Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Rex Deckard: Jul 15, 2004

Brown Moses posted:

Here it is on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150211199272907

Some people think its white phosphorus burns.

That was my guess actually. Horrifying stuff that burns forever.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 21:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 12:44

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

Brown Moses posted:

Here it is on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150211199272907

Some people think its white phosphorus burns.

Might be napalm too.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 21:55

CeeJee: Dec 4, 2001; Oven Wrangler

New Division posted:

Of course not. It was from a rebel radio station broadcasting stuff intended to bolster morale. The reporters on the ground in Benghazi covering the revolt for the Wall Street Journal have mentioned these broadcasts in their coverage, but a lot of their stuff is behind a paywall. But if you have access, here ya go.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202821789052208.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Thought so:

quote:

As the day progressed, the radio made a series of increasingly fantastic claims, saying that pilots of the rebel air force - which rebel officials have been saying for days does not exist -- have launched kamikaze attacks on Col. Gadhafi's units, and insisting that rebels somehow captured three government warships.

The amount of false info going out through Twitter and Al Jazeera is just amazing, Fox News is completely credible compared to this.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 21:55

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

CeeJee posted:

The amount of false info going out through Twitter and Al Jazeera is just amazing, Fox News is completely credible compared to this.

I can't get too mad at Al Jazeera, they obviously want to help represent the rebel point of view to the rest of the world. But I think they've become to eager to report rumors without atttempting to vet them.

edit: As for Twitter, well you never know when someone is telling complete bullshit there. It ends up coming down to trust. Plenty of true stories have been broken over Twitter. But I would never, ever report a story based on a tweets without some kind of verification from other sources.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 21:57

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

New Division posted:

edit: As for Twitter, well you never know when someone is telling complete bullshit there.

(derail warning) I find this a very dangerous phenomenon. There was a time when a well balanced and researched story was valued. But with the Internet's instant video sharing and all of that we have increasingly become news junkies hungry for the latest news rather than patiently awaiting a more detailed analysis of an event. :f5:

Not to mention that so many people seem to think that the official media has a bias and of course an anonymous chain mail or Facebook meme is more reliable.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:12

Atom: Apr 6, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Xandu posted:

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.

Jesus Christ, gently caress Youtube.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:16

Patter Song: Mar 26, 2010; Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.; Fun Shoe

Atom posted:

Jesus Christ, gently caress Youtube.

It's telling that "shocking and disgusting content" has gone from "Oh my god what is that man doing to his anus" to "gently caress Qaddafi. Just, gently caress Qaddafi. Someone kill that loving evil son of a bitch."

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:23

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Atom posted:

Jesus Christ, gently caress Youtube.

It's very arbitrary too, unfortunately. I've had a video up for weeks that's more graphic than that, but they just flagged it as adult so you have to login. But other ones get deleted almost as soon as they are posted.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:27

Earwicker: Jan 6, 2003

Cartouche posted:

Agreed. On one hand I want for more "local" countries to act rather than sticking our (USA) necks out once again, but it really feels like a deer-caught-in-headlights inaction all around. Frustrating as all hell.

Uh... ok, I wasn't talking about the US "sticking our necks out", but rather the US or any other major western power acting unilaterally would be interpreted (probably correctly) as a grab for Libyan resources.

Which might well be what's happening anyway. Let Gadaffi kill the rebels and then the US can go and remove him from power to "punish" him and occupy the country (and its resources) without having to deal with a pesky democracy-minded rebel government to get in the way.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:31

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

Nenonen posted:

(derail warning) I find this a very dangerous phenomenon. There was a time when a well balanced and researched story was valued. But with the Internet's instant video sharing and all of that we have increasingly become news junkies hungry for the latest news rather than patiently awaiting a more detailed analysis of an event. Not to mention that so many people seem to think that the official media has a bias and of course an anonymous chain mail or Facebook meme is more reliable.

I think of this when folks post links to stuff similar to the ones a few posts up about the "chemical burns". Seriously gruesome to be certain, but what proof is there that it is even current or related to current events?

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:34

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

Earwicker posted:

Uh... ok, I wasn't talking about the US "sticking our necks out", but rather the US or any other major western power acting unilaterally would be interpreted (probably correctly) as a grab for Libyan resources.

Which might well be what's happening anyway. Let Gadaffi kill the rebels and then the US can go and remove him from power to "punish" him and occupy the country (and its resources) without having to deal with a pesky democracy-minded rebel government to get in the way.

The US really doesn't have an interest in Libya. The amount of oil we get from Libya is minuscule and easily replaced by other sources. It's the Euros who were his big patrons. Oddly enough it's the UK and France that are the ones really interested in intervening. Hmm....

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:39

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

Earwicker posted:

Uh... ok, I wasn't talking about the US "sticking our necks out", but rather the US or any other major western power acting unilaterally would be interpreted (probably correctly) as a grab for Libyan resources.

No, we are on the same page. That is what I meant by sticking our necks out. The moment we do that on our own, it would be immediately interpreted into "US wants something out of this". Regardless of our intentions, that is how it will be interpreted.

Earwicker posted:

Which might well be what's happening anyway. Let Gadaffi kill the rebels and then the US can go and remove him from power to "punish" him and occupy the country (and its resources) without having to deal with a pesky democracy-minded rebel government to get in the way.

That is certainly an interesting take on it. The selfish part of me wants my gas prices to stop spiking (being honest here), while the non-selfish part of me just wants sane people to be running countries. The earth is too damned small. I mean, we have a bazillion (rough estimate) humans on earth, and we have folks like Gadafi and Jung Il running entire countries. It's just so very :psyduck:

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:39

Slantedfloors: Apr 29, 2008; Wait, What?

Brown Moses posted:

Some people think its white phosphorus burns.

Yeah, it looks like he got caught in a spray of white phosphorus. The charring of his skin looks pretty much identical to other cases of WP. In a related note, I'm going to go throw up now.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:43

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Interesting bit of analysis from AJA:

quote:

Al Jazeera Arabic Political Analyst Azmi Bshara has spoken beautifully once again this evening, and luckily I was able to jot down an document almost everything he said. I will provide it to you in summarised note form, though do keep in mind that I have not included the questions that he was asked by the news anchors for fear of missing what he might say. I hope you find this translation useful:

* Gaddafi and Saif�s last speeches clearly demonstrate their intent in psychological warfare. The speeches were well planned and clearly structured by experts. Money can easily buy you people these days
* If its military strength that decides who the world sides with, then Saif was trying to say: The strength is with us, we will end this in 48 hours
* Let�s assume that Saif is right. Is it something worth boasting about and being proud of that you have to physically crush and bombard your own people with tanks and heavy artillery in order to rule over them?
* The decision that world governments make is not guided by interests only. Whoever wants contracts with Libya will be able to get them. Libya isn�t going anywhere as a country, and it will still need to sell its oil.
* An important factor that plays in Europe and America is �Public Opinion�. Libya and France have negatively clashed during the Libya-Chad war when Libya wanted to play the role of a superpower in Africa, a continent where France has dominated and still does
* Another factor is competing interests. There are new BIG players in North Africa, namely Turkey who has struck contracts worth 100 billion with Libya over the next three years in varying sectors. This touches on the interests of other countries namely Europe.
* In the developed countries, we notice a cross sometimes between politics and economy
* There are other variables that play into which direction countries side with regarding Libya. In the case of Russia, we keep in mind the arms deals it has with Libya.
* High oil prices may not be a good factor for many European countries but in the case of Russia it is a positive thing due to its role in oil production
* The last time a �Freedom Fighters� group was armed was in Afghanistan when the Taliban were fighting Russia. These same weapons were later used against the same people who supplied them when America declared war on Afghanistan in 2001
* Germany is being cautious and asking questions that relate to the political ideologies of the Libyan revolution before even discussing the idea of providing them with arms because they are not sure which way the revolution may swing after it defeats Gaddafi. Another reason is because Libya so much closer to Europe than Afghanistan
* Any freedom movement is not guaranteed as to where it�ll go after succeeding. It�s a gamble whether you arm them or not
* At the same time, not arming the revolutionaries in the Public opinion means indirectly supporting and condoning what Gaddafi�s regime is doing
* One thing the world needs to realise as 100% fact is that Libya can never go back to the way it used to be pre-17th February
* If Europe and the world are to help arm the revolution, then this will be for many reasons:
* 1. Pressure from the neighbouring Arab nations, especially after the consensus reached during the Arab League meeting
* 2. Public opinion which has clearly voiced its hatred for Gaddafi�s regime and the crimes it�s committing
* 3. The masses are out!
* In the beginning of the Egyptian revolution, the Obama administration was stating that Egypt was �politically stable�. They did not change their opinion until the millions came out and occupied the squares and streets of the country. Though Libya is not witnessing such demonstrations, it�s going about it differently and thousands are dying for the cause.
* I expect for the UN resolution to pass tomorrow. I dismiss the fear of Russia and China using the right of Veto because these countries have restricted their use of it to regional issues only in the past. Last time Russia used power of Veto was in 1991 for example.
* I doubt America will Veto the resolution out of fear of the public opinion backlash, and especially during this critical time with elections next year.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:54

Malick23: Sep 10, 2001; I bought all my friends forum accounts and all I got was this lousy custom title

Cartouche posted:

I think of this when folks post links to stuff similar to the ones a few posts up about the "chemical burns". Seriously gruesome to be certain, but what proof is there that it is even current or related to current events?

I'm reminded of that tree octopus story a few months back and how kids would still believe it even after it was confirmed to be a hoax. Although this applies more to the Free Libyan Airforce and less to these horrific burns.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 22:59

Dr Kool-AIDS: Mar 26, 2004

Earwicker posted:

Which might well be what's happening anyway. Let Gadaffi kill the rebels and then the US can go and remove him from power to "punish" him and occupy the country (and its resources) without having to deal with a pesky democracy-minded rebel government to get in the way.

There's zero indication that Obama has even a remote interest in occupying Libya, let alone in stealing its resources. If he planned to out-Bush Bush and start a third war, he probably wouldn't have let his Secretary of Defense go around talking about how crazy it would be to put troops on the ground again in Africa or Asia.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 23:01

neamp: Jun 24, 2003

CeeJee posted:

The amount of false info going out through Twitter and Al Jazeera is just amazing, Fox News is completely credible compared to this.

Al Jazeera never reported any of this, as far as I know, people started citing reports by "Almanara Media", whatever that is supposed to be.
For the jet supposedly crashed in Tripoli, I alone read three different version: It was a defecting pilot from Mitiga airbase in Tripoli; it was one from Sirte ordered to bomb Benghazi; and finally the story that got the most traction with the pilot coming from Benghazi.
Later a journalist in Tripoli, weighted in and said, well, as far as I can tell nothing out of the ordinary went on here.

The last reports from independent journalists seem to suggest Gaddafi has indeed amassed a large army around Ajdabiya, hundreds of vehicles, thousands of soldiers.
Depending on how decisively he can beat the rebels there they could be besieging Benghazi and Tobruk in the next days.

# ? Mar 16, 2011 23:49

J33uk: Oct 24, 2005

Has anyone followed up on the whole mercenary angle? A few weeks back it seemed like hundreds of mercenaries were being captured, has anything concrete actually come out as to who the hell they were? Or is this another case of the rebel reports being "touched up" a little to press certain buttons?

# ? Mar 16, 2011 23:50

Narmi: Feb 26, 2008

J33uk posted:

Has anyone followed up on the whole mercenary angle? A few weeks back it seemed like hundreds of mercenaries were being captured, has anything concrete actually come out as to who the hell they were? Or is this another case of the rebel reports being "touched up" a little to press certain buttons?

There was an article a few days about how Gaddafi is recruiting from Mali and Chad, where's he's viewed as a saviour who's pumped billions into their country. Recruitment was still ongoing, but had slowed down substantially since they didn't have much money for the mercenaries anymore.

e: Found it:

quote:

Libyan Oil Buys Allies for Qaddafi

BAMAKO, Mali � Elhadj Maiga is a Qaddafi recruiter and a proud one at that, scrambling to assemble a pipeline of young men from Mali to go and fight for The Great Leader.

At this stage, without cash for guns or transport, Mr. Maiga�s group of about 200 young men is more of a fan club than a militia. But like other pro-Qaddafi groups that have sprung up here since the rebellion in Libya began, what it lacks in logistics it makes up in loyalty.

�We�re all ready to die for him,� Mr. Maiga said. �He�s done so much for us, after all.�

Just look at Mr. Maiga�s life: he prays at a mosque in Bamako, Mali�s capital, that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi built; he watches television on the Malian national network that Colonel Qaddafi set up in the 1980s; and he admires with a feeling nothing short of awe La Cit� Administrative Muammar el-Qaddafi, the gleaming new $100 million government complex that Colonel Qaddafi is helping pay for and that bears his name � even though it is for Mali�s government, not Libya�s.

Mali, a desperately poor country near Libya, is a case in point of the allegiance Colonel Qaddafi has bought in many parts of the continent. He has tapped Libya�s vast oil reserves to liberally sprinkle billions of dollars around sub-Saharan Africa, playing all sides and investing in almost anything � governments, rebel groups, luxury hotels, Islamic organizations, rubber factories, rice paddies, diamond mines, supermarkets and the countless OiLibya gas stations.

From Liberia to South Africa to the island of Madagascar, Libya�s holdings are like a giant venture capital fund, geared to make friends and win influence in the poorest region in the world. This may help explain how Colonel Qaddafi has been able to summon sub-Saharan African soldiers to fight for him in his time of need � Libyans have spoken of �African mercenaries� killing protesters and helping him rout rebel fighters � and why so many African leaders have been so slow to criticize him, even as his forces slaughter his own people.

�So many of these presidents at one time or another have gotten something directly from him,� said Manny Ansar, a prominent Malian intellectual who organizes one of West Africa�s most celebrated cultural happenings, Mali�s Festival in the Desert. �So what are they going to say now?� While the Arab League was quick to suspend Libya last month and has even asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-flight zone to stop Colonel Qaddafi�s attacks on his people, the African Union has taken a more cautious stance, deciding only on Friday to send negotiators who will meet with both sides.

Seen as eccentric and unpredictable, Colonel Qaddafi never got far as a leader in the Arab world. But in sub-Saharan Africa, many have been inspired by his vision of a �United States of Africa� and appreciate his anti-Western tirades. The Libyan government, which is, in essence, Colonel Qaddafi, also pays 15 percent of the African Union dues. He even succeeded in getting some traditional African leaders to call him �King of Kings,� and in Mali, from the streets to the president�s office, there seems to be near unanimous respect.

�Some people see the colonel as the devil, but he�s not,� said Seydou Sissouma, spokesman for Mali�s president. �He�s a great African.�

Mr. Sissouma bristled at the idea that Libya was buying friends. �That�s not the case,� he said. �Libya has accepted to share its resources with others. Other African oil producers, like Nigeria, don�t do this.�

But Colonel Qaddafi�s involvement in sub-Saharan Africa, said J. Peter Pham, editor of the Journal of the Middle East and Africa, has been �nothing short of catastrophic.�

His meddling in Sudan�s Darfur region and arming of Arab militias there helped lead to the rise of the notorious janjaweed, armed groups that have terrorized civilians for years. His support of the former strongman Charles Taylor in Liberia added to the bloodshed and mayhem in that country. His backing of various rebel factions across the Sahara has destabilized Mali, Chad, Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and others, allowing Al Qaeda to grab a foothold in the vast, unpatrolled deserts.

In the 1970s and 1980s, he recruited thousands of Africans into his Islamic Legion, an experimental Muslim army that failed on the battlefield in places like Chad and then sent so many young men drifting back to their home countries embittered � and heavily armed.

The various African wars that Colonel Qaddafi helped stir up �took hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions, and their ripple effects continue to this day,� Mr. Pham said.

Mr. Sissouma�s response to such criticism: �Nobody�s an angel.�

Many members of the nomadic Touaregs, who roam across the deserts of Mali, Niger, Algeria and Libya, see Colonel Qaddafi as their champion. For the past 40 years, the Touaregs have rebelled, on and off, against the governments of Mali and Niger, provoking brutal anti-Touareg campaigns. Touaregs in Mali spoke of government soldiers poisoning wells and pulling Touareg men off buses and making them eat their national identification cards at gunpoint and then arresting or shooting them for not having any identification.

When thousands of Touaregs fled into Libya in the 1970s and 1980s, Colonel Qaddafi welcomed them with open arms. He gave them food and shelter. He called them brothers. He also started training them as soldiers. Touareg elders here say that many of the so-called African mercenaries Colonel Qaddafi is now relying on to suppress the revolts are actually Touaregs who have been serving in the Libyan Army for years, not new arrivals.

Still, Touareg elders in Mali and Niger have also said that in the past few weeks hundreds of former rebels have crossed the porous borders into Libya to fight for Colonel Qaddafi. Most are said to travel in pickup trucks, unarmed, appearing as migrant laborers, only to be armed once they get to Libya.

In another wrinkle, some Touaregs are widely believed to be cooperating with Qaeda agents in the Sahara, which would completely undermine Colonel Qaddafi�s repeated utterances that his forces are defending the nation against a Qaeda onslaught.

One person close to the Libyan government estimated that 3,000 to 4,000 mercenaries from Mali, Niger and the Darfur region in Sudan have been hired by the Libyan government for at least $1,000 a day each. But several people here, including Mr. Ansar, the cultural festival organizer who is also a well-connected Touareg, had their doubts.

�It�d be very difficult in just two or three weeks to organize a system to pay and recruit mercenaries,� he said.

Beyond that, he said: �Even if Qaddafi didn�t ask them, they�d go. He�s their chief, their leader, everything to them. If he�s out, they lose their protector.�

Mr. Maiga � by day a small lender, by evening a rabble-rouser who sits on a cracked concrete stoop with a gaggle of young men who say they are eager for war � said he was envious of the Touaregs fighting for Colonel Qaddafi.

�We wish we could be like them,� he said. �We�re just waiting on the means.�

His group has distributed pro-Qaddafi fliers across Bamako�s drab, sun-blasted neighborhoods. Indeed, all across this city, young men have formed into pro-Qaddafi organizations, and many said they, too, were eager to join the fight and were just waiting on �the means.�

Mr. Maiga looked intently at the journalist interviewing him, and a light bulb of an idea lit up his face.

�Hey, wait, you�re American,� he said excitedly. �Think the American government could help us defend Qaddafi?�

source

Narmi fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 17, 2011

# ? Mar 17, 2011 00:14

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

Gaddafi recruits a lot from the Tuaregs in the southern deserts of Libyan, who are black and culturaly distinct from the coastal population.

New Division fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Mar 17, 2011

# ? Mar 17, 2011 00:15

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

J33uk posted:

Has anyone followed up on the whole mercenary angle? A few weeks back it seemed like hundreds of mercenaries were being captured, has anything concrete actually come out as to who the hell they were? Or is this another case of the rebel reports being "touched up" a little to press certain buttons?

It's likely exaggeration occurred, but there were articles where journalists interviewed prisoners and they said they were from Mali and Chad.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 00:33

Chortles: Dec 29, 2008

bringer posted:

It's because of poo poo like this, where you value the safety and stability of your life over their freedoms,

To be honest, this is my position too... "their freedoms" (indirectly) supporting safety/stability for me is how you can get me to side with them.

quote:

Mr. Maiga looked intently at the journalist interviewing him, and a light bulb of an idea lit up his face.

�Hey, wait, you�re American,� he said excitedly. �Think the American government could help us defend Qaddafi?�

# ? Mar 17, 2011 00:45

Crackpipe: Jul 9, 2001

Earwicker posted:

The problem is no one wants to do it unilaterally or without certain partners involved, and getting the right group of nations involved in doing it is what takes so long. I wouldn't trust the US to go in alone, and probably neither do many Arab states.

I understand and agree with this, but Obama has taken something of a back-burner approach to drumming up support. I get that he doesn't want it to appear that the U.S. is rushing into attacking another Arab country, but he's gone to the other extreme of near-apathy. That is something I have a problem with.

Slantedfloors posted:

If they actually do anything that requires effort or picking a side to support, they won't later be able to claim they were neutral but that they were always rooting for whichever faction wins.

I kinda figured the neutrality debate ended when Obama, Clinton, et al openly called on Gaddafi to resign and get out of Libya.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 01:08

Chortles: Dec 29, 2008

That mind you was while the rebels were supposedly sweeping the country...

# ? Mar 17, 2011 01:12

J33uk: Oct 24, 2005

Crackpipe posted:

I understand and agree with this, but Obama has taken something of a back-burner approach to drumming up support. I get that he doesn't want it to appear that the U.S. is rushing into attacking another Arab country, but he's gone to the other extreme of near-apathy. That is something I have a problem with.

The Administration at the moment seems to be paralyzed on many issues, Libya included. If there's any sort of difficult issue (outside of basketball) at the moment, be it domestic or foreign, it seems that the Obama team are examining all options and that'll be all you hear.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 01:28

Cartouche: Jan 4, 2011

J33uk posted:

The Administration at the moment seems to be paralyzed on many issues, Libya included. If there's any sort of difficult issue (outside of basketball) at the moment, be it domestic or foreign, it seems that the Obama team are examining all options and that'll be all you hear.

This calls for immediate discussion!

I have been going back to that piece SO often of late.

Cartouche fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Mar 17, 2011

# ? Mar 17, 2011 01:37

Narmi: Feb 26, 2008

So the UN has actually managed to reach an agreement on the wording of the NFZ resolution. It'll be put to a vote tomorrow. From what I understand, Russia and China are still against foreign intervention and the US has maintained its stance of "everything is being considered."

quote:

No-fly zone over Libya gets scant support at UN as time grows short

As Moammar Gadhafi�s warplanes pounded rebel positions near Benghazi, the last major rebel stronghold, the great powers belatedly began consideration of a no-fly zone that could deny the repressive Libyan dictator part of the military might he has ruthlessly used to decimate the ragtag rebel army.

It may be too little, too late. Even the watered-down Anglo-French resolution faces stiff opposition from China and Russia at the UN and has little support from U.S. President Barack Obama, who would need to commit significant military assets to make it work.

If imposed, it would take days for U.S. and allied warplanes to destroy Libya�s scattered surface-to-air missiles and control the skies above the vast North African nation. On Wednesday, with Benghazi residents already fleeing as the rebels retreated and Colonel Gadhafi�s armoured columns of tanks and artillery closed in, outside military intervention to tip the balance against the Libyan strongman seemed unlikely.

The Libyan army issued an ultimatum to residents of Benghazi, warning them to leave rebel-held locations and weapons storage areas immediately, Libyan television reported. A text on the screen of Al-Libya television addressed inhabitants of the city, saying the army was coming �to support you and to cleanse your city from armed gangs.�

But Benghazi residents poured scorn on the announcement. Several recent reports on Libyan television have not been borne out. It said on Tuesday that pro-Gaddafi masses were rallying in the city, which residents said never happened.

�This is psychological warfare,� said resident Faiza Ali, contacted by telephone.

Jibril al-Huweidi, doctor at al-Jalaa Hospital in Benghazi confirmed the city was quiet.

�Some ambulances are shuttling between Benghazi and Ajdabiya,� he said, referring to a city further west where loyalist and opposition forces clashed again on Wednesday.

�They could not have made it repeatedly back and forth tonight if the evil forces were closing in on Benghazi.�

Col. Gaddafi himself seemed to undercut the ultimatum on his state-run Al-Libya television by telling Lebanon�s LBC TV he did not expect a battle in Benghazi, where he said Libyan people have been helping get rid of �al Qaeda� elements.

In an impassioned plea to the UN Security Council, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said, �Let us save the martyred Libyan people together. Time is now counted in days, or even hours.�

But Germany�s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle warned, �We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa and we would not like to step on a slippery slope.�

With Europe divided, the United States skeptical and China and Russia opposed � both countries are veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council � there seemed little prospect of early passage of a resolution imposing an immediate no-fly zone.

Canada�s Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said: �We need a viable and objective solution that can do the job,� but his officials were unable to say whether the Harper government supports or opposes a no-fly zone. Canadian warplanes led scores of bombing raids against Serbs in 1999 after NATO proceeded without the legal authorization of a UN Security Council resolution in the Balkans.

The White House denied it has dithered, although the first calls for a no-fly zone were made weeks ago as the hopeful but ill-equipped rebels piled into pickup trucks and headed west toward Tripoli.

�We might have action on this no later than tomorrow,� said Mr. Obama�s spokesman Jay Carney. That �again demonstrates the remarkable sense of urgency that this administration has been guided by.�

No-fly zones, easy to announce and expensive to impose, have, at best, a checkered history. In Bosnia, a no-fly zone failed to prevent the massacres at Srebrenica. In Kosovo, a full-blown bombing campaign was subsequently needed to dislodge Serb forces. In Iraq, more than a decade of being under a no-fly zone didn�t topple Saddam Hussein and an invasion by more than 100,000 U.S. ground troops was needed in a war that lasted six years.

Only Britain and France, backed by Lebanon, the only Arab League nation currently among the 10 rotating members of the Security Council, are clearly pushing for a no-fly zone.

The 22-nation Arab League has endorsed a no-fly zone but whether Arab warplanes would deploy and fly missions remains in doubt.

�Russia remains categorically opposed to any foreign intervention, particularly military intervention, in Libyan affairs,� said Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the great powers would consider a range of options. �The no-fly zone is one of them but it�s not the only one. There are other actions that need to be also evaluated,� she said.

Col. Gadhafi�s son Saif al-Islam laughed off the threats. In two days, forces loyal to the regime will be in Benghazi, he said.

Ahmed Omar, a rebel commander in the fast-emptying eastern city, denounced the world for standing by after the Obama administration and others had cheered pro-democracy uprisings elsewhere in the Arab world.

�The international community has failed us,� Mr. Omar said by phone.

Some praised Mr. Obama�s reticence. �Why is anyone so sure that the people we�d be helping, that they would necessarily be dramatically better than Gadhafi?� said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

But a growing chorus of senior U.S. senators demanded action, despite the overstretch of the American military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

�One test in foreign policy � at least be as bold as the French,� said South Carolina�s Republican Senator Lindsey Graham acidly. �When it comes to Libya, we�re failing that test.�

The Obama administration � perhaps keenly aware that while others may loudly call for warplanes to police Libyan skies, it will be U.S. aircraft and U.S. pilots shouldering most of the load � wants to keep step with, but not lead, any international intervention.

source

Unless the rebels have some hidden trump card, at this point it looks unlikely that this will do anything - maybe there'll be a few more defection, and the rebels will get a morale boost and keep fighting a bit longer, but short of bombing Gaddafi's forces it looks like their days are numbered. Misrata and Benghazi can only hold out for so long.

Cartouche posted:

This calls for immediate discussion!

I have been going back to that piece SO often of late.

Huh. Real life is actually worse than a Monthy Python skit. I never thought I'd see that.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 02:01

Zappatista: Oct 28, 2008; WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING IN LIFE.

And here I thought that some of the Arab States would start covertly arming the Libyan rebels...

e: any updates on the health of Khamis Ghadafi?

Zappatista fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Mar 17, 2011

# ? Mar 17, 2011 02:28

PenguinBob: Oct 12, 2000

Zappatista posted:

And here I thought that some of the Arab States would start covertly arming the Libyan rebels...

e: any updates on the health of Khamis Ghadafi?

most likely the kamikaze thing never happened

# ? Mar 17, 2011 02:55

tangy yet delightful: Sep 13, 2005

Am I wrong in thinking the rebels in Libya are basically hosed at this point?

# ? Mar 17, 2011 03:21

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Totally TWISTED posted:

Am I wrong in thinking the rebels in Libya are basically hosed at this point?

Yes/Maybe/No.

It's a really hard question to answer. Suppose the rebels lose Misrata and Benghazi tomorrow and Tobruk in a few days, then what happens? Gaddafi will still have heavy sanctions on him, most of his diplomats have resigned and many officers/politicians defected, things can't go back to normal. Even if the rebels lose, people could start protesting or sabotaging the regime. Gaddafi won't have an easy time ruling the country even if he takes it back.

We also don't know what the UN is going to do tomorrow.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 03:25

Space Butler: Dec 3, 2010; Lipstick Apathy

Xandu posted:

We also don't know what the UN is going to do tomorrow.

Little of use while there is still so much money tied up in oil contracts over there.

Saw this earlier. the UK is advising British nationals to get out of Bahrain and has gone as far as chartering flights to get them out. They don't seem to like doing that last part, and I doubt there the only ones doing this.

HJE-Cobra, I hope you get out of there in one piece. :ohdear:

# ? Mar 17, 2011 03:32

Narmi: Feb 26, 2008

So the US is now in favour of a NFZ, and is in fact pushing for UN permission to conduct aerial bombings of Gaddafi's forces. Not sure what to make of this - I know there's been calls for this from the TNC, and I'm not sure if the Libyans can succeed on their own at this point, but the message it sends would be that a popular revolution in the Middle-East (or democracy for that matter) can't succeed without foreign help. A NFZ would have been toeing that line, but this would be jumping over.

In any case I'd be surprised if anything happens with regards to aerial bombings since they won't do it without UN backing, and the UN won't give approval with China wielding the veto card. Personally it looks more like they're posturing so they can say they tried to help later or something.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 03:56

Narmi: Feb 26, 2008

For anyone interested, the UNSC draft resolution they're going to vote on can be read here.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 04:00

TheBalor: Jun 18, 2001

The day-to-day situation being too chaotic to judge effectively, my question would be who benefits from a longer struggle? I could see arguments for both sides. Qaddafi is relying on reserves of built-up military hardware, and if he begins to run out that will hurt him massively. If he can't crush them soon, it also runs the risk of letting the Western powers decide it's more profitable to get him out sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, the Rebel's main strength has been morale and enthusiasm, and their hardware reserves are certainly less than Qaddafi's. They would also have a harder time restocking.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 04:01

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Narmi posted:

So the US is now in favour of a NFZ, and is in fact pushing for UN permission to conduct aerial bombings of Gaddafi's forces. Not sure what to make of this - I know there's been calls for this from the TNC, and I'm not sure if the Libyans can succeed on their own at this point, but the message it sends would be that a popular revolution in the Middle-East (or democracy for that matter) can't succeed without foreign help. A NFZ would have been toeing that line, but this would be jumping over.

In any case I'd be surprised if anything happens with regards to aerial bombings since they won't do it without UN backing, and the UN won't give approval with China wielding the veto card. Personally it looks more like they're posturing so they can say they tried to help later or something.

Well Tunisia/Egypt show that the bolded part isn't true. I'm really torn on this. I'm against military interference, but if it's going to happen, bombing Gaddafi's forces is the only way it has a chance of success.

TheBalor posted:

On the other hand, the Rebel's main strength has been morale and enthusiasm, and their hardware reserves are certainly less than Qaddafi's. They would also have a harder time restocking.

The longer this goes on, the higher the chances of the opposition being resupplied and helped.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 04:03

Darth Brooks: Jan 15, 2005; I do not wear this mask to protect me. I wear it to protect you from me.

The only military with a decent shot of helping them is Egyptian. They have ground forces close to the field and much better training / equipment. Unfortunately for the Libyans, they aren't in a political situation where they can even decide to help or not.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 05:18

Patter Song: Mar 26, 2010; Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.; Fun Shoe

Xandu posted:

Well Tunisia/Egypt show that the bolded part isn't true. I'm really torn on this.

More that Tunisia/Egypt showed, once again, that non-violence only works when fighting people that can be shamed/pariah'd (not a word, and I don't care) into submission. Pulling an Amritsar and getting your peaceful protestors slaughtered works only against countries that are part of the international system and can't afford to slaughter unarmed protestors in the streets. Egypt couldn't do a Qaddafi: the Military wouldn't go for it, and Egypt was too dependent on the rest of the world to go that road. Libya, already something of a recovering pariah with very few true friends, can much more easily say "gently caress you, we'll go our own way and kill who we want" to the world.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 05:26

Narmi: Feb 26, 2008

Xandu posted:

Well Tunisia/Egypt show that the bolded part isn't true. I'm really torn on this. I'm against military interference, but if it's going to happen, bombing Gaddafi's forces is the only way it has a chance of success.

That certainly was true for Tunisia and Egypt, but in Egypt the army refused to actually fire on protesters even though Mubarak ordered it. You have a point with Tunisia, but the violence never reached the level we've seen here, even before people starting arming themselves. When we see countries like Libya and Bahrain where the governments fights back to instead of fleeing like Ben Ali did, or stepping down like Mubarak, it's certainly going to make people who want to protest against the government reconsider doing so. Granted, not everyone is going to feel this way, and Egypt/Tunisia's success is arguably more important than a Libyan failure, but it will spread doubt as to whether it's worth risking your life when it might be in vain.

# ? Mar 17, 2011 05:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 12:44

Simtex: Feb 15, 2008

Quick informal poll: Regardless of your support or opposition, do you think positive perceptions of the US will increase or decrease in the Arab world if a no fly zone is established AND strikes are made against forces approaching Benghazi (though no actual boots on the ground)?

Also, from the AJE Live Blog on Bahrain:

quote:

The Iranian president said that "the way they respond to their own people with tanks, guns and helicopters is inhumane".

The hits just keep on coming...

# ? Mar 17, 2011 06:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »