Libyan Air-force ordered to bomb protesters

[celery 8]

And why should we help them? What does the US get out of helping them? What makes you think they aren't anything more than a bunch of religious zealots sugar coated with men who preach freedom, but have no power within the rebel leadership?

Good news for you: the French are leading the operation and doing most of the work (a thing very much overlooked in the US media). The motive, if you really think that it has any importance in the actual outcome, is most likely a) oil because France hasn't gotten good deals from Libya so helping the future government may get them better deals, and b) Gaddafi has been a real asshole both to his own citizens and foreign powers.

You are grossly underestimating the people of Libya if you think that they just want another troublemaker to run the country. Libya was a pariah state until the 21st century solely because Gaddafi supported terrorists of every kind and openly threatened and waged war with other countries. Very recently he threatened Switzerland with jihad and had Swiss citizens arrested because his son was arrested for beating up the staff of a Swiss hotel, and because the Swiss people voted to ban the building of minarets.

The French never got anything for helping us and even to this day we still hate (more like a love/hate thing.) the French.

Oh Really? I clearly remember Admiral Rochambeau being so overly cautious he was accused of being a coward by the Americans who did 99% of the fighting during the revolution and it was only until Yorktown when he was being put under so much pressure by the Americans that he finally committed his armada to the fight.

France's main antagonist, Great Britain, lost rights to a VERY big area of rich land and that land was now almost guaranteed to stay neutral or side with France. They also counted on the United States becoming a major trading partner after the war, although that never came to be. Some Americans hating the French is only a sad testament to their ignorance.

I dare say that without French intervention the revolutionary war would have failed for the rebels. Great Britain would have had complete naval superiority and much more manpower and materiel to commit to the war. Your hateful remarks about single, sourceless instances tells much about your own unwillingness to accept simple facts.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Celery

[Spokesperson 0]

I bet the people are still happy somone is helping. Its hard to think that oil has anything to do with it since they export very little. Does Libyia export something like 2% of the worlds oil exports?

Of course some people are happy, some aren't. It's none of wests business to support either side.

Oil has a lot to do with it. The prices have increased because of the turmoil, and Libya has a substantial amount of the world reserves. It's of great importance that the regime in Libya is west-friendly.

The plane that was shot down was a rebel mig-23 but I don't believe that the no-fly zone was active at that time or at least being enforced. The government of Libya is the one that is deliberately targeting civilians, not the rebels. That Mig was shot down over its own city. I highly doubt it was attacking civilians in friendly territory. It doesn't exactly gain support for their cause.

The no-fly zone was active. They likely just wanted it to look like Gaddafi broke it and the ceasefire. The government of Libya isn't deliberately targeting civilians. And as you said it doesn't exactly gain support for their cause.

Ghadafi has no right to rob and mass murder people in his corner of the world.

He doesn't.

I have yet to see any reports of the west supplying the rebels. Can you point me to your source on that? That Mig-23 they had was captured at a Libyan airbase. Most of their weapons appear to be of Libyan/Russian origin as well. I had yet to see rebels carrying around G-36s and using F-22s. I do realize that it is possible that we supplied them with Ak's and Zu's but I haven't seen a report of this. Can you show me?

Yes, you can see Carl Gustaf launchers on the pictures among other things.

[jakerod 254]

Oil has a lot to do with it. The prices have increased because of the turmoil, and Libya has a substantial amount of the world reserves. It's of great importance that the regime in Libya is west-friendly.

It sure does. I don't think anyone has denied that.

The no-fly zone was active. They likely just wanted it to look like Gaddafi broke it and the ceasefire. The government of Libya isn't deliberately targeting civilians. And as you said it doesn't exactly gain support for their cause.

Okay if it was active, that doesn't mean that it was being enforced yet. Also, please prove to me that Libya's government isn't targeting civilians. They don't have to worry about support for their cause. I was referring to the rebels who need support of the people. The government doesn't because it already has the power to do whatever the hell it wants.

He doesn't.

Agreed then

Yes, you can see Carl Gustaf launchers on the pictures among other things.

According to Jane's Infantry Weapons from 2010 the Libyans already had Carl Gustav recoilless rifles. What are these other things?

Edited March 20, 2011 by Jakerod

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

It's none of wests business to support either side.

Well when one side asks for help from the nations of west/the world, it's our duty to investigate the matter. The Pro Gaddafi side is shelling the shit out of the rebel controlled cities, not caring about whether they hit civilians or not. Take a look at the name of this thread, back before this shit REALLY hit the fan, Gaddafi ordered pilots to bomb the protesters, this was before they became rebels.

We see that, we get reports from CIVILIANS that civilians are being attacked, so it is the duty of the U.N. to react to it, to prevent further loss of life. If Gaddafi had gone about this in a better way, maybe this wouldn't have happened, it would have been just a nasty little war between the government and the rebels, but he went the wrong way, so now he's feeling the consequences of that action.

*I firmly believe that the world needs war, famine, disease, "natural disasters" etc. etc. to keep the population at a sustainable level, not because I'm an evil heartless bastard, or that I believe nobody should have kids again (I don't believe that lol) I believe that because of how advanced we have become. In the past all these things were a common and accepted occurrence, but now our population is shooting up at an extreme rate because of advances in medicine, better quality facilities, etc. etc.*

*Even though I believe what I stated in the paragraph above, I also believe that we have a duty to help those in need. (See the obvious conflict there? Most people realize these two things, whichever one takes hold the best decides what will eventually happen to this planet, but that is waaaay too offtopic, so I'll shut up about it) Now, as the United States is one of the richest and developed countries in the world, as well as being one of the most well armed, we tend to shoulder more than the average share of the weight as far as the duty to help our fellow man(and woman :p) goes.*

Whether or not we should, that's not something I have to concern myself with, thank god. It's the "right" thing to do, but only from one point of view.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Darkhorse 1-6
3 Typos

[red oct 2]

the reasons for getting involved in this conflict are the same reasons Bush and Cheny started using to justify a regime change in iraq after it turned out saddam didn't have any wmds to give to terrorists and now i see nations that were than against the iraq war are now all of a sudden ok bombing libyia. i don't like this at all and feel we shouldnt be getting involved in another war that may end up being another occupation with another insurgency and more expensive nation building. give these rebels some guns and rockets and make them remove gaddafi themselves.

[whisper 0]

Very polarized views here.

It's imho much more complicated than simple "West want more power over oil countries"

Probably very different things, acting together toward what we see now.

What I see as very possible, from our french PoV :

Our Grandiose Tiny Wee Nikolaus Napoleosy has been getting battered for months now in France, lately about our shamefull management of Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, with our genius foreign minister offering actual help to Ben Ali to stop the opposition by force, amongst other delicate attentions toward north african people (very representative of the general french politic in Africa, if you ask me).

Preparing for presidential run for 2012, our Beloved Lead.... errrr president is apparently trying to pull the trick his predecessor did in 2002 by stirring immigration fear. And it is backfiring on him. BIG TIME.

We had local elections today. His party has been literraly crushed.

Anyway, he was in desperate, desperate need of some "coup d'eclat", something to make him look like the true hero he is.

And here comes Gaddhafi, guns blazing on rebels in the east (like he did before and no one actually took offense, Lybia is a very special place), just, just after 2 revolutions in the area which took over their tyrannic leaders, looking like he was going to avoid the same fate, with the entire world watching and grumbling about dead civvies.

What an opportunity! "Georgia conflict, bis!" Here is the field where he would recover his magnificence!

So here he goes, calling everyone in the entire universe to unite against the horrible Gaddhafi, making promises to rebels that he would hardly be able to fullfill, but hey, that's how he is. He promises things, and rush to keep his promises, in the crappiest way possible. He's done that to us numerous times, time for Lybia to feel the love.

Moreover, it was not like we had something to lose in the story, we had received very little of the gigantic $$ cake Gaddhafi recently proposed with his arms&industry deals.

Funnily, the most vocal opponents to any intervention were the ones with the biggest checks from said deals, namely Germany & Russia. Not that I blame them, I could very hardly give any lessons lately seeing the clown we have at the top taking "decisions" for us.

So promises are made, but UN being UN, you can hibernate a bit before any decision is taken. It was looking bad for Sarko's plans, something like UN pushing a severe "we're going to hit you in the nose" on Gaddhafi the day after he raided Benghazi, emprisoning his opponent to show them the just punishment for daring opposing to his Enlightened Reign.

And there, somewhere in the middle of last week, miracle. Al Qaida enters the scene. Alleluia!

Seeing the UN.... being the UN, and the Benghazi people being left alone facing their fate (which means, thanks to Nico's ugly promises, being betrayed by UN), AQ releases a statement asking the rebels to stand their ground, and fight, knowing AQ was on their side. Lybian rebels were becoming a future pool of so called Freedom Fighters for AQ.

Exactly the threat needed to make everyone agree (or at least, not disagree, for some) to move in extremis against Gaddhafi.

We were forced to do it, or we would have abandon people and give birth to potential higly dangerous threat. After AQ statement, no choice anymore, let's go.

I don't know how it is painted in US, but here, everything is said like it was all french and UK diplomacy which made the UN resolution possible, and both countries being the spearhead of the war for UN forces. I imagine UK's prime minister motives must be very strong too!! :)

It didn't prevent Sarko's party debacle today, ofc.

But at least it put him back into a presidential, international stature, and re-legetimated him. A big win for the little dwarf

Good thing is that we are here in a democratic country, and I'll get to chose next year another crappy political guy to oust our current one. Something Lybian people don't have.

Awww, too bad I'll be forced to vote for one of the 2 (equally crappy) major forces in France, just to avoid neo-nazi coming to power. Thank you Sarko for everything, life if cool now.

Anyway, this long story just to show that it's very probably not for some West/capitalist conspiration only that Lybia is today being shelled (though, ofc, this little talks about the future of oil production have been part of the discussions with rebels), but because of the sum of individual motives. Few of them being "just cause", of course.

Edited March 21, 2011 by whisper

[dysta 10]

Just like every news TV channel broadcasted: War can be made by themselves, with no reason to explain what, and how it caused. Humanity is in shame when we made wars, and let the war breeds war...... wait, where's the sweet oil?

[jw custom 56]

They likely just wanted it to look like Gaddafi broke it and the ceasefire.

Sure the rebels broke the ceasefire, Gadaffi was of course just fighting al-qaeda in the suburbans of Benghazi... lmfao

He doesn't.

Yeah right.

[Tonci87 163]

Very polarized views here.

It's imho much more complicated than simple "West want more power over oil countries"

Probably very different things, acting together toward what we see now.

What I see as very possible, from our french PoV :

Our Grandiose Tiny Wee Nikolaus Napoleosy has been getting battered for months now in France, lately about our shamefull management of Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, with our genius foreign minister offering actual help to Ben Ali to stop the opposition by force, amongst other delicate attentions toward north african people (very representative of the general french politic in Africa, if you ask me).

Preparing for presidential run for 2012, our Beloved Lead.... errrr president is apparently trying to pull the trick his predecessor did in 2002 by stirring immigration fear. And it is backfiring on him. BIG TIME.

We had local elections today. His party has been literraly crushed.

Anyway, he was in desperate, desperate need of some "coup d'eclat", something to make him look like the true hero he is.

And here comes Gaddhafi, guns blazing on rebels in the east (like he did before and no one actually took offense, Lybia is a very special place), just, just after 2 revolutions in the area which took over their tyrannic leaders, looking like he was going to avoid the same fate, with the entire world watching and grumbling about dead civvies.

What an opportunity! "Georgia conflict, bis!" Here is the field where he would recover his magnificence!

So here he goes, calling everyone in the entire universe to unite against the horrible Gaddhafi, making promises to rebels that he would hardly be able to fullfill, but hey, that's how he is. He promises things, and rush to keep his promises, in the crappiest way possible. He's done that to us numerous times, time for Lybia to feel the love.

Moreover, it was not like we had something to lose in the story, we had received very little of the gigantic $$ cake Gaddhafi recently proposed with his arms&industry deals.

Funnily, the most vocal opponents to any intervention were the ones with the biggest checks from said deals, namely Germany & Russia. Not that I blame them, I could very hardly give any lessons lately seeing the clown we have at the top taking "decisions" for us.

So promises are made, but UN being UN, you can hibernate a bit before any decision is taken. It was looking bad for Sarko's plans, something like UN pushing a severe "we're going to hit you in the nose" on Gaddhafi the day after he raided Benghazi, emprisoning his opponent to show them the just punishment for daring opposing to his Enlightened Reign.

And there, somewhere in the middle of last week, miracle. Al Qaida enters the scene. Alleluia!

Seeing the UN.... being the UN, and the Benghazi people being left alone facing their fate (which means, thanks to Nico's ugly promises, being betrayed by UN), AQ releases a statement asking the rebels to stand their ground, and fight, knowing AQ was on their side. Lybian rebels were becoming a future pool of so called Freedom Fighters for AQ.

Exactly the threat needed to make everyone agree (or at least, not disagree, for some) to move in extremis against Gaddhafi.

We were forced to do it, or we would have abandon people and give birth to potential higly dangerous threat. After AQ statement, no choice anymore, let's go.

I don't know how it is painted in US, but here, everything is said like it was all french and UK diplomacy which made the UN resolution possible, and both countries being the spearhead of the war for UN forces. I imagine UK's prime minister motives must be very strong too!! :)

It didn't prevent Sarko's party debacle today, ofc.

But at least it put him back into a presidential, international stature, and re-legetimated him. A big win for the little dwarf

Good thing is that we are here in a democratic country, and I'll get to chose next year another crappy political guy to oust our current one. Something Lybian people don't have.

Awww, too bad I'll be forced to vote for one of the 2 (equally crappy) major forces in France, just to avoid neo-nazi coming to power. Thank you Sarko for everything, life if cool now.

Anyway, this long story just to show that it's very probably not for some West/capitalist conspiration only that Lybia is today being shelled (though, ofc, this little talks about the future of oil production have been part of the discussions with rebels), but because of the sum of individual motives. Few of them being "just cause", of course.

Really really good post you made there. See guys, a lot of things have to be considered, even the fears and interests of a very small president with a giant napoleon coomplex (and a hot wife...well at least she was)

[Spokesperson 0]

Of course there are other things than oil to take into account, but for most companies and governments it is crucial that there is a supply of cheap oil. If contracts go to other countries it is harmful for the economy.

Sure the rebels broke the ceasefire, Gadaffi was of course just fighting al-qaeda in the suburbans of Benghazi... lmfao

Yeah right.

It takes two for a cease-fire.

Gaddafi has supporters in Benghazi too, they rose up against the rebels, while the army was outside.

[jw custom 56]

It takes two for a cease-fire.

True.

Gaddafi has supporters in Benghazi too, they rose up against the rebels, while the army was outside.

Yes thats it, yet Gadaffi claimed his forces was figthing al-qaeda.

Only supporters Gadaffi have is people who financially benefits from him and people who wanna save their lives. Sure there will always be people who supports him anyway but thats most likely small numbers.

[whisper 0]

From what I read, if there was an election in Lybia, Gaddhafi would probably still win his presidency, seeing the tribal structure and the fact he still has a majority of tribes coucils supporting him. He is definitely not hated by all in his country.

Unfortunately for lybian people, this test will never happen, as opposing voices are replied to with brutal force (repression on Benghazi for example didn't begin last month, it's a decades long thing)

Which makes Gaddhafi equally wrong. Add to this his terrorist activities, and it brushes a terribly bad portrait of the guy.

[sudayev 27]

Guests from China have arrived with their frigate

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/03/13/gps.china.flex.cnn

[kavoven 4]

Guests from China have arrived with their frigate

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/03/13/gps.china.flex.cnn

Now thats interesting...

[jakerod 254]

Now thats interesting...

Agreed. Thanks for the link Sudayev.

[Minutemen 10]

Sarkozy election campaign was funded by Libya – Gaddafi son

Saif al-Islam threatens to publish details of bank transfers to punish French PM for backing Libyan rebels

They are all scum.

[Beagle 684]

They are all scum.

2055 years and 7 days ago,

Back in the times when politicians were more civilized a senate would have stabbed down a treacherous politician with 23 dagger stabs. Unfortunataly wearing daggers is not common anymore amongs politicians.

[jakerod 254]

2055 years and 7 days ago,

Back in the times when politicians were more civilized a senate would have stabbed down a treacherous politician with 23 dagger stabs. Unfortunataly wearing daggers is not common anymore amongs politicians.

Because that's what we need, Assassinations for all!!! In an ideal world they would be arrested in my view. Who would've guessed that a politician would've been corrupt? I'm still waiting for the one that isn't.

[whisper 0]

Sarkozy election campaign was funded by Libya – Gaddafi son

Saif al-Islam threatens to publish details of bank transfers to punish French PM for backing Libyan rebels

IMG]http://www.syriatruth.info/images/stories/kazzafi_sarkozy.jpg[/img]

They are all scum.

That's old news, buddy. Happened last week or so.

We're waiting eagerly for the proof to come, that'll give a proven reason to get rid of the guy.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid this time it'll be some trick only showing funding by Lybia of some sort of charisma organization and stating Sarko was funded by this organization, which will prove nil.

It's well known the french parties have been funded for years by african countries and leaders, but I don't see this threat going very far

They are all corrupted, that's for sure. Power is corrupting

[Beagle 684]

Does someone know about this lybian project? It was about to be functional THIS SUMMER. The war came to the right time to keep lybia and the whoel region in the fangfs of thre IWF and London commodity speculators.

It was about to free the whole north africa and maybe half of africa from the IWF and the globalist at London city.

There is more money in it than in lybian oil.

Why do we hear so few words about what kinf of leader ghadaffi really was...he did not invest in palaces or luxury car pools or a armade of luxury jets...he invested in his counrty for the benefit for the whole region.

That made him a lot of enemies in London and New York, people that want to continue to rob africa.

I guess the truth in the end is that Ghadaffi is not the madman THEY like to call him in western media.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Beagle
link ws missing

[dysta 10]

One US F-15E was crashed in there, and that would be a big business for the escaped pilot.

[Beagle 684]

One US F-15E was crashed in there, and that would be a big business for the escaped pilot.

Source? And isn't a F-15E a two seater

[dysta 10]

Source? And isn't a F-15E a two seater

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20110322/twl-us-warplane-crashes-in-libya-41f21e0.html

About the jet crew, there's only one pilot involved, and seems saved by the protesters:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20110322/twl-us-f-15-crashes-in-libya-crew-ejecte-3cd7efd.html

[Daniel 0]

1218: A US official has said both the crew of the F-15 fighter jet that crashed in Libya are safe and back in American hands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

Wow, just seen some very detailed footage of the downed F-15 on the BBC site. It's completely trashed, there's bits of AIM-120C fins and warheads scattered around it. They're very lucky to have gotten out, and over rebel ground.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Daniel

[Sky999 10]

Wasn't it only fairly recently the case that the UK released the Lockerbie bomber in order to gain favour with the Libyan government?

This whole thing makes releasing him seem pretty pointless now...