Thread: 'Victory' in Tripoli, Libya. A big lie?

Originally Posted by Hanna

What do you mean by that?

Push healthy scepticism or cynicism too far and it becomes indistinguishable from drooling gullibility.

Originally Posted by nulle

useless shit like nuclear weapons.

lol

Originally Posted by mishau_

Originally Posted by nulle

useless shit like nuclear weapons.

lol

Ага, тролль, такой тролль.

Did they film this in India too?
Tripoli awash in guns, rumors amid Gadhafi hunt - CNN.com

Nevertheless you would be surprised to know that I actually know a number of ethnic Luthuanians who wouldn't agree with your sarcasm.

Of course - chekists and communist party members lived better - that's for sure.

It's all a lie, Nulle. Every single media outlet in the world, from FOX News to The Guardian and from Al Jazeera to Mainichi Shimbun, even those that are vocally opposed to NATO's involvement in Libya, are all really part of a giant, super-efficient NATO-controlled conspiracy to make the world believe that the peaceful garden paradise of Libya was really a tinpot dictatorship descending into civil war so that western countries can access all the oil they already had contracts to drill for anyway. Or something.

Thank God we have the notoriously reliable Russian tabloid press to give air time to the two or three people on the planet who really know what's going on!

Originally Posted by nulle

Because my country was oppressed by brutal and inhuman regime for decades - I strongly support people from Arab world that want to get rid of their dictatorships.

It's one thing if the people feel strongly enough about the question to sort it out themselves, which is arguably what happened in Latvia etc.

It's a completely different thing if an alliance of superpowers decide that they want to participate and "protect civilians" by bombing cities or what-not.... which is what's happening in Libya.

And interestingly, overthrowing Khaddaffi has been on the US "roadmap" for at least a decade, if the Wesley Clark speech is anything to go by (and he should know). Britain has hated Libya since Lockerbie accident and was even more keen to get in toppling Khaddaffi.

I think the Libyans might find that they got into bed with somebody entirely different than they thought. As people across the world can tell them, once the Americans get a foot in, they NEVER leave.

Mark my word, next step is that a bunch of "consultants" or "advisors" or something will come in and "educate" the Libyans about how to set up a democracy.... and (more importantly) what to do with their oil.

If they are really lucky they might get a NATO airbase on their territory to "protect" their democracy.

It's one thing if the people feel strongly enough about the question to sort it out themselves, which is arguably what happened in Latvia etc.

We were very lucky that we regained our independence peacefully. Egypt and Tunis also overthrew their dictators relatively peacefully - and NATO did not bomb them.
But instead of resigning (like Mubarak) Gaddafi decided to start a bloodbath.
So - yes - when some dictator is slaughtering its own people - it is OK to intervene, because human rights are universal and not an "internal thing".

Thank God we have the notoriously reliable Russian tabloid press to give air time to the two or three people on the planet who really know what's going on!

Soviet years have trained us to take anything Russia publishes with caution anyway.
Especially if it is anti-American.

and (more importantly) what to do with their oil.

Oil is much cheaper to simply buy and not to wage war for it.
Most oil exporting countries are not producing anything else anyway.
It is better to buy their (cheap) oil and to sell them (expensive) industrial production (cars, electronics, etc) - (like Germany and Russia for example).

Just like natural resources of USSR was not USSR people's property, but were exploited by communist elite building useless shit like nuclear weapons.

Again, you're probably too young to know, but people did live far more happier in USSR than they are now.

But you agree that average soviet citizen did not have any say in how to use USSR natural resources.
If party decided to build more nuclear bombs - which really are useless shit - because - what do you do with that many?
Then they built nuclear bombs - does not matter that shops were empty and you had to wait in looooooooooong queue to get something TO EAT.
And which are these "happier people"? Chekists? Communist elite?

Soviet years have trained us to take anything Russia publishes with caution anyway.

Why Russian? Did Latvian newspapers say something completely different that time?

Originally Posted by nulle

...But instead of resigning (like Mubarak) Gaddafi decided to start a bloodbath.
So - yes - when some dictator is slaughtering its own people - it is OK to intervene, because human rights are universal and not an "internal thing"....

More people have been killed in sub-Saharan Africa than the entire population of Libya. Where is the intervention?

There won't be. Intervention is not done for humanitarian reasons. 'Humanitarian intervention' is simply an excuse because people believe that.

Originally Posted by Seraph

More people have been killed in sub-Saharan Africa than the entire population of Libya.

That's an argument in favour of interventions that didn't happen, not an argument against those that did.

.http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=462..The case for intervention in Libya is too weak. Intervention is not done for humanitarian reasons. It is a rationalization. Spin.

.http://wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/liby-a26.shtml. "abject criminality of imperialism’s takeover of Libya is becoming increasingly evident"

what the world is witnessing is the rape of Libya by a syndicate of imperialist powers determined to lay hold of its oil wealth and turn its territory into a neo-colonial base of operations for further interventions throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Looks like straight out of Soviet propaganda...
My country is part of that "imperialist powers" (NATO) too - can't wait to get a cut of loot.

Why Russian? Did Latvian newspapers say something completely different that time?

Of course not - those who did were quickly silenced by chekists.

Originally Posted by nulle

Looks like straight out of Soviet propaganda...
My country is part of that "imperialist powers" (NATO) too - can't wait to get a cut of loot.

Of course not - those who did were quickly silenced by chekists.

.
.National Composition of NATO Strike Sorties in Libya | Atlantic Council
.
.
"NATO discloses each day the total number of collective sorties flown in the previous 24 hours and the total of all sorties since the start of OUP, but it does not break it down into national contributions. Such national details can only be found sporadically and from different sources. National levels of strike sorties flown have fluctuated since NATO took over military operations in Libya on March 31, 2011. The following information matches each country’s most recent number of strike sorties to the number of total strike sorties by that date.
France: 33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)
US: 16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)
Denmark: 11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)
Britain: 10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)
Canada: 10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)
Italy: 10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)
Norway: 10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)
Belgium: 8^th ally participating in combat missions, no public data available on number of strike sorties (photo: USAF)"

Tens of thousands of sorties, thousands of strike sorties/bombs. Many different targets, including reports of civilian buildings and infrastructure. Many civilian deaths. Many more to come. Civilian targets prove that this is not intervention, but an illegal war.

I am not a Libyan. I can not take sides in the internal affairs of the Libyans. Nato are responsible for killing more and will kill more innocent Libyans by the time this is over, than is claimed that Qaddafi killed. I am against this.

You are for it. You complain about foreign occupiers of your country and then applaud this.

Originally Posted by Seraph

.Dissent Magazine - Online Features - The Wrong Intervention -..The case for intervention in Libya is too weak. Intervention is not done for humanitarian reasons. It is a rationalization. Spin.

Of course it's spin. At least partly. It's not inconceivable that the intervention saved lives, but humanitarian concerns were at least as much a pretext for getting rid of Gadaffi as a genuine motive. That's hardly a revelation, the US and British governments haven't really even tried to pretend otherwise.

.The rape of Libya. "abject criminality of imperialism’s takeover of Libya is becoming increasingly evident"

See, this is the sort of cock-eyed, black and white, zero-sum binary thought that results in conspiracy theories. It takes healthy scepticism of NATO's motives and twists it into "The Rape of Libya", where the good, honest, just and dearly loved Colonel Gadaffi courageously fights against the odds with the imperialist pigs and their paid rebel puppets (they're not rebels, they're "rebels"), while their lackeys in the western media spread lies and propaganda to cover it up. It's absurd and simplistic, and isn't based on a rational appraisal of the situation but on a giant US-shaped chip on the author's shoulder. American capitalism: bad, therefore Gadaffi: good.

Honestly, it's actually embarrassing to read some of what passes for opinion on this forum sometimes.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

Of course it's spin. At least partly. It's not inconceivable that the intervention saved lives, but humanitarian concerns were at least as much a pretext for getting rid of Gadaffi as a genuine motive. That's hardly a revelation, the US and British governments haven't really even tried to pretend otherwise.



See, this is the sort of cock-eyed, black and white, zero-sum binary thought that results in conspiracy theories. It takes healthy scepticism of NATO's motives and twists it into "The Rape of Libya", where the good, honest, just and dearly loved Colonel Gadaffi courageously fights against the odds with the imperialist pigs and their paid rebel puppets (they're not rebels, they're "rebels"), while their lackeys in the western media spread lies and propaganda to cover it up. It's absurd and simplistic, and isn't based on a rational appraisal of the situation but on a giant US-shaped chip on the author's shoulder. American capitalism: bad, therefore Gadaffi: good.

Honestly, it's actually embarrassing to read some of what passes for opinion on this forum sometimes.

I am not a Libyan. I can not take sides in the internal affairs of the Libyans. I do not take Qaddafi's side, nor the rebels. Nato are responsible for killing more and will kill more innocent Libyans by the time this is over, than is claimed that Qaddafi killed. I am against this.

You are for it.

Originally Posted by Seraph

... Nato are responsible for killing more and will kill more innocent Libyans by the time this is over, than is claimed that Qaddafi killed. I am against this.

You are for it.

You can't be serious.
Let's not get personal, please!

Originally Posted by Seraph

I am not a Libyan. I can not take sides in the internal affairs of the Libyans. I do not take Qaddafi's side, nor the rebels. Nato are responsible for killing more and will kill more innocent Libyans by the time this is over, than is claimed that Qaddafi killed. I am against this.

You are for it.

Where have I said I am for it?

I don't think I've actually stated my opinion on NATO's involvement one way or the other. All I've done is point out the hysterical irrationality of some of the opposition to it and the febrile stupidity of its associated conspiracy theories.

Like I said; binary thought in action. I think your reasoning is ridiculous, therefore you conclude that I must support the bombing of innocent people, because the only two positions its possible to take on any issue are the extreme opposites.

Originally Posted by Lampada

You can't be serious.
Let's not get personal, please!

I apologize. I keep reading pro-intervention comments. I cannot comprehend how people can be pro-intervention, and ignore or dismiss the civilian casualties.

My logic may (or maybe not) be faulty, but my position is clear. I am completely against intervention, and completely against the civilian casualties. I am not embarrassed about my position at all, nor will I apologize for it.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

...All I've done is point out the hysterical irrationality of some of the opposition to it and the febrile stupidity of its associated conspiracy theories.

You need to read more declassified documents from the CIA.

Either you are for what is going or you are against it. Other possibilities might exist. Why not state your actual position? I have.

Originally Posted by Seraph

I apologize. I keep reading pro-intervention comments. I cannot comprehend how people can be pro-intervention, and ignore or dismiss the civilian casualties.

My logic may (or maybe not) be faulty, but my position is clear. I am completely against intervention, and completely against the civilian casualties. I am not embarrassed about my position at all, nor will I apologize for it.

OK, let me illustrate my objection to your hysterical reasoning by just firing your own words back at you:

Originally Posted by A Hypothetical Anti-Seraph

I keep reading anti-intervention comments. I cannot comprehend how people can be anti-intervention, and ignore or dismiss the civilian casualties.

My logic may (or maybe not) be faulty, but my position is clear. I am completely in favour of intervention, and completely against the civilian casualties. I am not embarrassed about my position at all, nor will I apologize for it.

See, it's perfectly possible to be in favour of intervention for exactly the same reasons you claim to oppose it, and just as possible to state that position in completely idiotic terms by implying that anyone who disagrees with you is in favour of civilian casualties.

The fact is that there was already fighting in Libya before NATO started bombing Gadaffi's forces; there were already and would have continued to be many civilian casualties. The question was whether intervention would minimise the number, or cause even more. It's perfectly acceptable to conclude that intervention would be worse than letting the nascent civil war run its course and to oppose it on those grounds, but it's not acceptable to pretend that only intervention would have resulted in innocent deaths and therefore assert that anyone who supported it was happy about that and only supported the intervention out of grubby self-interest, which is essentially what you're doing.

You need to read more declassified documents from the CIA.

Why? Just because the US wanted rid of Gadaffi and made lots of plans to do so (you hardly need CIA documents to know that) it does not follow that they instigated or even manipulated the current uprising against him. Just because humanitarian concerns were a pretext to do what they wanted to do anyway it does not follow that those concerns weren't real, or valid.

Sure, it's possible that the US has been behind this from the start, but it's also possible (and I would say a hell of a lot more plausible) that they have simply taken advantage of a situation that developed organically.

Either you are for what is going or you are against it. Other possibilities might exist. Why not state your actual position? I have.

You are George Bush and I claim my £5.

OK, since you asked, I was against the intervention. I felt that the humanitarian case was weak, the objectives too vague, and the potential danger of making things even worse too great. You can cry me a river for the end of Gadaffi's rule though. Seeing him swing from a lamp post will be the one unambiguous good to come out of this, even if everything else is a disaster.

It's too early to tell whether or not I was correct, but so far I'm happy to admit it's gone much better than I feared it would. So far. I still think it's more likely to end in tears than not.

The morality aside (and I think that NATOs involvement in this is completely immoral, and entirely opportunistic) mark my words, the Libyans will live to regret that they let NATO in, whatever happens.... The average moslem and the average Libyan in particular is no lover of the West. Sure, there are exceptions, but they just don't like anything about Europe and the US, apart from *maybe* its money.

When NATO wants to set up shop in Libya and wringles it so that it sounds like they were "invited", then they will realise that they should have dealt with Khaddaffi themselves, and maybe it was "better the devil you know" after all. Not to mention the fact that half the country is in pieces by now. Infrastructure, public buildings etc. Look how things went in Iraq and Afghanistan. The NATO countries have not gone to all this trouble just to wave goodbye to the Libyan oil after this.

And there is no question that Khaddaffi did some things quite well. They really had some very good public services there, that no other countries in Africa had, and that were admired by their neighbours.

NATO will want something and it probably won't be something that the Libyans are happy to give them.

There was a survey, I think by Al-Jazeera where they went around and asked people in the Arab world what they "admired most" about the USA. Can't remember how many people they asked, but every single person responded "nothing".

The arabs/moslems are best left alone!
We shouldn't let them come to Europe in large numbers and we have no business messing in their countries - it's their responsibility to run their countries.