The Tribes of Libya Speak Again

[Caustic Logic]

Yesterday an important conference happened on Libya's future.

In Rome, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the best way to protect Libya's people is to get Gadhafi to leave power. "This is the outcome we are seeking," she told representatives from 22 nations and organizations.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libyan-regime-tribal-meeting-is-sign-of-support-1366997.php

And at the same time, another meeting of tribal leaders representing the majoirty of all Libyan people, also met of their own volition in Tripoli.

In Tripoli, meanwhile, foreign reporters were taken by government minders to a large tent where hundreds of tribal elders had gathered. Reporters were told that about 2,000 chiefs were present, that they represent 850 Libyan tribes [sic] and that the gathering was organized by the tribes, not the regime. The government also released a list of what it said were the names of the tribes.

"It's another proof that the Libyan people are rallying behind the leadership," Ibrahim said of the gathering. Several speakers at the conference called for national unity, urged rebels to disarm and demanded that the international community halt its bombing campaign, which began in mid-March with the aim of protecting Libyan civilians against Gadhafi's troops.

Forgive me again linking to myself, but it's got all the other links you'll need (so far).
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/05/tribal-gathering-of-may.html

"We reject the fighting in Libya...we strongly reject foreign intervention," declared Abed Abu Hamada , leader of the Megharbah tribe, in a speech to the televised gathering of white-robed elders. "We call on our brothers in the eastern regions – the armed ones, the misled ones – we call them to peaceful dialogue."
[...]
Even among the tribal leaders present, backing for the government was limited. [Plus one then for credibility] ... Nearly every speaker pledged allegiance to Col. Gadhafi. [plus five for relevance]
Mansour Khalaf, who heads Libya's largest tribe, the Warfalla, told reporters during the conference that although he denounces the uprising and supports Col. Gadhafi's leadership, he would not send armed followers to join the Libyan army's fight against the rebels, as some other tribes have vowed to do.

Rebel leaders [say] there's nothing to discuss as long as the Libyan leader remains in power.

What does this mean for the pro-democracy civilian-protecting, NATO bombing mandate? Expand C3 or C3I (command ... and Intel) to C3ITS for "tribal support?" Or what?

The mostly-white people in charge of these things already decided "It is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power." So screw you, people of Libya? We'll subject you the rule of the reformers of our choosing, by blunt force if need be?

Oh, and how does this compare to the letter recently passed on to that silly French "human rights" robot BMI or whoever? It was also supposed to represent all of Libya's tribes, said they all opposed Gaddafi, and was totally on a piece of paper.

 

[Caustic Logic]

No responses? I was expecting someone would argue, as the rebels and others have, that the meeting isn't really representative of all Libyan tribes. And it's true. Moussa Ibrahim cited the "security situation" for some eastern and western Berber tribes' absence.

And the southern tribes, for some reason, have taken an neutral position. They're inclined to be pro-Gaddafi too, from what I hear, but were weakened after some of their sons were captured by rebels and held as "African mercenaries." Some bargaining there?

But these leaders of 850 somethings (clans, familes, etc., but there's only 140 tribes) - they represent the largest Libyan tribe and quite a few others. They do represent the areas they're from, whatever proportion of the country that is. And they've said, by about a 90% to 10% margin sounds like, that they want Gaddafi. We say tough, but remember, they also do not want to be subjected to rebel rule. Our leaders intend to force that on them by continuing the air war until Gaddafi gives up (is captured or killed, rather).

Are we still okay with that? How long will it take? How many will die? Will we be attacking tribal civilian fighters next time? And if we can win and "make democracy work" and help the "Libyan people" overcome their "numerial inferiority," who will be dealing with the resentful masses who feel the west ignored their democratic wishes and raped their nation?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

No responses? I was expecting someone would argue, as the rebels and others have, that the meeting isn't really representative of all Libyan tribes. And it's true. Moussa Ibrahim cited the "security situation" for some eastern and western Berber tribes' absence.

And the southern tribes, for some reason, have taken an neutral position. They're inclined to be pro-Gaddafi too, from what I hear, but were weakened after some of their sons were captured by rebels and held as "African mercenaries." Some bargaining there?

But these leaders of 850 somethings (clans, familes, etc., but there's only 140 tribes) - they represent the largest Libyan tribe and quite a few others. They do represent the areas they're from, whatever proportion of the country that is. And they've said, by about a 90% to 10% margin sounds like, that they want Gaddafi. We say tough, but remember, they also do not want to be subjected to rebel rule. Our leaders intend to force that on them by continuing the air war until Gaddafi gives up (is captured or killed, rather).

Are we still okay with that? How long will it take? How many will die? Will we be attacking tribal civilian fighters next time? And if we can win and "make democracy work" and help the "Libyan people" overcome their "numerial inferiority," who will be dealing with the resentful masses who feel the west ignored their democratic wishes and raped their nation?

Can you source some of the stuff from above?

Interesting though. Not a ton of media coverage of this meeting. I guess there aren't many Western journos in Tripoli anymore? CNN had a guy there not too far back, Nick Robertson I think.

 

[geni]

Given the current fuel and security situation in western libya meeting of 2000 people without goverment support isn't a credible claim. Gaddafi is known to fake things (remeber that supposed NATO bombing that was meant to have injured a kid that the forigen correspondents were given a tour of?) so for all we know he put together 2000 elderly men and is presenting them as tribal elders.

But suppose the claim is true. 850 tribes. Well we would expect every tribe to be able to field at least 10 men of fighting age. Thats 8,500 people with even the most mininimal training misrata should fall to those kind of numbers. And yet it does not. Which means that if the claims are true it's just old men dreaming of the days when being a tribal elder meant something.

Just because the rebels lie doesn't mean gadaffi does not. The events around Wazzin show that Gaddafi control let alone is support in the west is not as solid as you appear to think.

 

[little grey rabbit]

So if it is so easy to get 2000 old men together, why don't the insurgents from Benghazi do it?

After all, they presumably have no petrol shortages that seem to loom so large in geni's mind.
I expect the majority of Libyans think the absolute worst disaster to befall Libya is civil war. Somehow we are supposed to think that all those Libyans who 3 months ago were working in jobs were just itching to pick up AK47s and prance around like Mad Max in Arabia shooting each other.

But suppose the claim is true. 850 tribes. Well we would expect every tribe to be able to field at least 10 men of fighting age. Thats 8,500 people with even the most mininimal training misrata should fall to those kind of numbers. And yet it does not. Which means that if the claims are true it's just old men dreaming of the days when being a tribal elder meant something.

While I don't disagree with the proposition that the tribes are far less relevant that instant pundits like to think, just because people who were civilians aren't rushing into Misrata to be subject of strategic strikes by NATO should not be taken out of context.

I view my life as valuable, I am sure geni is the same with her/his life and I am sure both of us would think twice about rushing into situations where NATO is humanitarianly distributing Hellfire missiles and 1000 pound bombs.

 

[geni]

So if it is so easy to get 2000 old men together, why don't the insurgents from Benghazi do it?

After all, they presumably have no petrol shortages that seem to loom so large in geni's mind.

Because there is no reason to do so. The rebels appear to be young and urban (pretty much par for the course in the arab spring). It's unclear if they care much about tribal groupings so if the leadership decided to put 2000 OAPs together they would look rather odd to their supporters.

I expect the majority of Libyans think the absolute worst disaster to befall Libya is civil war.

Questionable. Those who've done well out of the current regime seem to not unreasonable think that NATO are more of a problem. The rest? We really have no idea.

Somehow we are supposed to think that all those Libyans who 3 months ago were working in jobs were just itching to pick up AK47s and prance around like Mad Max in Arabia shooting each other.

Angry young men are prepared to follow surprising courses of action. Including risking being shot on the streets of Tripoli.

While I don't disagree with the proposition that the tribes are far less relevant that instant pundits like to think, just because people who were civilians aren't rushing into Misrata to be subject of strategic strikes by NATO should not be taken out of context.

As Afghanistan and Iraq show people fighting for their tribe are remarkably indifferent to being bombed. Not massively surprising. Consider what westerners will go through for their nation state.

I view my life as valuable, I am sure geni is the same with her/his life and I am sure both of us would think twice about rushing into situations where NATO is humanitarianly distributing Hellfire missiles and 1000 pound bombs.

Depends on the stakes. To retake cardiff from invading russian forces? Perhaps.

 

[Skeptic]

The mostly-white people in charge of these things already decided "It is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power." So screw you, people of Libya?

Yes, it's all about racism, of course.

I don't know what is going on in Libya. But one thing I do know: mass meetings declaring support for the dictator-in-chief, in Libya or anywhere else, are less than meaningless.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know that much about the tribal leaders and all that, but I've been saying all along that our involvement there makes no sense legally or morally.

The first resolve point in the UN resolution that supposedly justifies our intervention was a call for a cease fire. In reality, we joined a civil war on the side of the rebels.

Now we've got to decide what to do since this civil war is at a stalemate. It's either pull our (which almost requires admitting that our intervention was a bad idea), or go deeper in--and try to come up with legal and moral justification for regime change contrary to the U.N. Charter.

 

[Virus]

Sometimes you just have to feed a regime to the hogs. We don't want little Stalinists getting too comfortable.

 

[Stylesjl]

At this stage I think it is far too late for Gaddafi, there really is no way that the rebels should lose when NATO and the West has committed so many resources to supporting the rebels. Gaddafi is only going to give absolute hell (renewing those terrorist attacks Libya was famous for) if he gets back in control of the country. So there really is no way NATO will let him win. I think at this stage the best outcome he could hope for is to have Libya split into two separate nations, but even then I doubt it will hold in the long term

 

[Caustic Logic]

Can you source some of the stuff from above?

Yeah, next post - I need to sort out a few sources anyway and see if my hunch has any merit. Until this moment, I knew next to nothing about the tribes there, and I'm only a few articles ahead of that point now.

Interesting though. Not a ton of media coverage of this meeting. I guess there aren't many Western journos in Tripoli anymore? CNN had a guy there not too far back, Nick Robertson I think.

Here's Mark Stone, Sky News, not buying it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4GzTdoc4sE
I cited the Wall Street Journal, and Karin Laub, AP.

Given the current fuel and security situation in western libya meeting of 2000 people without goverment support isn't a credible claim. Gaddafi is known to fake things (remeber that supposed NATO bombing that was meant to have injured a kid that the forigen correspondents were given a tour of?)

Not familiar with that case off the top of my head. I don't think this is fake. For a chance to express themselves in congress, and hope for the first time to be considered half as much as our media darlings in the east, of all things, I should think tribal leaders could scrounge up the gasoline. After all, it's not like this is their first time being subjected to sanctions.

With all due respect, in fact, you're being silly.

so for all we know he put together 2000 elderly men and is presenting them as tribal elders.

Hypothetically sure. But no one's been able yet to demonstrate that and debunk this conference. The list of attendees was handed out, the remarks translated for foreign journalists. None of them to my knowledge have posted these, which I think they would if there were signs of fraud. If it all just goes in an old box instead, you can bet it supports the government's claim of impressive representation.

But suppose the claim is true. 850 tribes. Well we would expect every tribe to be able to field at least 10 men of fighting age. Thats 8,500 people with even the most mininimal training misrata should fall to those kind of numbers. And yet it does not.

Well, it's 850 something, smaller units than tribes. But I think several thousand at least is reasonable. I could see it even being tens, depending. They haven't taken Misrata yet. They haven't tried it yet. The threat to attack in 48 hours didn't come true, but it sounds like they're still working that way.

Which means that if the claims are true it's just old men dreaming of the days when being a tribal elder meant something.

They apparently don't mean crap to NATO. But to be fair, that was a recent and sudden change, so it's not like these guys are lost in distant reverie, just trying to adapt.

Just because the rebels lie doesn't mean gadaffi does not. The events around Wazzin show that Gaddafi control let alone is support in the west is not as solid as you appear to think.

There's also a matter there of a whole other nation next door, and the strategic importance for any and all rebels types there to control this crossing. The limited applicability of that comparison suggests you lack anything much better.

Yes, it's all about racism, of course.

It's in reference to the old leftist maxim that the white people tend to oppress the colored people. By mostly white, I meant Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, et al. These deciders are non-Libyans, and have taken it on themselves, without consulting the majority of Libyans, what their future will and will not hold. Is it racist to point out that non-Libyans are trying to write Libya's fate?

I don't know what is going on in Libya. But one thing I do know: mass meetings declaring support for the dictator-in-chief, in Libya or anywhere else, are less than meaningless.

Maybe that's usually the case. But just going by the first sentence, you should realize you don't know enough about this situation. And your maxim fails at being automatically correct.

 

[egslim]

Which means that if the claims are true it's just old men dreaming of the days when being a tribal elder meant something.

Perhaps. But we don't see all of Libya's young men fighting for the government or rebels either.

Most likely their tribal allegiance is strongest, but the tribes are fairly indifferent to who wins, and they don't want to ally with the loser.

If that's true a centralized, functional democracy has no immediate future in Libya. The tribes will demand a decentralized form of government, and people vote along tribal lines. Or the country ends up with a new despot, Gadaffi 2.0. This time from the east.

At this stage I think it is far too late for Gaddafi, there really is no way that the rebels should lose when NATO and the West has committed so many resources to supporting the rebels. Gaddafi is only going to give absolute hell (renewing those terrorist attacks Libya was famous for) if he gets back in control of the country. So there really is no way NATO will let him win. I think at this stage the best outcome he could hope for is to have Libya split into two separate nations, but even then I doubt it will hold in the long term

If NATO keeps supporting the rebels Gadaffi will be finished. His only chance is to outlast NATO's intervention.

But I doubt Gadaffi would go on a massive terrorist offensive if he wins. He'll be too busy re-establishing control, also, such an offensive is one of the few things that could incite an invasion by ground forces. Which would definately finish him off.

The main reason NATO will not let him win is because it would be too much humiliation for Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama.

 

[Caustic Logic]

And the southern tribes, for some reason, have taken an neutral position. They're inclined to be pro-Gaddafi too, from what I hear, but were weakened after some of their sons were captured by rebels and held as "African mercenaries." Some bargaining there?

This is something I've pieced together. One batch of overwhelmed pro-Gaddafi fighters was flown into al Baida on Feb 18, and most of them taken prisoner either at the airport or an army base in al Baida. One participant cited rumors there were 400 African mercenaries on the planes to start with. [source] A writer for Time was allowed to see "roughly 200 suspected mercenaries" held in an old school just outside al Baida. One of them was interviewed, and gave their original number as 325.

Most of the prisoners say they were recruited in Sabha, a town deep in Libya's Sahara that is heavily populated by Gaddafi's tribe.
[...]
Indeed, many of the prisoners at the Aruba School are dual nationals — Libyans with roots in Chad or Niger. And some are entirely foreign. Three men, two 19-year-olds and an 18-year-old, crossed the porous Saharan border from Chad into Libya's south just a few weeks ago, looking for work.

[source]
So, of these "African mercenaries," most were Libyans, at least dually, recruited in Libya. None sound like hardened killers culled from overseas. Rebels say that a lot, but in this case, it's untrue.

In an interview with Radio Netherlands Worldwide in Libya, Peter Bouckaert from Human Rights Watch said he had conducted research and found no proof of mercenaries being used. Investigator Bouckaert, who has been in the region for two weeks, told RNW that he had been to Al Bayda after receiving reports that 156 mercenaries had been arrested there.
[...]
The rights investigator said that what he found there were, in fact, 156 soldiers from the south of Libya and not from another African country. After talking to them he found out that they were all black Libyans of African descent. The soldiers have since been released by the protesters.

According to Bouckaert, the support of the black southern Libyans for the Gaddafi regime is explicable as Gaddafi fought to counter discrimination against this group in Libyan society.

[source]

Recall the gathering of these southern Libyans in Sabha. How convenient that's also where the mercenaries came from! (same source)

International media report that the mercenaries are gathering in the central southern town of Sabha, known to be loyal to Gaddafi, and are being sent out from there.

Our reporter says the southern location of the town means it is possible that the soldiers here are also from the south of the country and not African mercenaries as claimed in the international media. As the area is under control of Gaddafi's forces this cannot be verified.

So, those ones, reportedly released ... reportedly, and no word if it was part of any kind of deal. There were other innocent blacks arrested or executed - workers from Chad, Niger, and elsewhere. Like Gambia, quite a few from there, and those held rather than killed were held as very serious criminals. I noticed for some reason, Gambia is one of the first few nations to recognize the TNC (along with France, Qatar, Italy, Kuwait, and the Maldives). I don't see why, unless, maybe ... the rebels traded the Gambian "mercenaries" back in exchange for recognition?

It's a thought. And here, the southern tribes who should be supporting Gaddafi are strangely silent.

Boudreaux, WSJ:

Absent were eastern tribes and western Berber tribes, which have been hostile to the Col. Gadhafi during his four decades of rule, and tribes from the south that have sought to remain neutral in the 11-week-old uprising.

[source]

But these leaders of 850 somethings (clans, familes, etc., but there's only 140 tribes) - they represent the largest Libyan tribe and quite a few others. They do represent the areas they're from, whatever proportion of the country that is. And they've said, by about a 90% to 10% margin sounds like, that they want Gaddafi.

The number is abitrary. wsj said

Even among the tribal leaders present, backing for the government was limited. [...] Nearly every speaker pledged allegiance to Col. Gadhafi.

Might be much lower support among those who didn't speak?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't know that much about the tribal leaders and all that, but I've been saying all along that our involvement there makes no sense legally or morally.

The first resolve point in the UN resolution that supposedly justifies our intervention was a call for a cease fire. In reality, we joined a civil war on the side of the rebels.

Now we've got to decide what to do since this civil war is at a stalemate. It's either pull our (which almost requires admitting that our intervention was a bad idea), or go deeper in--and try to come up with legal and moral justification for regime change contrary to the U.N. Charter.

I agree 100%. It all feels like pretext. Every step of escalation has some public reason based on law or morals, but each one is questionable in its own way, and all share the common thread of Gaddafi must go.

That's a political decision, not a humanitarian one, and the war it's creating has already killed far more people than would have died if we'd just talked the whole thing down (instead of up).

At this stage I think it is far too late for Gaddafi, there really is no way that the rebels should lose when NATO and the West has committed so many resources to supporting the rebels.

Indeed, as people are pointing out, this is getting expensive. Personally, I suspect the big heads plan to use the regime change to pay for the operation and maybe even turn a nice profit.

Gaddafi is only going to give absolute hell (renewing those terrorist attacks Libya was famous for) if he gets back in control of the country. So there really is no way NATO will let him win.

Well, the reasons I don't like that argument start with the fact that, upon closely examining all the evidence, one can see that Gaddafi was at least framed and then famed for the largest among his terror attacks (Lockerbie - best general thread if you want to argue that further). And there are question marks over a couple of others as well.

But I confess, he's never had a grievance quite like we're handing him right now. Could be dangerous. And that's the other part I don't like - it feels morally slimy. It feels like the decision made by two armed robbers who thought they'd sneak in and steal the jewels while the house owner slept. But he woke, fought back, made it wakward. He's mad now, might call the police, might kill us, or hunt us down later. It's not time to back out or make-up. It's time to kill the guy.

I hope you can see why that gives me an uneasy feeling.

I like what EGslim said, too. He's a realist, take heed.

I think at this stage the best outcome he could hope for is to have Libya split into two separate nations, but even then I doubt it will hold in the long term

I hate to see anything more bad happen to Libya because of this, and partition is generally considered bad. The tribal leaders generally spok out against it overwhelmingly as well, desiring a whole Libya. I can't agree with them there.

How I see it, anything other than partition, at this point, will force one large body of people or the other to be ruled over by hated, traitorous enemies. That's bad news for future happiness, not to mention peace. That's why I support all means necessary to clear Misrata. There can be no viable West Libya without it, and the designs to subject ALL of Libya to these peculiar, NATO-favored eastern yahoos is another thing that makes me feel downright queasy. And that's what holding Misrata is really about - scuttling partition, keeping it winner-take-all. And we're playing into it big time.

I propose Misrata's rebels pack east, loyalists in the east be allowed to move west, the rebels let Ajdabya go as well, and a temporary partition be made, with coastal Cyrenaica only - Benghazi and east - under rebel management and in peace. And they get no mare than a fair share (by population, I suppose) of the oil wealth.

Then, serious and visionary reforms in the west, possibly a sacrifice of col Gaddafi to placate the hate-blinded West, but otherwise on their own terms. Later a referendum on re-unification.

That's not the slightest bit what we're on track for, of course.

 

[geni]

Sometimes you just have to feed a regime to the hogs. We don't want little Stalinists getting too comfortable.

I can't see North korea (the only stalinist country left) being too worried about events in Libya

 

[geni]

Not familiar with that case off the top of my head. I don't think this is fake. For a chance to express themselves in congress,

With the knowlage that saying anything gadaffi doesn't want with result in steps being taken? Worthless

and hope for the first time to be considered half as much as our media darlings in the east, of all things, I should think tribal leaders could scrounge up the gasoline. After all, it's not like this is their first time being subjected to sanctions. [/qquote]

It's not is it and yet the sanctions are having an impact. Odd that no?

With all due respect, in fact, you're being silly.

Hey you are the one that seems to think there is such a thing as spontaneous show of support in a country that has had a dictator for decades and has a worthwhile secret police.

Hypothetically sure. But no one's been able yet to demonstrate that and debunk this conference. The list of attendees was handed out, the remarks translated for foreign journalists. None of them to my knowledge have posted these, which I think they would if there were signs of fraud. If it all just goes in an old box instead, you can bet it supports the government's claim of impressive representation.

That rather suggests that there are western journalists who have more than a passinging knowlage of Libya's tribes.

Well, it's 850 something, smaller units than tribes. But I think several thousand at least is reasonable. I could see it even being tens, depending. They haven't taken Misrata yet. They haven't tried it yet. The threat to attack in 48 hours didn't come true, but it sounds like they're still working that way.

Ah yes the earlier threats from the tribes which amounted to nothing. Which is rather odd when you think about. Sirte is rather close to Misrata and if any tribal group would be able and willing to put men in the field for Gadiffi it's those from Sirte. And yet they did not.

They apparently don't mean crap to NATO. But to be fair, that was a recent and sudden change, so it's not like these guys are lost in distant reverie, just trying to adapt.

It's war. If you can't draw on men of fighting age your opinions mean very little.

There's also a matter there of a whole other nation next door, and the strategic importance for any and all rebels types there to control this crossing. The limited applicability of that comparison suggests you lack anything much better.

There are other signs of rebelion still floating around in the west. But if Gadaffi really has the support of the tribal elders and that really means anything that attack should never have happened. And yet it did.

 

[Virus]

I can't see North korea (the only stalinist country left) being too worried about events in Libya

They are. They're doing their best to block any information about the Arab revolts.

 

[geni]

They are. They're doing their best to block any information about the Arab revolts.

Blocking information is normal in north korea. That doesn't show that the north korean goverment is worried. It shows it is the north korea goverment. I doubt revolts in other countries have greatly worried is since china killed off those students in Tiananmen Square.

In terms of ways to worry north korea bombing libya is probably actualy slightly below "host massive star treck convention just south of the DMZ".

 

[Caustic Logic]

Update May 7: And at conference's end, a call for a peaceful surrender of the Western-backed winners. Tribal Chiefs Call for Amnesty.

In a meeting that ended in Tripoli late on Friday evening, the National Conference for Libyan Tribes called for a "general amnesty law which will include all those who were involved in the crisis and took up arms".

"The general amnesty law is a means of laying the path ahead for a new era of peace and forgiveness," it said in a statement. No timetable for, nor details on, the proposed law were mentioned.

The statement also referred to opposition fighters as "traitors" and pledged that tribal leaders would not "forsake" or "abandon" Gaddafi. The statement goes on to call for towns "hijacked" by opposition fighters to be "liberated". "The conference also calls all Libyan tribes neighbouring the towns and cities hijacked by armed groups to move peacefully in popular marches to liberate those hijacked towns, disarming the armed rebels," it said.

I have to say, this might not be very realistic on its own. But for what it's worth,

Group of Libya rebels surrender to government forces, says state TV
By Reuters
Groups of rebels in the insurgent-held Libyan city of Misrata have turned themselves in to government forces, state television reported on Sunday.

Al-Jamahiriya television gave no exact numbers but quoted a military spokesman as saying that some of those who had surrendered made recorded "confessions" which will be broadcast on television later.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/mideast...r-to-government-forces-says-state-tv-1.360516

 

[Caustic Logic]

To be fair, I should present the counter-point here, from April 28. As referred to above, it was said the tribes had already spoken and demanded Gaddafi leave. A few bolded points to show the differences:

MISURATA ,LIBYA . Libya's tribes urged Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to cede power Wednesday, as rebels backed by NATO air strikes said they forced missiles out of range of the besieged port of Misurata.

Chiefs or representatives of 61 tribes from across Libya called for an end to Col. Gaddafi's four decades of rule in a joint statement released by Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French writer who has become the Paris-based unofficial spokesman for the revolt.

"Faced with the threats weighing on the unity of our country, faced with the manoeuvres and propaganda of the dictator and his family, we solemnly declare: Nothing will divide us," said the statement, released in the rebel stronghold, Benghazi. "We share the same ideal of a free, democratic and united Libya.

"The Libya of tomorrow, once the dictator has gone, will be a united Libya, with Tripoli as its capital and where we will at last be free to build a civil society according to our own wishes."

Mr. Lévy is credited with pressing Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, to mobilize international political and military support for the rebels.

"Each of the tribes in Libya is represented by at least a representative. In this list of 61 signatures, some tribes are represented 100 percent, others are still divided," Mr. Lévy said.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Libyan+tribes+urge+Gaddafi+cede+power/4687249/story.html

If "not all tribes" were represented by to 800 whatevers among the 2,000 people in Tripoli, compared to an accepted 140+ proper tribes, how can 61 people represent all "each of the tribes in Libya?"

Each of these statements winds up lining up with the political wishes on the capitol it was drafted in. That is noteworthy.

All things considered, which one holds more weight?