• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

No Fly zones over Libya?

As you know I am not an American and perhaps because of that I have often found Mount Rushmore to be a little... creepy. I mean, carving the faces of presidents into the side of a mountain is just a tad cult-of-personality-esque.
Except it was done after those people were long dead, and it was for the most American of reasons: to create a tourist attraction in the middle of nowhere. ;)
 
Last edited:
You are wilfully misrepresenting what I said.

The UN Security demanded a ceasefire, when Government forces retreated 150 kilometers for whatever reason they had effectively ceased fire.

When the rebels chased them 150 kilometers down the road and attacked them, they made a ceasefire impossible.
At that point, under the UN Security resolution NATO was obliged to turn their missiles on the rebels for a blatent breach of the ceasefire
I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. I'll repeat myself: "I just don't care about it [the ceasefire, ed]"

In a conflict between irregular forces, and even the Libyan army can barely considered regular, the whole concept of a ceasefire is meaningless, pointless and useless.

We're preventing a megalomaniac from slaughtering his population. Grab a tissue and deal with it.
Instead our actions may result in a full-blown civil war, or the slaughter of Gadaffi-loyalists by rebels. Civil wars are more destructive and deadly than the average brutal dictator.

Don't grab the champaign just yet.
 
I am all ears, twinstead. Please explain the meaning of the word ceasefire to me - because I was absolutely certain I knew the definition of it a few days ago.

Now everyone seems to be working off a secret dictionary that I know nothing about.

It's not a contradiction. It's a one-sided cease fire. That rebel fighter jet shot down ... by whom? Going to do what to whom? Broke the cease fire. Gaddafi was demanded to cease fire, air, land and sea, not the rebels. He cannot attack or resist protesters, not held cities, not advancing forces. Get over it, holocaust denier. This is us protecting freedom of expression.

ETA: Expression like this.
 
Last edited:
The evidence points to the "Allies" aiming to kill Kadhaffi

I can refer you back to the link I provided earlier and would be happy to translate it to you where a french member of the Ministry of Defence says exactly the opposite to the quote you have, quote that is "potential/might/provided".

Actions on the field as of now seems to point that military action is limited (as much as this word has any meaning when force is applied). There's no "Shock & Awe", we are not levelling cities, targets seems to be mostly forces surrounding rebel cities, air and military assets (and as a pre-emptive note: no I am not saying that civilian casualties have been and will be avoided).

Of course, it is no secret that this military intervention is favoring the rebels and as such aims to remove the regime, maybe not as a direct result of the armed conflict, but in the process that may follow. The gamble -IMHO- is that Kadhaffi regime will not be able to support any intern dissent, if and once we are able to provide a safe haven for it.

If we learned anything from the Iraq war, it was that killing a single man, even as prominent as the leader, via airstrikes, is not really practical. Then again, military doctrine is not always learning fast enough from its mistakes.
 
Last edited:
What evidence do you have that the rebels are interested in establishing a democracy or "political discourse between opposing parties"?

What evidence do you have that the West is somehow involved with them "from the beginning", as you claimed earlier. YOu still haven't backed this up with evidence.

You thought we'd forget about that one?


Western special forces have been on the ground and involved with the armed insurrection from the start.


Still no proof.
 
Last edited:
Without the show of airpower Benghazi would currently be overrun and massacred
by fascist supporters as Qaddafi promised he would do.

Umm Gaddafi's promised supporters are soviet (well mostly his local communities model is basicaly a varation on the old soviet idea) not fascist. Sometimes I think you don't understand fascism at all.
 
George Galloway on the West's Libya intervention:


"The Arab League, without exception, is a collection of puppet presidents, corrupt kings, every one of them a dictator, every one of them now shooting their own people who are demonstrating for democracy...

..British men and women and taxes being used to put one group of people in Libya in power rather than another? No thanks."

Galloway is a paid puppet of the Iranian regime. He works for PressTV, the propaganda outlet of the Iranian government.

I guess that makes him OK in your view, right?

No human rights abuses, oppression and corruption in Iran?
 
Umm Gaddafi's promised supporters are soviet (well mostly his local communities model is basicaly a varation on the old soviet idea) not fascist. Sometimes I think you don't understand fascism at all.

The differance between the soviets and fascists was inconsequential in this aspect. Political extremes naturally gravitate towards their own antithesis.

McHrozni
 
Also caught a later edit:

The Imperialism/oil angle relates to the motives for Western intervention, not to the internal affairs of the Libyan soup.

L'Orient compliqué (and the simplistic West).

The demands and grievances of Libyan protestors all over Libya have been falsely conflated with on armed group of rebels from an opposing tribe in the east.

Please enlighten me and point to the documentation that allows you to make such clear cut distinctions.
 
Last edited:
The differance between the soviets and fascists was inconsequential in this aspect.

That sentence doesn't even scan in the context of goverment types. You do know what a soviet is?
 
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but who here thinks that the missile strike in the Gadaffi compound of the building behind the stupid fist statue was partially a big F.U. to Uncle Mohmar?
 
The demands and grievances of Libyan protestors all over Libya have been falsely conflated with on armed group of rebels from an opposing tribe in the east.

I cannot wait to see you prove this.

And quoting Galloway? Too funny.
 
i'm not exactly comfortable with us trying to kill leaders we do not like.

I want Qaddafi to face war-crimes trials.
 
I got a feeling that "we are not targeting Gadaffi, just his C and C for the military" might be a distinction without a practical difference.

Questionable. After all it seems unlikely that he would be stupid enough to be in his compound at this point. Targetuing Gadaffi would almost certianly involve some very good human intelligance which I doubt we have.
 
I had been posting lots of BBC news snippets but one interesting string I left out.

There was a group of civilian "human shields" who had gathered at the Gaddafi compound to protect him. They thought he was inside and was supposed to come out to address them all at some point. A Twitter text came in from a witness on the scene. He said that darkness was coming and no sign of Gaddafi. He would much later address the people via phone from some other location. Anyway, suddenly there was a flurry of calls to cellphones amongst the crowd and they began whispering to each other. Everybody packed their stuff and got the hell out of the compound.

Hours later when nobody was around anymore the cruise missiles hit the administration building.

The presumption was that they were warned that the compound was a ripe target and that they might die if they stayed there. The human shields fled for their own lives. Ironic!
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom