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

[little grey rabbit]

The Libyan army is conducting operations in Misrata exactly how you would expect the Americans would have conducted operations in Fallujah if a fleet of Alien spaceships destroyed any armored vehicle that approached the city and shot down every plane or helicopter. And if this same fleet of aliens was allowing uninterrupted flow into Fallujah of small and medium arms and ammunition, as well as reinforcements. Additionally if the Aliens had hinted to the Fallujah insurgents that they would not be allowed to fail, but it might be helpful if their was a steady stream of atrocity propaganda to help the Alien leadership politically.

Under those conditions the Americans would have found taking Falluajah much more difficult and the insurgents would have resisted correspondingly longer and more effectively.

In another words the conditions in Misrata are being determined by the actions of NATO who are intervening to prevent the insurgents from being defeated. And those actions and those hints and assurances not been given, we could have expected both insurgents to have been cleared out of both cities much sooner and with less bloodshed all round.

McHronzi, why on earth do you care so much about what happens to Libyans anyway? Do you care about what happens in Somalia? Or Ivory Coast? Or Nigeria? Or Caucases? Or Congo? Or a host of other places we never feel particularly concerned about normally?

For pete's sake if you want to kill Gadaffi, go in and do properly and stop this vicious grinding down on ordinary Libyans to try and compell them to do something they obviously don't wish to do.

 

[little grey rabbit]

When did Bush say that anyone in Iraq who didn't support the invasion didn't deserve to live?

If he never said that, please admit you were lying.

Sailed right over your head didn't it?

Nor did Gadaffi ever say anyone who didnt support him didn't deserve to live. But what both Bushitler and Gadaffi did say is anyone who carried out armed operations against the occupying Americans or the national Libyan army within the cities of Fallujah and Benghazi would be hunted down.

 

[McHrozni]

The Libyan army is conducting operations in Misrata exactly how you would expect the Americans would have conducted operations in Fallujah if a fleet of Alien spaceships destroyed any armored vehicle that approached the city and shot down every plane or helicopter.

And that makes Quackdaffis' actions in Misrata right?

McHronzi, why on earth do you care so much about what happens to Libyans anyway?

It's McHrozni, not McHronzi.
It's Earth, not earth.

And why shouldn't I care about what happens in Libya? Your assertion that I can only care about Libya if I equally care about every other problematic place on Earth is simply retarded.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

Except that massacring helpless civilian population once you capture their cities is a lot easier to do than any of those things.

No, it's not. A handful of dedicated people with semtex is enough to commit a series of terrorist attacks.

For a massacre you need a clear case of 'us versus them'. Libya is too fractured for that, with about 300 different tribes with varying inter-tribal loyalties.

Of course the civil war that's now going on might in time create an 'us versus them'-mentality, which could lead to real massacres.

Seeing as that most of them were essentially evacuated before his forces, I don't find that exactly surprising.

It's normal for people to flee from the fighting. How many have stayed behind?

But without the military intervention the rebels would have already been defeated, and the flow of refugees stopped.

 

[egslim]

And that makes Quackdaffis' actions in Misrata right?

In war the goal is to win.

Right and wrong are not so important, because history is written by the winners anyway.

 

[Childlike Empress]

But without the military intervention the rebels would have already been defeated, and the flow of refugees stopped.

 

[McHrozni]

In war the goal is to win.

Right and wrong are not so important, because history is written by the winners anyway.

Is that a "yes"?

No, it's not. A handful of dedicated people with semtex is enough to commit a series of terrorist attacks.

I suspect Quackdaffi has better places to use loyal operatives. With half of his government running away, any loyal men are desperately needed to quell unrest at home.
In other words, in this particular case you don't even get close.

It's normal for people to flee from the fighting. How many have stayed behind?

How many have been internally displaced?

But without the military intervention the rebels would have already been defeated, and the flow of refugees stopped.

Am I correct in the assumption that you consider the crimes of Quackdaffi regime during this war acceptable?

McHrozni

 

[Childlike Empress]

His name is Gaddafi, McHrzoni. 5 minutes of hate makes you feel good and strong, eh? Well conditioned.

 

[Virus]

Right and wrong are not so important, because history is written by the winners anyway.

Not really.

 

[little grey rabbit]

The Great Western Hate Machine grinds on.....
Save the Children says Libyan government forces rape children as weapon of war
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/23/us-libya-rape-idUSTRE73M1SW20110423

Actually what I really wanted to bring up this truly gutter journalism by the Guardian, who have managed to plumb a new depth. After reporting on Friday on newly liberated sections of Misrata having a number of carbonised Libyan soldiers - presumably the victims of NATO Predator strikes - as I don't think the rebels have that kind of weaponry.

The Guardian now spruiking these highly graphic photos.
1. Of a carbonised body - presumably victim of a predator hellfire missile
- but rebadged as a civilian - "father"
GRAPHIC - http://twitpic.com/4p77cm - GRAPHIC

2. Then along side that a picture of a child, who is clearly alive and most likely not even hurt. His eyes are slits and the pupils can be seen looking at the camera. But the deceitful impression is that this a child who died, although obviously uncarbonised and most likely unhurt
NOT REALLY GRAPHIC http://twitpic.com/4p6zbz [but there are graphic thumbnails alongside ]

All is fair in love and war, and I guess you can hardly blame the insurgents for trying such a trick. But it is deeply shameful for the Guardian to knowingly spruik this obvious propaganda.

 

[Mycroft]

The Great Western Hate Machine grinds on.....
Save the Children says Libyan government forces rape children as weapon of war
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/23/us-libya-rape-idUSTRE73M1SW20110423

From the article;

Michael Mahrt, who carried out the assessment, said the families and children spoke of "soldiers" committing the assaults, but the charity could not say which side they came from.

If you're claim is that the allegations are untrue, then what's the motivation of "Save the Children" to make them up?

If they have a political purpose, they why not identify one side or the other as the culprit? Who does it serve to be ambiguous about who is doing the raping?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Indeed, I don't see what that kid died from. Or his "dad." Looks like "hell fire" or something else quite extreme. Only one drone strike was acknowledged, I thought, a rocket launcher. Was this the guy manning it, or from some other strike? Or something else? I don't know.

And now we're at accusations of raping children! "Soldiers!" Clearly Gaddafi wicked demon soldiers!

Save The Children said it had spoken to nearly 300 children in six temporary camps in rebel-held Benghazi and heard reports of rapes and murders committed within the last four weeks...

Well that would make it pretty clear what's going on here, except thtat these rapes all happened

in Ras Lanuf, Ajdabiyah and Misrata.

Places NOT under unquestioned rebel control. In civilized Benghazi, rape of children has been eradicated, at least on their guided tours. (read about another rebel guided tour here)

From the article;

If you're claim is that the allegations are untrue, then what's the motivation of "Save the Children" to make them up?

If they have a political purpose, they why not identify one side or the other as the culprit? Who does it serve to be ambiguous about who is doing the raping?

It always winds up serving the war effort on the "wold" side. You say something bad happened, reportedly by the government, put out the pictures maybe (usually a bad move) and then just shut up once it's clarified this was something else.

The IFHR/FIDH refused to respond when I let them know their 130 soliders killed by their officers story was a rebel lie. That story is still sitting there as another atrocity. At the time, they called it "new credible information, and sometimes still difficult to verify." I've alerted them they're wrong, and no response or retraction I've seen (not that it would be re-posted as widely or undo the damage in any real way).

I haven't tested that yet with Unicef or HRW with regard to this snipers shooting kids claim. This is transparent disinfo, and all they can say is it's probably true.

Why exactly? I don't know. Maybe they just want to be on the winning side and help "clarify" things morally so maybe it can be won quicker? Would they get flak from governments if they spread "Gaddafi propaganda" that maybe rebels are faking these things, committing their own massacres, or raping children? They're John McCain's heroes, and recognized by Italy! They have NATO and CIA air support! No way can they be bad guys!

 

[Caustic Logic]

More evidence of hellfire:

In the Mujamaa Tibi hospital, Mohamed al-Fajieh recounted the results of the night's fighting, describing unusually severe wounds and corpses reduced to little more than ashes. There were "completely charred corpses, some of them so badly burned that we aren't sure they are human bodies," he said. "This is the first time we've seen such burns."

According to figures provided by sources at hospitals across Misrata, around a dozen people were killed and at least 20 wounded in the latest fighting. Sources have said those caught up in the violence were all civilians - men, women and young children.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...rough-in-misrata/story-e6frf7jx-1226044784215

Coincidence this Gaddafi super-weaponry only appears - to incinerate 100% civilians - right as the drone strikes begin?

 

[Mycroft]

It always winds up serving the war effort on the "wold" side. You say something bad happened, reportedly by the government, put out the pictures maybe (usually a bad move) and then just shut up once it's clarified this was something else.

Except they're not claiming the government did it, they're claiming they don't know who did it. And the agency making the claim is an NGO with no apparent reason to lie.

 

[egslim]

Is that a "yes"?

It's why your question is meaningless.

I suspect Quackdaffi has better places to use loyal operatives. With half of his government running away, any loyal men are desperately needed to quell unrest at home.
In other words, in this particular case you don't even get close.

More likely, Gadaffi sees no point in following up on his threat. A terrorist campaign from his side would increase support for the rebels, maybe even open the way for a ground campaign.

How many have been internally displaced?

I don't know. Do you? I do know it has become a lot worse since the intervention began.

Am I correct in the assumption that you consider the crimes of Quackdaffi regime during this war acceptable?

Let me explain with an easier example:
My mother developed cancer. After a period of protracted treatment, when I was 9yo, she told me the doctors had said it was terminal and she wouldn't have much longer to live. It would be an understatement to say I was upset. After completely breaking down I decided that if the doctors couldn't find a cure, I would have to. Took me a few days to realize the futility of that.

Now, let's rephrase your question for that situation: "Am I correct in the assumption that you consider your mother's death from cancer acceptable?"
Words can not express how completely unacceptable it was to me, at the same time, I had to resign myself to the inevitability of events in the real world.

The politicians who got us involved into Libya to save people there are like the 9yo me trying to concoct a medicine to cure my mother. Except as a 9yo I was merely naive, they're plain stupid.

Warcrimes are part of war. Only two exceptions:
- If one side is so overwhelmingly superior to allow a lightning and conclusive victory. Like Desert Storm.
- If one side knows they'll leave eventually anyway, they may refrain from warcrimes because they care more about being nice than about winning. Like NATO in Afghanistan.
Your disapproval of warcrimes in the Libyan civil war is as meaningful as complaining about a serial killer breaking the law against handguns.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Except they're not claiming the government did it, they're claiming they don't know who did it. And the agency making the claim is an NGO with no apparent reason to lie.

"wold" was supposed to be "world" of course. They don't have to claim the government did it. People will half-believe it, or 3/4 or even 100%, just from the past "facts" we've been hearing for months. Rather, decades. The bad guys do the bad things, obviously.

Do you doubt that bias exists to an astounding degree? Who out there will read this and decide we have to "save the children" from perverts among the freedom-fighter camp? That's an uphill battle to start without even any specifics, considering they're becoming the recognized government of Libya day by day.

True, NGOs have no obvious reason to lie. But they keep being verifiably wrong, and it's consistently on the side of making alarming claims that lean towards implicating the Gaddafi regime, facts be damned. I don't know a lot about how they work behind the scenes, where their funding comes from, who appoints their directors and from what schools and networks, etc. All I'm going by is what I see them doing.

The politicians who got us involved into Libya to save people there are like the 9yo me trying to concoct a medicine to cure my mother. Except as a 9yo I was merely naive, they're plain stupid.

And it appears they carbonized their first innocent family on the first day of drone attacks to save those civilians. Lovely. Luckily people might find a way to blame Gaddafi's sneaky forces for even this ...

I've e-mailed Hala Jaber with questions about these pictures (not expecting a response, but who knows?). She claims it's a family, but shows three photos only. One is said to be the father, whose wife and child were also carbonized. Another is the same guy, very, very messed up (but dry, so not technically a bloody picture). The third is the non-carbonized kid, who's named, but not specified as part of the same family. I didn't bother asking if he was really dead. But his eyes are frozen nearly closed but app. looking in the direction the picture's taken from. He's got mild abrasions on his forehead and some red splatters and baking soda on his sweater.

So it's confusing. But the one guy sounds a bit like this:

A positive identification may be difficult: the 5-ft.-long Hellfire turned the six people in the car into a mass of carbonized body parts. "They never knew they were in our sights," a U.S. official said. "And I can assure you, they never knew what hit them."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003721,00.html

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hey, she responded! Not much detail. She says the boy is not part of the carbonized family, which might have included five members, or three. Not sure if the ambiguity is from the state of remains or from an uncertainty in communication, etc.

Was hoping to finish the blog post before crashing, will wait to incorporate this and see what else develops, and hopefully be able to get it up tomorrow. It'll be at my whole new blog I need more traffic to.

BTW, LGR didn't include the link for her harrowing tweets:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/apr/25/libya-syria-middle-east-uprising-live

This is at least partly real, reports suggest familes, multiple plurals. Something weird is up. As I said to my new pen pal Hala,

This will become complex and huge. I predict it will be argued Gaddafi troops used shoulder-fired hellfires (??) to kill civilians to blame our drones and call that off. From my view, the regime get framed a lot (for Lockerbie, don't try to argue with me on that, and lately, for a cartoonish list of evils - snipers shooting kids in Misrata is explained as fakery on that site - again, explained well). But I admit it's the only explanation the world at large will buy, and even with my filters, it makes the most sense. It's certainly not a coincidence this happened as drone attacks started.

So I get to let another more-famous person know I exist and I'm apparently raving mad. But I'm also getting an unusual feeling that maybe the regime is guilty of something horrific like this - they would stand the most to gain, you'd think, maybe ??

ETA: If the world is half sane, this Google News search should show some articles within 12 hours addressing this. So far it doesn't.

 

[egslim]

Both Gadaffi and NATO/rebels have a strong motivation to make the other side look bad by accusing them of atrocities. Both sides will lie as much as they think they can get away with. Don't expect any honesty, from any of them.

Both the rebel forces and Gadaffi's include a lot of poorly trained, poorly disciplined combatants. Fighting in populated areas, with weapons a lot heavier than mere handguns. Under those circumstances attrocities are guaranteed, both by accident and because without proper discipline many fighters are bound to go off the deep end mentally.

I expect the rebels are responsible for most accidental civilian casualties, because they're the least competent. Gadaffi's forces are currently more likely to commit atrocities, because they're on the offensive and the rebels are unlikely to kill their own families in the towns they're trying to defend. If/when the rebels go on the offensive against towns loyal to Gadaffi that will be reversed and rebel-committed atrocities go on the rise.

Meanwhile NATO fighters fly with 900km/h at 5,000m height trying to make sense of who's who below and drop their bombs accordingly. That's bound to go wrong too.

 

[geni]

After reporting on Friday on newly liberated sections of Misrata having a number of carbonised Libyan soldiers - presumably the victims of NATO Predator strikes - as I don't think the rebels have that kind of weaponry.

The Guardian now spruiking these highly graphic photos.
1. Of a carbonised body - presumably victim of a predator hellfire missile
- but rebadged as a civilian - "father"
GRAPHIC - http://twitpic.com/4p77cm - GRAPHIC

There is at least some artillery in the area which means that there are plently of things that could do that kind of damage.

 

[geni]

Indeed, I don't see what that kid died from. Or his "dad." Looks like "hell fire" or something else quite extreme. Only one drone strike was acknowledged, I thought, a rocket launcher. Was this the guy manning it, or from some other strike? Or something else? I don't know.

Being next to the fuel of an exploding rocket launcher could have that effect yes.

I haven't tested that yet with Unicef or HRW with regard to this snipers shooting kids claim. This is transparent disinfo, and all they can say is it's probably true.

Gaddafi is unlikely to be able buy first class snippers so statisticaly you would expect the odd kid to get hit.