Merged Libya: People's Revolution / Criminal Imperialism?

[Loss Leader]

Libya threads with similar content have been merged.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[RandFan]

I weep for Gadahfi and his family.

I don't know if the events will lead to a better life for Libyans but I do know I don't give a damn about this thing named Gadahfi.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/28/libya.gadhafi.nanny/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Luxury, horror lurk in Gadhafi family compound

At a seaside compound in western Tripoli, the Gadhafi boys enjoyed a decadent lifestyle that his people could only dream about, while perpetrating unspeakable horrors on the staff that served their every whim.

 

[trustbutverify]

I don't know if the events will lead to a better life for Libyans but I do know I don't give a damn about this thing named Gadahfi.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/28/libya.gadhafi.nanny/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Who is paying you to spread these disgusting lies about the progressive socialist and his noble family?

 

[RandFan]

Who is paying you to spread these disgusting lies about the progressive socialist and his noble family?

It's either that or Thursday night is my turn in the barrel.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes! And no one's been able to prove that happened! These guys had iPhones all over, but never filmed simple protesters shot while just protesting. The government there said they were attacking bases and police stations to steal weapons. There's no video to show that wrong, and some deaths are verifiably from the area of a base in Benghazi (the Katiba). And thy did wind up with a lot of weapons they said came from defectors, but the defectors aren't usually seen. Though there were apparently some defections of this type, in most cases I'm pretty sure it was thievery, with the guarding soldiers killed (like at the Katiba).

This is pretty CTish but I will look into it further.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I have often wondered if there has been a massacre in the entire history of the world where someone did not manage to crawl out of the grave at night after the event.

Here is the eye-witness

A gaunt elderly man, Fathallah Abdullah, wept in the warehouse doorway. He told us that he managed to escape the massacre inside, but without his three sons - Ibrahim, Abdul Hakim, and Ali. All four had been detained in mid-August in their hometown of Zlitan.

"I was there," he said pointing to a corner littered with skulls. "My sons were beside me. The whole area was packed with people, crowded in like animals. We were on top of one another. There was no space to put your feet down on the floor."

Up to 150 civilians from different parts of Libya were being held there, according to Fathallah. He says uniformed troops and mercenaries guarded them. Another survivor gave a similar estimate of the numbers.

The prisoners had been asking for water. The guards promised to bring it at sunset, but instead they came with guns.

"They started shooting," Fathallah said. "Then they threw grenades, three of them. They stopped and came back and started again."
Bound feet of massacre victim The feet of one of those killed outside the warehouse were bound with rope

When another prisoner kicked open the warehouse door Fathallah ran for cover and managed to hide under a truck. He says he lay there for hours, listening to a massacre he was powerless to stop.

"They were shooting up until two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning," he said. "Whoever is still alive they kill him."

Fathallah is certain that two of his sons were killed in the warehouse.

He is clinging to the hope that the third, Ali, may have survived, but there seems little chance of that. There has been no sign of him since the shooting stopped.

"My sons were just ordinary men but they were well liked by everyone," he said, his face wet with tears.

Outside the warehouse he greeted another survivor, Ali Hamouda, with a sombre handshake. Ali was uninjured but told us his cousin was among the dead.

Both men said some of Col Gadaffi's own troops were not spared. They too were imprisoned in the warehouse, presumably for not following orders.

And just in case there are any doubters the BBC add their impartial authority to it

We know now that this warehouse compound was the location where a BBC team was held in March.

During their detention they were beaten and subjected to mock executions. One member of the team, BBC technician Chris Cobb Smith, returned to the scene on Sunday.

He identified the cell alongside the warehouse where the team had been held, and terrorised.

"We spent most of the night in that cell," he said.

"I must have watched every second tick by. We definitely heard people being beaten, and moved around in the compound. I think if it had been later on in the conflict, things may have turned out very differently for us."

Local people say the area around the Khamis Brigade Headquarters is a killing ground.

A killing ground for sure, but not by NATO bombs which appears not only never kills civilians, it never kills soldiers either.

Unless of course they are soldiers who are firing on civilian protesters.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I have no time to argue minutiae with Holocaust deniers.

Keep crying ladies. Qadhafi ain't coming back.

ETA: I'm not a holocaust denier. So what's your excuse for evading my questions?

So you reuse to acknowledge where you were wrong citing neighborhoods bombed. I'm not crying, just showing you up as a dodge-and-weave sophist who has no skepticism when it comes to his own delusions.

Your gloating is fully noted, believe it or not, and need not be repeated so often. Gaddafi's been driven physically from power, I actually recognize that. But as a counter-argument, that says nothing about whether it was right or wrong. Unless one has a purist might makes right outlook. Do you?

Also, it's a bit sexist to call those you disagree with "ladies" as if that's an insult. What's wrong with women?

 

[Caustic Logic]

This is pretty CTish but I will look into it further.

Great response, thanks. I will acknowledge there are videos that go against the general patter, I knew of two, had a third recommended, found out all three are from al-Baida, and no other town. These are collected for consideration here. For that, I'm wondering if rebel provocateur snipers, hardcore evil people, would fit the bill. I think so. Otherwise, I've seen nothing that goes against what the government said, to deafening peals of silence and knee-jerk dismissal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's an interesting take on these claims (and I'm wondering more and more why this thread isn't in the CT forum): My New Favorite Conspiracy Theory: Libya, Obama and The Obamabot Private Army

They called us conspiracy theorists when we said there was no WMD in Iraq and that Bush administration was the most corrupt in history or that we used White Phosphorus munitions against civilians in Fallujah (all regrettably proven true).

But when it comes to conspiracy theorists no one, but no one beats the Republicans/ Tea Party Whack jobs in our House of Representatives. The latest comes from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who manages to conflate the military intervention in Libya as a red flag operation by Obama to take over the country by declaring martial law and occupying all those true red states with his private health care reform army.

No really. That's what he essentially said on the floor of the House: [see link for House comments]

Could some one please fill me in here. Just who is claiming this conspiracy exists and what is the actual evidence? A short summary is all I ask.

 

[davefoc]

It is interesting that the Arab league endorsed the no-fly zones over Libya. As a practical matter without this the NATO involvement wouldn't have happened. Russia at least would have vetoed any UN resolution that authorized it as it was I believe the security council approved the no-fly zone enforcement unanimously.

FWIW, I'm open to the idea that military interventions that are justified on humanitarian grounds are actually driven by the commercial interests of the invaders. But what was the evidence that this was the case here?

The US made no grand projections of great economic benefits of the war as it did in the case of the Iraq war and in fact the US only came to support the intervention reluctantly after other European allies had argued for it.

Right now, whether the intervention will turn out to be of net benefit to the Libyans is not clear, but it certainly looks like right now that humanitarian goals were the principle drivers of the intervention.
1. The intervention did not involve large numbers of troops. If one intends to take over a country one needs to either bomb it senseless or put a lot of troops on the ground to control the country. There is no evidence that the Libyan intervention involved either of these strategies.
2. The rebels succeeded without a lot of foreign troop support. It might seem like just bombing the crap out of Gaddafi's supporters would have been enough even if there wasn't a lot of rebel support. I doubt it. Overwhelming air superiority didn't exactly translate into rapid fire victories in the Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq for the US.
3. An almost unanimous consensus involving disparate countries seemed to support at least some kinds of intervention in Libya. It seems unlikely that this kind of consensus could have been created for a war driven mostly by commercial interests.

 

[RandFan]

But as a counter-argument, that says nothing about whether it was right or wrong. Unless one has a purist might makes right outlook. Do you?

CL could you answer the questions I posed in post #143?

 

[Virus]

They hate our fweedoms.

“With each newly minted crisis, US leaders roll out the same time-tested scenario. They start demonizing a foreign leader … charging them with being communistic or otherwise dictatorial, dangerously aggressive, power hungry, genocidal, given to terrorism or drug trafficking, ready to deny us access to vital resources, harboring weapons of mass destruction, or just inexplicably “anti-American” and “anti-West.” Lacking any information to the contrary, the frightened public … are swept along.”

- Michael Parenti

Michael Parenti is a Truther.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Pardalis, how do we not know they were not bodies of Government fighters killed by NATO in the last furious assaults on Tripoli as the rebels swept in.

Either burnt by the loyalists because they were decomposing and there were no funeral services operating.

Or burnt by the rebels because it was the easiest way to cover up the cause of death.

At the moment the main "proof" seems to be an old man standing outside saying he miraculously managed to escape from the warehouse massacre but his three sons didn't. Which is 101 from the CIA and MI6 handbook of hate propaganda.

Although nothing would surprise me less if there were killings of prisoners, since many of the loyalists expect to be killed themselves. The Independent newspaper in London (Russian owned) is also provided reports of revenge killings of Gaddafi supporters. Such is the inevitable result if you embark on a policy of starting a civil war in a country formerly at peace.

I think it would be a plausible that these bodies in an army barracks could have resulted from NATO air attacks, but let there be no doubt: that NATO air attacks MUST have resulted in many many scenes that look identical to what is in that warehouse. For Pardalis, no doubt these were people who deserved to die and he is very happy to see it given to them.

But one thing is for sure, the international media will not be showing us the dead bodies of NATO bombing missions - unless they can in some way be manipulated into being Gaddafi atrocities.

Just as the international media concealed clips of a Benghazi mob beheading live, trussed up soldiers in the main square. It doesn't fit the narrative.

Here is the original Reuters report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/uk-libya-bodies-idUSTRE77Q1XO20110827

LONDON | Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:07pm EDT

(Reuters) - The charred remains of around 53 people have been found in a warehouse in the Libyan capital Tripoli, apparently opponents of Muammar Gaddafi who were executed as his rule collapsed, Britain's Sky News reported on Saturday.

Sky broadcast pictures of a heap of burnt skeletons, still smouldering, in an agricultural warehouse in southern Tripoli, where the victims were apparently prisoners.

Witnesses believed the dead had been gunned down and set on fire by pro-Gaddafi forces on August 23 and 24 as the veteran leader's rule collapsed in the face of a rebel advance, it added.

The network's correspondent, Stuart Ramsay, estimated there were 53 bodies and said local residents believed as many as 150 people may have been killed there.

Ramsay said it was unclear if they were soldiers or civilians.

I have seen the Sky footage, they are literally smouldering, still smoking. Since this is either Saturday or maybe Friday, the bodies have to been burned by the rebels (or now government - albeit a government which seems allowed to attack the civilians of Sirte without fear of Nato interference). There is no way a fire which must have been nothing more than some kind of accelerant on a concrete floor could have smouldered for 4 days.

The rebels found three bound, executed bodies in military uniform outside the warehouse, it said. Local people believed these soldiers had been killed because they refused to shoot the people being held inside the warehouse, it said.

Uh-huh.

More likely we have 50 plus bodies of Libyan soldiers killed by NATO and perhaps a few by the rebels and it is being presented as a Gaddafi war crime.

Plus ca change...

 

[Caustic Logic]

I personally would like to see this stay here rather than CT. I'll refrain from any too conspiratorial musings on the how, if that helps.

Davefoc raises good questions I could address about whether this being an oil or interest-based takeover makes sense. I don't have time now for a full answer with sources, but yes, I think it does. Not so much for the U.S. but for Europe (and this is a Western war, with France usually in the lead) oil access from Libya would be greatly improved with a change in regime to the NTC. Free market reformers, privatizers, clearly by the resumes of those who've been named all along. No Arab Socialist green book types among them I know of.

Now, on the burned skeletons that, once again, of these many victims the rebels were just a bit too late to save - and yes, this gets conspiratorial, but the main point is to question the moral basis of the war. False humanitarian claims negligently accepted, are in fact evidence of ulterior motives looking for cover. Therefore, it's a valid part of this current events discussion.

I still haven't closely examined the case at hand, but I gather numerous eyewitnesses confirm rebel supporter types were burned alive here, after a captivity, by the ruthless (Khamis brigade themselves?) before they fled.

In other news, Citizen Investigation Team has 13 witnesses claimed (three or so for real, so on par with this story) who swear to God Flight 77 flew north of the Citgo gas station ten years ago, and therefore could NOT have impacted the Pentagon as the evidence suggests it did!

No good comparison, I know. It's not even possible that Aldo, Craig, Lagasse, Brooks, or Turcios were arranging this misdirection to cover their own role in 9/11. (tho I do think they did conspire, perhaps thru intermediaries, for completely trivial reasons that no longer matter to me).

Whereas in this case, the likelihood of lies covering mass murder (or guesses by affiliates unconnected with the actual killings) is considerably higher.

---
But to be fair, hasn't it been shown before the regime has in fact burned people alive? Particularly soldiers who refused to shoot protesters in the early days, or so it was said? Can anyone help me track down a good source on that?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Here's an interesting take on these claims (and I'm wondering more and more why this thread isn't in the CT forum): My New Favorite Conspiracy Theory: Libya, Obama and The Obamabot Private Army

Could some one please fill me in here. Just who is claiming this conspiracy exists and what is the actual evidence? A short summary is all I ask.

I don't see that as connected to the basic takeover in discussion, of Libya. That's just a weird guy riling up some base his advisors told him to rile up with fantasies of a takeover of the US, over, something, connected I guess, to this fairly popular war.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay, I Missed this:

Loaded question. The point is that it's not always so black and white. FWIW: I didn't support the actions taken but I'm curious, how was the intervention anti-democratic? Also, didn't the Libyan people rise up? I mean, let's have some honesty here, the UN didn't launch an invasion against Libya. It was only after the people decided to oust Gadhafi and he, Moammar, decided to use weapons against his own people that the UN intervened. I'm really not sure how that is anti-democratic.

Emphasis on that. For one, the recognized government of Libya that's taking over, the NTC and its unclear principles, has leaders selected by ... unknown processes of convergence ... to emerge as "leaders of "the people," half unnamed 'til recently. "The people" always meant those who rejected Gaddafi's rule. I'm sure they numbered in the tens of thousands at least, probably well into the hundreds, but beyond that, I'm not sure. Might be a majority. Might just be a slogan.

I gather the vibe from a few sources aside from the mood among the front-line (rebel) fighters the news has shown us mostly.

There was a tribal gathering in May, and another even in August, where representatives of hundreds of tribes said no to NATO and insisted Libya should stay united and under Gaddafi's control. Interestingly, it was not unaymous (at least not in May) but a clear and vast majority resented the choice imposed on them. I'm curious what they said in August. I'll have to look that up sometime...

Right or wrong in our eyes, they represent Libyan society to some degree, surely? They're kind of supposed to, in ways. Hence the gatherings.

Nearly ine in six people in all Libya, standing at the same time in Green Square, July 1 I think, to say the same thing, was noteworthy. Perhaps a million more in many other cities did the same on the same day. After what the world was telling them - this new government will take over, and has, says us. They still said, please, no. A good chunk of the population itself, representing an unknown number of others unable to show up (some behind enemy lines have had to stay hidden entirely, for example, and some were off fighting and being bombed into squishy messes by NATO).

To counter this, no one has polled all Libya to prove the rebels actually represent any sort of majority, have they? Not among the 10,000 or more loyal soldiers we were forced to kill or among the 1,100 or more civilians bombed? No vote there.

ETA: Not directing the harshness of my view at you, do mind.

It is interesting that the Arab league endorsed the no-fly zones over Libya. As a practical matter without this the NATO involvement wouldn't have happened. Russia at least would have vetoed any UN resolution that authorized it as it was I believe the security council approved the no-fly zone enforcement unanimously.

Could you explain how that effects the notion of a takeover? If the US and Europe are capable of agreeing to take someone down for ulterior motives, isn't it possible for a few Arab leaders to find reason to join in and give it a nicer flavor? A bit of hummus with your Western imperialism, world opinion?

 

[funk de fino]

Ooh, help the confused! There was absolutely a minority of Libyns who for their reasons despised Gaddafi as much as the West or more.

Not in my experience. I would like a source for your claim because pretty much every Libyan I talked to in the country wanted rid of him. They said it with hushed tones and in confidence though. Now we know why eh?

So no, no orders to slaughter civilians. The rebels made up the stories, and the media - who love to make Gaddafi look bad, just believed and repeated the reports which "cannot be independently confirmed."

Help any?

Except a lot of us saw firing on protestors it on the news. You seem to have a blindspot to these things.

 

[funk de fino]

Could you explain how that effects the notion of a takeover? If the US and Europe are capable of agreeing to take someone down for ulterior motives, isn't it possible for a few Arab leaders to find reason to join in and give it a nicer flavor? A bit of hummus with your Western imperialism, world opinion?

Another speculative CT fantasy. This gets better.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Caustic Logic and Little grey rabbit, could one or both of you post your best evidence (a link) not your summaries, I know you've already said a lot and I'm not trying to make work for you. These threads were merged and I just don't want to review 5 pages.

So far I'm not seeing a lot of credible evidence and the claims are along the lines of other 'great' conspiracies, they just involve impossible plotting. The US does a lot of bad things, IMO. But it's mostly stuff like that described in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" not stuff like the imaginary secret cabals of the 911 Truther claims. Staging a Gulf of Tonkin incident to make an invasion palatable to the public, using the 911 attack as an excuse to invade Iraq are documented events. But faking a popular uprising the backing it with NATO forces is way more than the things we've seen occur.

This sounds closer to the secret cabal of the too much TV, too many movies crowd. Sorry. I'm still willing to look at evidence but I'm not willing to believe Trilateral Commission style secret plots. Certainly the US has picked which leaders in the current MidEast unrest to attack, letting other atrocities go unaddressed. But you are claiming something much more than that and it is an extraordinary claim.

 

[RandFan]

Emphasis on that. For one, the recognized government of Libya that's taking over, the NTC and its unclear principles, has leaders selected by ... unknown processes of convergence ... to emerge as "leaders of "the people," half unnamed 'til recently. "The people" always meant those who rejected Gaddafi's rule. I'm sure they numbered in the tens of thousands at least, probably well into the hundreds, but beyond that, I'm not sure. Might be a majority. Might just be a slogan.

Hang on there. Perhaps I've swallowed a whole lot of nonsense and you are on to something. How long was Gaddafi in power? How many elections were held during his reign? Didn't Gaddafi abolish the Constitution? Why is he called a "dictator"? Why is he listed as an autocrat in Wiki?

I'm sorry but I'm afraid this is an awfully big sticking point. Overthrowing a dictator for something unknown ISN'T anti-democratic.

Get back to me on that?

I gather the vibe from a few sources aside from the mood among the front-line (rebel) fighters the news has shown us mostly.

There was a tribal gathering in May, and another even in August, where representatives of hundreds of tribes said no to NATO and insisted Libya should stay united and under Gaddafi's control. Interestingly, it was not unaymous (at least not in May) but a clear and vast majority resented the choice imposed on them. I'm curious what they said in August. I'll have to look that up sometime...

Right or wrong in our eyes, they represent Libyan society to some degree, surely? They're kind of supposed to, in ways. Hence the gatherings.

Nearly ine in six people in all Libya, standing at the same time in Green Square, July 1 I think, to say the same thing, was noteworthy. Perhaps a million more in many other cities did the same on the same day. After what the world was telling them - this new government will take over, and has, says us. They still said, please, no. A good chunk of the population itself, representing an unknown number of others unable to show up (some behind enemy lines have had to stay hidden entirely, for example, and some were off fighting and being bombed into squishy messes by NATO).

I'm going to wait on this.

To counter this, no one has polled all Libya to prove the rebels actually represent any sort of majority, have they? Not among the 10,000 or more loyal soldiers we were forced to kill or among the 1,100 or more civilians bombed? No vote there.

Unless there is a military coup, you don't overthrow a powerful dictator without support from the people. That's silly in the extreme.

Dictatorships are, by definition, anti-democratic.

ETA: Not directing the harshness of my view at you, do mind.

I don't care about that at all. I care about the terms used. If people rise up against a dictator I suppose it's possible that a few could overthrow the dictator against the people's wishes but I seriously doubt it.

Could you explain how that effects the notion of a takeover? If the US and Europe are capable of agreeing to take someone down for ulterior motives, isn't it possible for a few Arab leaders to find reason to join in and give it a nicer flavor? A bit of hummus with your Western imperialism, world opinion?

You have a point. It would be tragic to overthrow a dictator. If people are being oppressed by god they ought to keep their damn mouths shut about it until there is an election.... oh, wait.

Sorry to be snarky. You know, I don't mind people criticizing western imperialism. That's fine. I don't like the term. I prefer hegemony as that is more accurate and it is not loaded. However I very much mind people defending dictators. Look, I wasn't behind the UN actions. I get that there are many reasons to leave a bad situation in place because things might get worse. If the US or the UN decides unilaterally to overthrow a dictator that's a bit arrogant. But what's even more arrogant is to question the right of the people to overthrow an oppressive regime. If the UN then wants to help them I might disagree but I'm not going to call them anti-democratic. You can if you want but it strikes me as very silly.

Sorry.