-grim-in-misurata
"We have every day about 30 to 35 casualties, dead, daily," he said. "And most of them are civilians — women and children, old people, sitting in their houses — and tanks have been shooting them in their houses."
That's not such a bad casualty rate for street fighting, and definately not a massacre of civilians.

Let's just say it's bad for your health to look out the window to see what's going on when troops are looking for and shooting at suspected enemy snipers. They'll shoot first, check your age and gender later. But children are notoriously curious.

 

[UWdude]

I dunno. Are they sniping the babies before or after they kick them out of the incubators?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I can't be the only one who has an image of babies with rifles when I read the title...

 

[332nd]

I can't be the only one who has an image of babies with rifles when I read the title...

Nope, you weren't.

 

[Cylinder]

But I see no reason why anyone would specifically target innocent children unless they're massacring civilians in general, and the casualty figures indicate that's not happening.

"This is what happens when your village/town harbors rebels."

I have no way of judging the claim on merits, but the motive seems to be as old as warfare itself.

 

[leftysergeant]

Daffy has a lot of mercs on his payroll. They can well be that evil.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I dunno. Are they sniping the babies before or after they kick them out of the incubators?

lol wow

a blast from the past...

 

[Caustic Logic]

I dunno. Are they sniping the babies before or after they kick them out of the incubators?

Well played. I have seen already many, many, illogical tales of cartoonish evil attributed the Gaddafi regime. This one is a new classic. I like EG Slim's post better than my planned rant that for all we know, black-hearted provocateurs serving the rebel cause have been sniping babies, kids, whatever.

But still, it's possible. And anything bad in Libya is automatically blamed on Gaddafi when even remotely possible. The world asks questions later, if ever. Consider the 130 Gaddafi soldiers/mercenaries killed "for refusing to shoot protesters." We have very good evidence the "protesters" executed this ten baker's dozens for something more like refusing to join them.

See: http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2011/03/behind-scenes-of-al-baida-massacre.html

And on the other hand, maybe this really is a government policy, or some rogue elements in his military or mercenaries, but probably the former, based on the "known" depraved madness of Muammar Gaddafi, who personally orders every atrocity his zombies willingly carry out.

 

[Mycroft]

I can't be the only one who has an image of babies with rifles when I read the title...

My first thought was also of babies with rifles.

My second thought was that baby in the restaurant that just kept yowling and yowling, and it's parents wouldn't do anything to quiet it down. By the time dinner was over I was going to double up on by blood-pressure medicine. Surely it would be understandable if that baby were targeted by a sniper?

But that would be wrong. So very wrong.

 

[quixotecoyote]

My first thought was also of babies with rifles.

My second thought was that baby in the restaurant that just kept yowling and yowling, and it's parents wouldn't do anything to quiet it down. By the time dinner was over I was going to double up on by blood-pressure medicine. Surely it would be understandable if that baby were targeted by a sniper?

But that would be wrong. So very wrong.

Indeed. It's quite inappropriate to use a sniper rife at intra-restaurant range.

 

[egslim]

"This is what happens when your village/town harbors rebels."

I have no way of judging the claim on merits, but the motive seems to be as old as warfare itself.

Yeah I thought about that, but if you look closer at the information that's not going on here.

You're right that massacring civilians is one of the oldest means of warfare, because it's very effective. Women, children and the elderly present a much easier target than fighting men, and taking out enough civilians destroys both the men's morale and supply base. It's how the Brits won the Boer's war, by locking up the civilians in concentration camps - where I think about 25% of them died - until the men simply gave up fighting.
(It's probably also the only strategy that could actually defeat the Taliban.)

But I posted the casualty-figures for Misurata: "We have every day about 30 to 35 casualties, dead, daily," 30 to 35 dead daily is even fairly low for street-fighting. If they were targetting civilians to demoralize the enemy, the death count would be much higher.

 

[Laeke]

The statement itself seems to still be under investigation and needs to be confirmed anyway. The UN is also sending a three persons team to investigate alleged abuses

Foreign journalists are not authorized to go up the frontlines on the regime's side and reports of the fighting has been parcellar and confused at best since the beginning of the armed uprising, Misrata is not under control of the rebels, so that means we rely on local sources and secondhand information. There's lot of talk about "snipers" or isolated elements taking potshots, but I am not sure their identity has been proved in a convincing manner. I think we will only get tangible infos about the extent of the casualties once the dust settles.

Doesn't this specific claim have been made recently about another occupying army (you know which one...)?

 

[McHrozni]

Following the casualty-reports from Libya, casualties have been relatively low. That indicates fighting has not been very intensive, which correlates with the rebels running from direct combat. It also indicates there haven't been any widespread civilian massacres.

Therefore I don't buy this report, unless the rebels use children as couriers and such.

When belligerents do horrible things in war, there's always some kind of rationale behind it - though it can be quite twisted. But I see no reason why anyone would specifically target innocent children unless they're massacring civilians in general, and the casualty figures indicate that's not happening.

ETA: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/01/135033263/libyan-rebels-says-conditions-grim-in-misurata
"We have every day about 30 to 35 casualties, dead, daily," he said. "And most of them are civilians — women and children, old people, sitting in their houses — and tanks have been shooting them in their houses."
That's not such a bad casualty rate for street fighting, and definately not a massacre of civilians.

Let's just say it's bad for your health to look out the window to see what's going on when troops are looking for and shooting at suspected enemy snipers. They'll shoot first, check your age and gender later. But children are notoriously curious.

There is relatively little street fighting in Misrata as far as I can see. Government forces seem to be shelling the city from the outskirts inwards and advancing only on rare occasions. This is when fighting takes place.

It's not a battle, it's a protracted siege. I would draw parallels with the Siege of Sarajevo, where Bosnian Serbs were able to hold the outskirts and shell the city, utilized snipers to terrorize the population, but never got the strength (and/or courage) to actually storm the city. Casulties were similarily "low" - some 10,000 civilians died, about 8 per day, plus about five times as many wounded. Something over 8000 soldiers died, on both sides. Sarajevo of the time (the city lost about 20-25% of population to emigration) and Misrata now are almost of equal size.

The two situations appear to be very similar, with the only major difference being that the casulties in Misrata appear to be several times worse than in Sarajevo. This is probably because the siege is only in the beginning, where attacks are being pressed with more vigor. If the situation stabilizes, I would say Misrata will come out similar as Sarajevo.

I would call that rather bad, no matter how "low" the casulties are.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

There is relatively little street fighting in Misrata as far as I can see. Government forces seem to be shelling the city from the outskirts inwards and advancing only on rare occasions. This is when fighting takes place.

It's not a battle, it's a protracted siege. I would draw parallels with the Siege of Sarajevo, where Bosnian Serbs were able to hold the outskirts and shell the city, utilized snipers to terrorize the population, but never got the strength (and/or courage) to actually storm the city. Casulties were similarily "low" - some 10,000 civilians died, about 8 per day, plus about five times as many wounded. Something over 8000 soldiers died, on both sides. Sarajevo of the time (the city lost about 20-25% of population to emigration) and Misrata now are almost of equal size.

Hmm, this report says otherwise:
it's all but surrounded by Gadhafi's forces who are attacking it. This is house-to-house, street-to-street urban combat with a civilian population still inside the city.

The same report remarks that: I think that's why they're pushing on Misurata so hard. They want to have control of every square inch of the west, to be able to say the west is under Gadhafi's control; it is loyal to Moammar Gadhafi, and I think that's where they're going with this now.
Which makes sense. This isn't going to be a protracted siege like Sarajevo, Gadaffi wants to force a decision.

 

[McHrozni]

Hmm, this report says otherwise:
it's all but surrounded by Gadhafi's forces who are attacking it. This is house-to-house, street-to-street urban combat with a civilian population still inside the city.

Yes it does. But if it is true, we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg in casualties, which is rather unlikely. Some skirmishes do take place of course, but if there was major fighting between rebels and government forces we would, as you pointed out, see far more casualties. The casualty rate of about 30 dead a day among the defenders is consistent with occasional skirmishes, snipers and occasional altillery barrages. We do know that snipers and altillery (or tank) fire is being used against the city.

The same report remarks that: I think that's why they're pushing on Misurata so hard. They want to have control of every square inch of the west, to be able to say the west is under Gadhafi's control; it is loyal to Moammar Gadhafi, and I think that's where they're going with this now.
Which makes sense. This isn't going to be a protracted siege like Sarajevo, Gadaffi wants to force a decision.

The situation on the ground doesn't appear to match that assesment. A major offensive into the city, with the aim of conquering it in a short time, would push the casualties into thousands - both civilians and military - a day, but it would be over in a few days, since the rebels don't have the weaponry, tactics or training to withstand a direct assault.

My guess is that Quackdaffis' forces simply aren't strong enough to both pacify his current holdings, keep up the fight around Brega and storm Misrata at the same time. In fact it's quite likely they're overstretched as it is. He would also need to either conduct a massacre on the scale not yet seen during this civil war or commit even more men to pacify Misrata.

Instead, he is content by creeping up on the rebels, starve them out and kill as many as possible with weapons they are ill-equipped to handle.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

Yes it does. But if it is true, we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg in casualties, which is rather unlikely. Some skirmishes do take place of course, but if there was major fighting between rebels and government forces we would, as you pointed out, see far more casualties. The casualty rate of about 30 dead a day among the defenders is consistent with occasional skirmishes, snipers and occasional altillery barrages. We do know that snipers and altillery (or tank) fire is being used against the city.

The situation on the ground doesn't appear to match that assesment. A major offensive into the city, with the aim of conquering it in a short time, would push the casualties into thousands - both civilians and military - a day, but it would be over in a few days, since the rebels don't have the weaponry, tactics or training to withstand a direct assault.

Remember who are fighting here. The Libyan rebels in the east of the country have demonstrated an almost incredible reluctance to risk casualties. They refuse to stand and fight. They flee when a few mortar rounds explode anywhere near them. They fire their own weapons from far out of range, to avoid getting close to the enemy. This behaviour is well-documented in the east.

Similar reports indicate Gadaffi's forces are only slightly more standfast.

If we assume rebels and loyalists in the west have the same fighting spirit and skill as their respective collegues in the east, there's no disagreement between the report of streetfighting and the casualtyrate. Neither side has the stomach for heavy, decisive fighting that would send casualties soaring.

My guess is that Quackdaffis' forces simply aren't strong enough to both pacify his current holdings, keep up the fight around Brega and storm Misrata at the same time. In fact it's quite likely they're overstretched as it is. He would also need to either conduct a massacre on the scale not yet seen during this civil war or commit even more men to pacify Misrata.

I think you vastly overestimate the difficulty Gadaffi faces when he has to pacify a formerly rebel-held town. The rebels display such an astounding lack of fighting spirit at the frontline, there's no way they're going to bravely rise up in a city dotted with checkpoints held by Gadaffi-loyalists. No massacre needed to cow them, and checkpoints can be held by untrained but loyal recruits. And loyalty is mainly a matter of tribe.

 

[McHrozni]

If we assume rebels and loyalists in the west have the same fighting spirit and skill as their respective collegues in the east, there's no disagreement between the report of streetfighting and the casualtyrate. Neither side has the stomach for heavy, decisive fighting that would send casualties soaring.

Assuming you're correct, Misrata can be only described as a siege. You can't have a battle where neither side is remotely willing to face the opponent in battle.

I think you vastly overestimate the difficulty Gadaffi faces when he has to pacify a formerly rebel-held town. The rebels display such an astounding lack of fighting spirit at the frontline, there's no way they're going to bravely rise up in a city dotted with checkpoints held by Gadaffi-loyalists.

They don't have to. According to the information tricke from Tripoli, they are brave enough to fire at a policeman here and there and such. That would mean that a drawback of forces could quickly lead to a full blown rebellion.

In addition, people tend to be braver if their only two chances are to die or to fight and hope for an eventual victory. That's why rebels in Misrata tend to fare better in combat than the ones in Brega.

McHrozni

 

[little grey rabbit]

I can't be the only one who has an image of babies with rifles when I read the title...

Funny you should mention that because this

If it had been on the other side every UN and human rights organisation on the planet would be huffing and puffing and talking about child soldiers and how Gaddafi was forcing children to fire on civilian protesters.

But because it is on the "Good" side it is just marketed as a cute photo.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Assuming you're correct, Misrata can be only described as a siege. You can't have a battle where neither side is remotely willing to face the opponent in battle.



They don't have to. According to the information tricke from Tripoli, they are brave enough to fire at a policeman here and there and such. That would mean that a drawback of forces could quickly lead to a full blown rebellion.

In addition, people tend to be braver if their only two chances are to die or to fight and hope for an eventual victory. That's why rebels in Misrata tend to fare better in combat than the ones in Brega.

McHrozni

As I understand Misrata has been receiving a lot of reinforcements *cough* I mean humanitarian supplies from Benghazi. The Coalition navy sunk or beached a number of Libyan vessels that was trying to intercept these reinforcements *cough* I mean humanitarian supplies from reaching the port.

Since then I understand that the flow of humantarian ammunition and fighters goes unhindered.

Of course this doesn't mean that the 6000 migrant workers camping in the open air at the port guarded by the insurgents can be evacuated. I was kind of puzzled why, since we all seem so concerned about civilians, no one was lifting a finger to move them. I assume that the reason is that if they were allowed contact with the media they might tell some fairly horrific stories - not all of them totally complimentary towards the "Good Guys"

http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/01/thousands-stranded-in-libyan-city-under-siege.html

The Turkish ferry was a large ship - but supposedly only took off 250 wounded - mostly males of fighting age.