Merged Siege of Sirte: Justified or Genocide? / BBC advocates "Ethnic Cleansing" in Libya?

[Caustic Logic]

Siege of Sirte: Justified or Genocide? / BBC advocates "Ethnic Cleansing" in Libya?

It seems the idea is to cut off all electricity, food, water, medicine, anything to live, and simply demand eveyone come out if they want to live.

U.N. officials do not have direct contact with pro-Gaddafi forces in Sirte, where both sides accuse the other of cutting off water and electricity, the U.N. source said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/us-libya-aid-idUSTRE78S4EG20110929

Yes, the rebels say Gaddafi turned the water off to his own city. It's the first time in the war the water's been turned off on anyone. When Gaddafi made a veiled threat to do it to Benghazi, he was again decried as a genocidal maniac.

I used to think "genocide" had to have a "geno"or racial/genetic/ethnic aspect to it, but I understand it'sgenerally used in a broader sense that by several criteria makes NATO and the rebels ("Libyan government") guilty of genocide at the moment.

Several residents said they were leaving Sirte because they had not eaten for days.
[...]
Doctors at a field hospital near the eastern front line said an elderly woman died from malnutrition Friday morning and they had seen other cases.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/newspaper/news/sc-nw-1001-libya--20111001,0,4335573.story

Those who leave have surrendered to the "NATO rats" and face the rebel gauntlet. There are reports of women being abducted, I guess for being pretty, and many men are arrested for even trifling "crimes." As one fighter said:

“‘We’re going to punish even those that supported Moammar with words,’ said a bearded fighter to a man who protested his detention. ‘We are the knights that liberated Libya.’ ”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/liby-s29.shtml

Others are shot dead while trying to leave, but by which side is kept vague. Some who surrender as journalists are near often raise rebel ire by mentioning the massive shelling and bombing hitting hospitals, shools, and homes. Estimates inside are that at least 3,000 have been killed in the last month or so, most of them civilians. NATO and the rebels are pretty sure the number is roughly zero. Here is video of some of the young and old victims.

And here's the latest by video, CNN and TeleSur (Eng subs), on how the rebels used fakery to prevent, yet again, Red Cross assistance, and blamed it on Gaddafi. It's an enforced black hole, a brutal medieval style siege worse than anything Misrata endured, if only for the fact that no one's breaking the blockade to help this time.

Many thousands of people still reportedly refuse to surrender to the "rats" who they really feel have no such right to demand it. They insist on staying/fighting to the death. What should be their punishment, really?

 

[Cuddles]

I used to think "genocide" had to have a "geno"or racial/genetic/ethnic aspect to it, but I understand it'sgenerally used in a broader sense

You might want to work on your understanding:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

[McHrozni]

It's an enforced black hole, a brutal medieval style siege worse than anything Misrata endured, if only for the fact that no one's breaking the blockade to help this time.

You didn't seem to have a major problem with how Quackdaffi's forces behaven in Misrata or Bhengazi or the western mountains. "It's only natural to fight the rebels" or something along these lines. I really don't see why you should suddenly become upset about this particular siege, which isn't being executed a whole lot worse than those battles.

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

Cuddles, I have updated my definition from the literally correct one to the standard usage. That's why I feel confident calling this NATO/NTC genocide, in the national group aspect. Military and civilian nationals of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya who refuse to defect to NATO Libya are being pushed to the point of death or surrender, and the world is pretty much silent on it.

You didn't seem to have a major problem with how Quackdaffi's forces behaven in Misrata or Bhengazi or the western mountains. "It's only natural to fight the rebels" or something along these lines. I really don't see why you should suddenly become upset about this particular siege, which isn't being executed a whole lot worse than those battles.

McHrozni

So your good guys are behaving at least a bit worse than the insane butcher bad guy whose cosmic badness justifies all that's happened the last six months? That in itself is interesting I should think. But you're still
not even sensing a blurring of the lines between good guys and bad guys, are you?

I think it's far worse than Misrata. The water was never shut off there. Medicine, food, even weapons and fighters were brought in against the blockade, no searching allowed prior to docking. That's all the blockade demanded by the way - search for weapons and fighters before docking in the rebel city during wartime. The rest could go in, at least in theory, but the world defied it because they wanted a break-out, not just survival, for the Misratans. And they finally broke out and got their revenge (see: Tawergha, Tripoli, Sirte, etc.).

In comparison, Sirte is a black hole with no help allowed, no break out possible. The Red Cross trucks did try to break the de facto medical blockade;they subjected themselves to search, no weapons or fighters found. So they were allowed to drive a few feet before the rebels started shooting at nothing, claiming Gaddafi started it, forcing them to turn back. That's just ******* sick. It's genocide, I say.

Anyway, thanks for the comments and thoughts, limited as they are so far. Can anyone show how my understanding of the siege there is wrong, or how this kind of total blockade of life is legal or acceptable under normal circumstances? And is there any specific abnormality with this situation justifying such a huge deviation?

 

[hgc]

Yes, the rebels say Gaddafi turned the water off to his own city. ...

I've got an update for you. The "rebels" are now the government of Libya. Gaddafi is the rebel now. Wrap your mind around that.

 

[Pacal]

i've got an update for you. The "rebels" are now the government of libya. Gaddafi is the rebel now. Wrap your mind around that.

xxxxxxx

 

[Parsman]

So Caustic Logic believes the forces of Uncle Gadaffi allowed free passage to anything but military supplies to Misrata when he had it under siege? I believe I am begining to see some evidence of confirmation bias here.

 

[McHrozni]

So your good guys are behaving at least a bit worse than the insane butcher bad guy whose cosmic badness justifies all that's happened the last six months?

No, they're behaving significantly better. I really don't see why you of all people should have any problem with their conduct, even if they were behaving comparably badly.

I think it's far worse than Misrata. The water was never shut off there. Medicine, food, even weapons and fighters were brought in against the blockade, no searching allowed prior to docking.

On the other hand, civilians were allowed to flee in relative safety - and many did. Cutting off food, water and medicine to enemy combatants is perfectly legal and legitemate, as is firing at their positions more or less indiscriminately.

But let's get back to the point. You didn't have a problem with the siege of Misrata, but you have a problem with the siege of Sirt. Can you make up a legitemate reason, or you're just upset because you want Quackdaffi to win and you're coming to realization (albeit very slowly) that's not going to happen?

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

I've got an update for you. The "rebels" are now the government of Libya. Gaddafi is the rebel now. Wrap your mind around that.

When exactly did that switchover happen? Can you put a date on it? Myself, I still have never recognized them as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people. So while I acknowledge they're in general de facto control of the country and its water supply, etc., I don't have to recognize it as legitimate, and as for de jure, depends on whose jure.

But if you must be pedantic about it, the new (unelected, NATO-backed, free-market obsessed, and genocidal) government of Libya, or at least its frontline commanders, have turned off the water supply to Sirte and publicly claimed they turned it off on themselves.

Are you okay with that, or any of the rest of these extreme privations, so long as we call it the government of Libya that's committing this genocide against a segment of Libya's people? Wasn't long ago that charge had people demanding the government of Libya's overthrow, on much flimsier evidence of a claimed "genocide."

Pacal: all Xes indicate what? Just curious. If it's a secret code, I don't mean to pry.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So Caustic Logic believes the forces of Uncle Gadaffi allowed free passage to anything but military supplies to Misrata when he had it under siege? I believe I am begining to see some evidence of confirmation bias here.

Evidence to the contrary?

No, they're behaving significantly better.

What? When was the water turned off, food embargoed, medicine blocked, as the city withstood shelling and rockets AND powerful NATO bombs, with no outside assistance? I understand harsh things did happen, and other were alleged (and widely accepted), and perhaps thousands killed-over several months. Here we have best estimates of 3,000 plus in less than a month.

I really don't see why you of all people should have any problem with their conduct, even if they were behaving comparably badly.

Because in my opinion, Libya was fighting for its national survival and independence. The rebels/new "government" fight for greater access by NATO outsiders to Libya's oil and other riches.

Disagree? Fine. But that's a big part of why I make a distinction, aside from the relative barbarity difference.

On the other hand, civilians were allowed to flee in relative safety -

Same in Misrata, if they surrendered. Few did, and the world encouraged that, arming and supplying them to resist and eventually break out. Here the reaction is the opposite.People are atleast implicitlyagreeing THESE Libyans must just surrender.

and many did. Cutting off food, water and medicine to enemy combatants is perfectly legal and legitemate, as is firing at their positions more or less indiscriminately.

Maybe, I'm no expert. But there are a lot of civilians too, staying on principle. Voluntary human shields, as it were. Some perhaps involuntary (its alleged anyhow). Does either make them legitimate targets? You'd say hell no when the question was applied to Misrata. But in Sirte it's fine, right?

But let's get back to the point. You didn't have a problem with the siege of Misrata, but you have a problem with the siege of Sirt. Can you make up a legitemate reason, or you're just upset because you want Quackdaffi to win and you're coming to realization (albeit very slowly) that's not going to happen?

McHrozni

No. I've been well aware for a while that Gaddafi's side would probably loose. The "realization" is not upsetting me.I am getting a bit sick of hate-filled sore winners (not necc. you) willing to sign off on any atrocity, so long as it finalizes their cartoon happy ending. The reasons, in part, are above.

 

[funk de fino]

I really wish you could have been in Libya during Gadaffis time. You would have a much better perspective than you do now. You just make stuff up and speculate. Easy from where you sit now eh?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I really wish you could have been in Libya during Gadaffis time. You would have a much better perspective than you do now. You just make stuff up and speculate. Easy from where you sit now eh?

Cameras and reporters are there right now, and better informed than either of us.

What's made up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgHw6eCEfI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzxr1zb6J0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFNxsqA-35E
http://www.algeria-isp.com/videos/p...sina-syrte-ete-bombarde-par-otan-septemb.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-in-sirte-raids/story-e6frg6so-1226148378383
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/us-libya-aid-idUSTRE78S4EG20110929
http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/newspaper/news/sc-nw-1001-libya--20111001,0,4335573.story
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10756081
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/liby-s29.shtml
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/09/17/nato-bombing-sirte-guernica/
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E7KM2CU20110922

 

[fuelair]

No, they're behaving significantly better. I really don't see why you of all people should have any problem with their conduct, even if they were behaving comparably badly.



On the other hand, civilians were allowed to flee in relative safety - and many did. Cutting off food, water and medicine to enemy combatants is perfectly legal and legitemate, as is firing at their positions more or less indiscriminately.

But let's get back to the point. You didn't have a problem with the siege of Misrata, but you have a problem with the siege of Sirt. Can you make up a legitemate reason, or you're just upset because you want Quackdaffi to win and you're coming to realization (albeit very slowly) that's not going to happen?

McHrozni

This might be a good place to put in a note about something that came up a lot due to incompetant persons who did not understand the Rules of War during conflicts between Israel and others: Enemy combatants must be in an identifying uniform. Rules about attacking locations like power, food storage, etc. do not apply if the enemy soldiers occupy or are hiding in/near same or are using same. Rules about attacking enemy combatants do not change if said combatants are hiding among civilians. At most, where it is possible, killing/harming civilians is to be avoided as much as possible while still allowing enemy combatants to be taken out (i.e.) if enemy combatants have surrounded themselves with civilians AND are firing weapons or are capable of and prepared to fire weapons, they may be attacked/killed even if doing so kills/wounds the civilians around them. The idea, though it is not phrased that way, is soldiers should not be around civilians - if they are it should/may/is allowed to put the civilians as well as the soldiers in danger, not protect cowards by allowing the soldiers to not be attacked because there are civilians present - more simply: if the civilians are to be protected, the soldier's locations must be well away from them and the soldiers should not be accessing power, water, etc. from civilian sources - if they are those sources are legitimate targets in war by the Rules of War.

 

[fuelair]

Evidence to the contrary?



What? When was the water turned off, food embargoed, medicine blocked, as the city withstood shelling and rockets AND powerful NATO bombs, with no outside assistance? I understand harsh things did happen, and other were alleged (and widely accepted), and perhaps thousands killed-over several months. Here we have best estimates of 3,000 plus in less than a month.



Because in my opinion, Libya was fighting for its national survival and independence. The rebels/new "government" fight for greater access by NATO outsiders to Libya's oil and other riches.

Disagree? Fine. But that's a big part of why I make a distinction, aside from the relative barbarity difference.


Same in Misrata, if they surrendered. Few did, and the world encouraged that, arming and supplying them to resist and eventually break out. Here the reaction is the opposite.People are atleast implicitlyagreeing THESE Libyans must just surrender.



Maybe, I'm no expert. But there are a lot of civilians too, staying on principle. Voluntary human shields, as it were. Some perhaps involuntary (its alleged anyhow). Does either make them legitimate targets? You'd say hell no when the question was applied to Misrata. But in Sirte it's fine, right?



No. I've been well aware for a while that Gaddafi's side would probably loose. The "realization" is not upsetting me.I am getting a bit sick of hate-filled sore winners (not necc. you) willing to sign off on any atrocity, so long as it finalizes their cartoon happy ending. The reasons, in part, are above.

You really do not follow/know/want to believe the Rules of war (note post 13 or look up the codified versions from the Hague and the UN on same). kuhdaffy's loyalists can't hide among civilians without making the civilians legitimate targets given the lack of guided drones and smart bombs there. If the civilians make themselves human shields, they have made themselves legitimate targets. Until people like you get it straight that ANY military agency/group that hides among civilians or uses civilian sources of supply or anything else makes the civilians accidental but legitimate targets in the fighting, this kind of claim will continue - and be shot down (as it were) in courts or equivalent. No military functions in cities, no military functions near supplies or power or using the civilian sources, no military supplies or power sources in cities means NO ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS. It's really very simple.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You really do not follow/know/want to believe the Rules of war (note post 13 or look up the codified versions from the Hague and the UN on same). kuhdaffy's loyalists can't hide among civilians without making the civilians legitimate targets given the lack of guided drones and smart bombs there. If the civilians make themselves human shields, they have made themselves legitimate targets. ...

Interesting. As I said, I'm no expert on these things. Do any of these considerations apply to the rebel forces of Misrata, who remained embedded for month amongst a city full of civilians, were called civilians themselves, and subjected the civilians to attack?

 

[hgc]

When exactly did that switchover happen? Can you put a date on it? Myself, I still have never recognized them as the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people. So while I acknowledge they're in general de facto control of the country and its water supply, etc., I don't have to recognize it as legitimate, and as for de jure, depends on whose jure.

Yeah, depends on whose jure. So I'll go with de facto, and that's about August 25, though I can't put an exact date on it, as things were really fluid and murky in those days in Tripoli.

For you to continue to pretend that Gaddafi is the government and these other guys are the "rebels" is just refusing to deal with reality. Are you trying to continue to grant legitimacy to Gaddafi by pretending he's still the leader of the country?

But if you must be pedantic about it, the new (unelected, NATO-backed, free-market obsessed, and genocidal) government of Libya, or at least its frontline commanders, have turned off the water supply to Sirte and publicly claimed they turned it off on themselves.

Are you okay with that, or any of the rest of these extreme privations, so long as we call it the government of Libya that's committing this genocide against a segment of Libya's people? Wasn't long ago that charge had people demanding the government of Libya's overthrow, on much flimsier evidence of a claimed "genocide."

No, I'm not OK with shutting off the water. But I'm not going to use this as a defense of Gaddafi's permanently lost role as leader of that beleaguered country.

 

[fuelair]

Interesting. As I said, I'm no expert on these things. Do any of these considerations apply to the rebel forces of Misrata, who remained embedded for month amongst a city full of civilians, were called civilians themselves, and subjected the civilians to attack?

If they are established as a legitimate military power, yes. If they are simply a random group of people calling themselves rebels, no - that becomes an internal policing function for which whatever the country's police procedures are covers.

Part of the problem in the middle-east is the presence and allowal of so many semi-military groups. As to outside of the area countries - if they are attacked by any group within a country and the country having those groups does not use it's police powers to arrest/contain them, then the country attacked is free to consider them agents of that country, declare war on that country and defend itself/attack the places the attackers hide in, etc. according to the RofW. (i.e. a country is responsible for it's people and cannot claim they have no control over X since X could simply be allowed by the country to operate quasi-militarily as desired by the country). RofW do not restrict legitimate self protection or permit seperation of a country from acts of it's citizens as if they were a military on another country. And they do not give cowards the right to hide among civilians without the civilians becoming legal targets (though reasonable effort must be reasonably made to not intentionally harm them).

 

[fuelair]

Interesting. As I said, I'm no expert on these things. Do any of these considerations apply to the rebel forces of Misrata, who remained embedded for month amongst a city full of civilians, were called civilians themselves, and subjected the civilians to attack?

Also, RofW do not apply to internal conflicts. Though it is really dumb and makes you look bad internationally if you don't at least semi-observe them.

 

[Pardalis]

What ethnic group is being genocided?

 

[Caustic Logic]

What ethnic group is being genocided?

See Cuddles' post and catch up. National groups are generally included, and the nationals of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya are being pushed to the point of death or abject surrender. So far many are preferring death, and by now I'm sure it's coming in steady waves, even when bombs and rockets aren't falling. Last I heard, days ago, they were down to macaroni and almost no water. It hasn't likely improved.

BTW, I just noticed your sig and I like it.