|
The Arab League supports a NFZ in Libya, but the GCC is sending military to help Bahrain. What? That's almost as bad as Iran supporting the revolution in Egypt but brutally condemning protests in their own country.
Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Mar 14, 2011 |
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Xandu posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JG0cr0nACg Christ I got emotional.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:He's going to fail. If he's tying down his own men in their vehicles to prevent escape, then his 'support' does not exist. It would be fascinating to see how many people he has left, and how many of them are willing to die for this pathetic madman. That report of tank crews chained in the tank makes no sense on any level beyond an obvious fabrication to make the case everyone on Gadaffi's side is a mercenary or forced to fight for him. I mean how do you climb into the tank with your feet shackled ? How does the driver operate the foot pedals like that ? Do they check the tank for bolt cutters before placing the shackled crew in there ? And if every tank crew is indeed shackled in place, who is there to stop the tanks from just driving off ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
Bit more on what happened in Brega last night.quote:Hamed Al Hassi, a spokesperson of the Feb 17th revolution in Libya, told Al Jazeera how rebel forces attacked Gaddafi forces last evening. quote:Major General, Omar Al Hariri, the military chief of the interim national council told Al Jazeera how his forces were able to take Brega back last evening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 10:17
|
|
|
Live blogs for March 14th Guardian AJE LibyaFeb17.com
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 10:58
|
|
|
Interesting news from the AJE live blog:quote:Sources inside Libya's Interim National Council have told Al Jazeera that they received promises from the US, France, and UK that they will agree on a no-fly zone in the first UN Security Council meeting. The rebels really need any help they can get at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 12:56
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Interesting news from the AJE live blog: What's the likelihood of securing it within the next 24 hours, or so? Benghazi is next. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011314103349669135.html I doubt it overall. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Mar 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
If it goes to the security council I fully expect Russia or China to block a no-fly zone, where it would go from there I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 14:04
|
|
|
Pretty sure that if Dhaffy's forces start shelling Benghazi someone is going to get involved, UN or no UN. He's pissed off too many governments internationally and they can't have him making a comeback to claim all the money that was seized. Pretty sure the billions in US/UK banks that was snatched by our governments is currently earning us interest while we keep it safe for the rebels and if Ghadaddi crushes the rebels wouldn't he be legally entitled to it once again? Along with a lawsuit for damages and lost interest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
Verizian posted:Pretty sure the billions in US/UK banks that was snatched by our governments is currently earning us interest while we keep it safe for the rebels and if Ghadaddi crushes the rebels wouldn't he be legally entitled to it once again? Along with a lawsuit for damages and lost interest. No I'm pretty sure that if Gaddafi could and would win he'd be pretty much out of it. I also strongly doubt they are going to give it to the rebels after they win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
Verizian posted:Pretty sure the billions in US/UK banks that was snatched by our governments is currently earning us interest while we keep it safe for the rebels and if Ghadaddi crushes the rebels wouldn't he be legally entitled to it once again? Along with a lawsuit for damages and lost interest. It's quite possible that the money will never be released unless Gaddafi makes some sort of special deal with the countries holding the assets, like Iran did in the hostage debacle of 1979. But the legal status of such assets is also unclear - many people in the US have tried to gain access to the frozen Cuban assets, but despite being granted millions by US courts the banks have been unwilling to give the frozen moneys to claimants due to being possibly sued by Cuba. This is all money that has been kept frozen for decades. quote:After the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, the United States froze about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. According to American officials, most of those were released in 1981 as part of the deal to release the hostages. Some assets—Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less—remain frozen, pending resolution of legal claims arising from the Revolution. quote:At the end of 2005, there was $268.3 million in Cuban assets frozen in U.S. bank accounts, according to the most recent Treasury Department report. Some of the money is exempt from payment under federal law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
More escalation news from Bahrain:quote:More details are coming in about the foreign troops inside Bahrain. The 1,000-strong force, while presumed to be Saudi dominated, officially comes on behalf of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, which also comprises Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Bahrain. For all the talk about possible Nato or UN intervention in Libya this is notable and significant as the first time an outside nation has directly intervened during the current wave of Arab uprisings. quote:On Bahrain once again, it's probably worth mentioning a couple of snippets from Agence France-Presse in relation to the Gulf Cooperation Council troops. Firstly, it seems the 1,000 soldiers are, indeed, Saudi. Also, the agency quotes a Saudi official as saying that under the way the council operates, "any Gulf force entering a member state becomes under the command of the government" of that country I can see this really aggrevating the situation in Bahrain, not sure it's a smart move by the government,.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
I am not surprised by this turn of events, the Saudi Government (including a large swath of public opinion) See what's going on in Bahrain as the equivalent of an Iranian invasion, so I knew it would come to this sooner or later. Vids of troops moving in: Tanks Armoured Cars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
The Libyan State TV website just got hacked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
What does it mean politically for the Saudi government to send troops to a sovereign nation? Really they won't make any difference, right? They get to just stand guard? But unless they intervene with military might (i.e. shooting the poo poo out of civilians, which would bring them even more hell), the Saudi involvement shouldn't change the outcome of the current revolt? I really don't know what to think about this. I'm assuming the protests in NE Saudi Arabia fizzled?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Sivias posted:What does it mean politically for the Saudi government to send troops to a sovereign nation? Yeah don't worry this is all just for show. Show and awe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
David Cameron is ramping up the rhetoric over here, it seems he really is set on getting a no fly zone going with whoever he can find to help him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
The Guardian is covering his speech about Libya here, they'll probably post a summary once he's done which I'll post in this thread. It sounds like Britain will be pushing very hard for a no fly zone, and Cameron also said "No one is talking about invasions or "boots on the ground"."
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJBTCWeX8LM Skip to ~19 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Desecrating graves is a war crime. Hope it was worth it, fuckers. is it that black and white? If someone burred you in a area not designated as a grave yard (i.e. in a public park) and someone moved it (the MAN), would they be committing a war crime?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Xandu posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJBTCWeX8LM 6 posts back (and he at least told us what he was linking to)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
Apparently the correct spelling of foreign names such a Gaddafi is not not only a problem for western media.Libyan state TV website posted:German Foreign Minister, Jido Fisterfelh, warned yesterday Saturday that any military intervention against Libya would result in new crusade war against Muslims and Islam married but discreet fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Mar 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
Pweller posted:6 posts back (and he at least told us what he was linking to) Oops, didn't click on it. Good find, al-Saqr. I'm kind of curious how/if al-Arabiya is reporting this. edit: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/14/141445.html Well they are mentioning it, though declining to identify it as Saudi-led. Xandu fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Mar 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
A city in the west of Libya is under attack:quote:Eyewitness update from Zuwarah:
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Jut posted:is it that black and white? I heard someone say that on the BBC, I think, but I did a bit of research. According to Wikipedia, the Third Geneva Convention, provides that: "After every engagement, the belligerent who remains in possession of the field shall take measures to search for wounded and the dead and to protect them from robbery and ill treatment." And "the occasional mutilation of Japanese remains were recognized to have been conducted by U.S. forces, declared to be atrocities, and explicitly forbidden by order of the U.S. Judge Advocate General in 1943-1944. Many dead Japanese were desecrated and/or mutilated, for example by urinating on them, shooting corpses, or taking Japanese body parts (such as skulls) as souvenirs or trophies. This is in violation of the law and custom of war." So depends on what Gaddafi did with the bodies I suppose. Burning them or something else to hide evidence might be prosecutable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
They took 4 armored cars? How does this happen? Is it possible the Gaddafi forces are 'making it easy' on them, somehow? I just don't understand how barely armed citizens can take on an 'organized' force with armed vehicles and capture them without some "gently caress it, it's yours." mindset on the side of the Pro-Gaddafi forces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Well one of the articles earlier reported the rebels finding tied up troops in some tanks, so I imagine there are still people in the army who support the rebels but are too afraid to publicly join them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Sivias posted:They took 4 armored cars? How does this happen? Armor isn't invincible. Armor requires range to be effective - if you get overrun, you're just a bunch of guys in a bathtub. Exploding a few molotovs on them would make the interior start heating up, overheating the engine, etc. There are many ways for civilians to combat armor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Armor isn't invincible. Armor requires range to be effective - if you get overrun, you're just a bunch of guys in a bathtub. Exploding a few molotovs on them would make the interior start heating up, overheating the engine, etc. There are many ways for civilians to combat armor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Seriously. Despite the idea people have of tanks being invincible rolling fortresses, if you're in an urban environment and not working in close concert with supporting infantry, you're basically driving a coffin. Not to mention that as earlier pictures have shown, the rebels do have access to RPGs, so they aren't just plinking away at them with bullets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I heard someone say that on the BBC, I think, but I did a bit of research. According to Wikipedia, the Third Geneva Convention, provides that: "After every engagement, the belligerent who remains in possession of the field shall take measures to search for wounded and the dead and to protect them from robbery and ill treatment." And "the occasional mutilation of Japanese remains were recognized to have been conducted by U.S. forces, declared to be atrocities, and explicitly forbidden by order of the U.S. Judge Advocate General in 1943-1944. Many dead Japanese were desecrated and/or mutilated, for example by urinating on them, shooting corpses, or taking Japanese body parts (such as skulls) as souvenirs or trophies. This is in violation of the law and custom of war." The Geneva convention has a different set of rule for conflicts of a non-international nature...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Armor isn't invincible. Armor requires range to be effective - if you get overrun, you're just a bunch of guys in a bathtub. Exploding a few molotovs on them would make the interior start heating up, overheating the engine, etc. There are many ways for civilians to combat armor. Besides, a reference to 'armed cars' is very unclear in its own. Supposing that this was really meant to be armored cars, it could be an old BRDM-2 scout car or BTR-60 personnel carrier, neither of which have protection against more than rifle caliber weapons. Combat vehicles also get abandoned for non-combat reasons, like getting immobilized in rubble or soft sand or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Despite this, the concept of capturing so many armoured cars is a bit odd, considering so few soldiers were captured. Obviously, yes; unsupported vehicular combat in an urban environment is suicide, almost regardless of context, but I still think there is a significant 5th column in the so-called 'Pro-Gadaffi' forces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Despite this, the concept of capturing so many armoured cars is a bit odd, considering so few soldiers were captured. I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if there were people still in the military that support the rebels but are afraid to defect - remember the barracks full of soldiers burnt alive because they refused to follow orders to attack civilians? I think the troops that have defected had the support of their commanding officers, so the whole unit just defected at once. If a soldier personally supports the rebels but his commanders are still on Gaddafi's payroll, he might be afraid of being caught trying to desert. I bet the cases of the captured armour are troops that saw an opportunity to get out and just abandoned their vehicles once they were sure they could get away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Zuwara has fallen to Gaddafi troops already, looks like there wasn't a lot of resistance after all. Except for Misurata I suspect the rest of the cities in the west won't be able to resist much longer either. All of this may be over much sooner than we thought. Gaddafi will probably emerge victorious in the matter of a few weeks as it looks now. Gonna be pretty embarrassing for the European nations to come crawling back begging for forgiveness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
If I were a rebel leader, I'd be making large posters telling the opposing troops that they could enter a friendly zone and be welcomed into our side or something, allowing the loyalist troops a chance to defect without being shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
ArchDemon posted:If I were a rebel leader, I'd be making large posters telling the opposing troops that they could enter a friendly zone and be welcomed into our side or something, allowing the loyalist troops a chance to defect without being shot. See that's the thing, I don't think they're afraid of being shot by the rebels so much as they're afraid of being shot by their own commanders. From the sounds of things the loyalist commanders are basically commissars 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
ArchDemon posted:If I were a rebel leader, I'd be making large posters telling the opposing troops that they could enter a friendly zone and be welcomed into our side or something, allowing the loyalist troops a chance to defect without being shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
ArchDemon posted:If I were a rebel leader, I'd be making large posters telling the opposing troops that they could enter a friendly zone and be welcomed into our side or something, allowing the loyalist troops a chance to defect without being shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Seriously. Despite the idea people have of tanks being invincible rolling fortresses, if you're in an urban environment and not working in close concert with supporting infantry, you're basically driving a coffin. As if the vehicles are rolling into the city without infantry assistance? Wouldn't they know they're highly vulnerable in an urban environment? I'm sure they're not just rolling in by themselves, especially if they have any training, as the Gaddafi troops are suspected to have. You see videos of people in vans that just hose through crowds of people, I'm sure any vehicle with any sort of power and armor could easily deal with getting out of some snag engagement. Finally, they said they *captured* the armored vehicles, not destroyed them. This is a little ambiguous, but doesn't that sort of assume the guys inside surrendered a working vehicle? I guess the comment needs some clarity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:46
|
|