|
The Guardian has an update from Egypt:quote:Egypt's interim government is struggling to contain anger at the slow pace of change, as protests continue in Cairo, Suez, and Alexandria and activists call for a million-person march tomorrow, writes Egyptian journalist Sara Elkamel. There's also a flash from AP saying Assad supporters in Syria have broken into the US Embassay compound in Damascus.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
This would be very bad if true, since it means Assad let it happen. edit: drat, seems like the French embassy is also being assaulted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Your brothers opinion is silly because it is xenophobic determinism that is essentially ignorant of middle eastern culture. Lascivious Sloth posted:The truth of the situation is that Gaddafi was leader of an oppressive regime and the people revolted against this regime to potentially institute a democratic government to represent the people of Libya. Lascivious Sloth posted:Anything else is simply bigoted implicit xenophobia that has been layered into the minds of western culture for the last decade. Your brother is only a symptom of the problem, and it's actually really sad, I feel pity in his obvious institutionalised views. Anyway... I'll end that derail. Lascivious Sloth posted:edit: I'm also Australian. It's no surprise they are avoiding the word refugee with it's current political buzz. It's pretty disgusting that the refugee influx and political connotations influence an opinion of the Libya revolution in a country such as Australia, so far removed from it. At least our government, regardless of it's many flaws, is an avid supporter of the revolution. Ironic, considering it's view on asylum seekers. Brown Moses posted:There's also a flash from AP saying Assad supporters in Syria have broken into the US Embassay compound in Damascus. Xandu posted:This would be very bad if true, since it means Assad let it happen. Cable Guy fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jul 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Xandu posted:This would be very bad if true, since it means Assad let it happen. Going to Iran it all up you think? In any case I have my doubts that this will progress UN action. I'd expect to hear more about this is a natural popular response to the "outrageous" actions of the US ambassador from those disinclined to have any foreign intervention. The international situation for Syria remains complex and without the stigmatization of Libya under Qaddafi and it's incomplete ostracization I don't think that intervention would have happened. Since Syria is not nearly so isolated think they can hold out diplomatically on the International front and avoid anything that would allow international action, even if they face international censure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
Some more info about the embassy attack:quote:Witnesses say supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad have attacked the U.S. embassy compound in Damascus, causing damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
There's reports that the US ambassadors house has now been attacked as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:There's reports that the US ambassadors house has now been attacked as well. poo poo is getting real then I guess. All of this is a big no-no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
So who wants to put odds on Obama trying to push in another 'humanitarian action', or do you guys think he learned from the Libya flack?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
I'll say he won't, but there are big reasons that won't happen besides 'the Libya flack.' For one, it would be very difficult for NATO to carry out two of these campaigns at the same time with the US only maintaining a support role. Two, Syria isn't experiencing an armed uprising like Libya was/is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
how did protesters attack the embassy in Damascus? It's a loving castle sitting behind a 20 foot wall, and it's right next door to the Syrian presidents mansion.
Ghetto Prince fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jul 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
I found this on Time's Pictures of the Week thing. It's kind of surreal, even moreso than the chairgunner. It was taken right after the rebels took al-Qawalish: It amazes me still how the rebels use unconventional poo poo that we wouldn't think of using to resist a tyrant. And managing to succeed at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Cable Guy posted:His opinion is that the power vacuum that will be left will lead to a civil war that the west won't be able to avoid involving themselves in without repercussions... another Iraq/Afghanistan basically. That's a remarkably restrained, realistic viewpoint compared to most of the opposition to this war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Imminent governmental change in Egypt, things have been really heating up since Friday, especially in Suez and Tahrir Square.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
automatic posted:Great article Brown Moses, clearly you are a MIS spy since you are in the UK. All jokes aside I hope this is an act of desperation and not something that is condoned by TNC, furthermore I hope that the TNC has enough power to stop this kind of behavior. No one wants to see 04-05 Iraq again. That's the problem...I don't think the TNC has as much control over the situation as people would like to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Jut posted:That's the problem...I don't think the TNC has as much control over the situation as people would like to believe. Well I haven't heard of looting being as big of a problem as it was in Iraq, so you gotta credit the TNC for that. I think that if the TNC and the tribes work together Libya will be able to avoid many of the unpleasantries that occur when a government is overthrown. For the most part the TNC has been able to keep enough control over their soldiers and how they treat prisoners of war. That's probably a good metric to look at when trying to figure out how much control the TNC will have when CQ falls. Everything really rests on what happens in Tripoli though. If it's bloody enough I find it hard to believe that things won't go south fast. Probably the best thing that could happen is one of CQ aides or friends shoots him and organizes a surrender.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:That entire article is a bunch of logical fallacies scooped into a big bag of bias. Note that this sentence could be equally applied to any article written by Con Coughlin  Me and him don't normally get along you see: I posted the link because I thought it was funny to see an article echoing my previous post so closely just a few hours after I posted it. Hey! Do you think he read my post and stole it for his own article? I should email him and ask. On a different note, I wonder if bookies are accepting bets on how long Gadaffi's going to last in power? It might be worth investing £20 in a bet on him still being around in a years time, if the odds are reasonably long, say 20-1 against.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:
They haven't though. There have been human rights abuses from the rebel side too with regards to PoW's. I'm worried that when all is said and done, if CQ is gone and the TNC try to organise things, various factions will turn around and say "Wait. Who the gently caress are you to tell us what to do? We won this war, we are in charge"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:On a different note, I wonder if bookies are accepting bets on how long Gadaffi's going to last in power? It might be worth investing £20 in a bet on him still being around in a years time, if the odds are reasonably long, say 20-1 against. Yeah, I'd throw in a few bucks on that bet. There's a couple pools on intrade, one for by the end of July and one for the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Jut posted:They haven't though. There have been human rights abuses from the rebel side too with regards to PoW's. Are you talking about those articles that were around the time Misratah was being sieged? Worse I heard was that some soldiers got shot in the leg when they were running away and then given medical treatment. Anyway for the vast majority they've been operating under the geneva convention. This is of course paralleled to CQ's forces who have not. Maybe I'm wrong and there are mass graves done by rebel troops, but I haven't heard of anything really heinous that they've done which is a surprise since CQ has had his troops target their towns and family. So with that level of animosity they must feel towards CQ's force sand the lack of any real human right violations we've heard they've committed I gotta say that the TNC has to have to majority of the rebel forces somewhat under control else we'd be seeing a civil war much more akin to those that happen in the rest of Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Oh wow. Qaddafi's reaching out to Israel? That's just too funny. As much flack as Israel gets, I'm sure they did one and only one thing to these diplomats from Gadhafi  Too much bad blood between Israel and Libya. For Israel to make peace or even really consider making contact with an Arab Nation, they have to actually respect said Arab Nation. They respect Egypt, they respect Jordan, they respect the Palestinians however that issue is more complicated since they currently live in territories Israel occupies. Do they respect Libya? No. Israel probably entertained these diplomats for a little bit, and then told them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Are you talking about those articles that were around the time Misratah was being sieged? Worse I heard was that some soldiers got shot in the leg when they were running away and then given medical treatment. I guess you missed the murder of black libyans, migrant workers, the odd bit of rape...yea, it's not as bad as CQ and they've had a hard time so it's all ok. quote:Yesterday a UNHCR team at the Egypt border interviewed a group of Sudanese who arrived from eastern Libya who said that armed Libyans were going door to door, forcing sub-Saharan Africans to leave. In one instance a 12-year-old Sudanese girl was said to have been raped. They reported that many people had their documents confiscated or destroyed. We heard similar accounts from a group of Chadians who fled Benghazi, Al Bayda and Brega in the past few days. quote:"We have also seen evidence that would seem to suggest that rape has been carried out by both sides, but we cannot say on what scale," he says. quote:“There have been a lot of mistakes, even though the intentions are good,” said Jamal Benour, a judge who is in charge of justice issues for the rebel transitional council. “We need to have a proper judicial process, to build trust in law and order. Now, maybe we’ve lost part of the credibility of the revolution. . . . Some might say that what Gaddafi did in his regime is happening now under the revolution.” and you have the reprisal attacks on Tawergha civilians in Misurata....
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
I would eat my hat if no single bad thing (murder, rape, theft-rape-murder) was committed by the rebel side. Unfortunately that is how wars are and no side is ever made up of saints. The problem (well the problem is that it occurs at all, but the greater problem) is when it becomes a tactic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Jut posted:I guess you missed the murder of black libyans, migrant workers, the odd bit of rape...yea, it's not as bad as CQ and they've had a hard time so it's all ok. Do you think there is a war where both sides didn't commit war crimes? I don't understand. You have to know that one side is telling their soldiers to commit war crimes and the other is telling them to abide by the geneva convention. Obviously not ALL soldiers are going to do this, but does that even need to be said? Maybe I'm naive, but you always seem to cherry pick your arguments about how bad the rebels are and downplay whatever crimes that CQ's forces are accused of. As an aside how is due process supposed to work during a civil war? I figure it's a good thing to keep, but when you capture someone accused of spying is he going to be judged by the civilians or the military? Anyone know if the rebels want to reform normal libyan criminal laws? I just figured Libya operated under a don't piss off someone important or you'll get thrown in jail type of system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Do you think there is a war where both sides didn't commit war crimes? quote:That's the problem...I don't think the TNC has as much control over the situation as people would like to believe. Jut fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jul 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
The point is that you have no point Jut. You just come in here occasionally bitching about the rebels like you have an axe to grind (whether concerns are real or imagined), compare it to other wars and repeat how bad it was we got involved. So let's say the NTC has any degree of control less than what 'people think'; what do you suggest? Reinstate Gaddafi? Airbomb Benghazi and rule from a NATO headquarters? Pull out the NATO forces (see Reinstate Gaddafi)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:The point is that you have no point Jut. So let's say the NTC has any degree of control less than what 'people think'; what do you suggest? Reinstate Gaddafi? Airbomb Benghazi and rule from a NATO headquarters? Pull out the NATO forces (see Reinstate Gaddafi)? Have a loving plan to stop the country turning into a complete cluster-gently caress for the next decade before dropping bombs? Don't take sides in a civil war? Enact the UNSCR resolution to the letter (protect civilians), don't just go straight for regime change?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Jut posted:Look at you trying to excuse war crimes. If it was CQ's forces who raped a 12 year old girl, you would be all over it like a bad rash, but when the rebels do it, it's "meh, poo poo happens". Regardless if you read up you will see this is in response to a previous comment I made which was. Who believes that the TNC is god and can make their soldiers do everything they want? A bunch of untrained civilians are fighting a war against an army that targets their home and families and for the most part are abiding by the geneva convention. That's a loving miracle. Look at every other civil war for what happens when both sides don't care about war crimes. Clearly the TNC or the rebel commanders or most probably both are doing everything they can to reign in their troops and it's working. People are pretty poo poo in general so war crimes are going to happen in every war, but there is a big difference from an army being commanded to commit war crimes and one that isn't. If you look at Libya you can see that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
How many times have we heard reports of US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan/etc. going too far with violence, raping civilians (or other military person's), or just otherwise breaking the Geneva Conventions? If a well funded military nation can't stop it's troops from doing what they shouldn't, I'm amazed the TNC has done as well as it has for keeping people under control. As others have mentioned, it's when this becomes a tactic instead of petty revenge that it becomes a major issue. Not that it isn't an issue in any case these things happen, but an organized military being given viagra and told to go on a raping spree is a different story from Hillbilly Amir and his buddies taking advantage of the chaos to do what they want. But to use your own tactic Jut, how do we know all these stories about rebels raping/stealing/etc. are actually true? If Brown Moses is a CIA mouthpiece, Jut is being paid by CQ n' crew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Jut posted:Have a loving plan to stop the country turning into a complete cluster-gently caress for the next decade before dropping bombs? You can't exactly enact the UN resolution in a way that it would be different from what's happening now. The loving difference between Gaddafi's forces and the rebels, is that the Libyan army is using war crimes as military strategy. No, I don't mean just with rape, I mean their entire use of arty to bomb cities packed full of civilians, and much more. You couldn't bomb the rebels because their war crimes are just crimes. They're not a strategy. You couldn't bomb a loving rebel convoy because nothing indicates if that convoy is moving up a road to light up an entire village because they happen to be filled with African migrant workers, or if they're just moving up to the front line so they can fight the Libyan army. That's the same loving reason why the UN had to take sides in this. One side's war crimes are crimes committed by lovely troops, the other side's crimes are committed because it's a military strategy. They're not the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:
From the article on the previous page quote:The problem could be framed another way: that the rebel commanders did not do enough to stop it. In a small town like Qawalish, what happened was, from a military perspective, preventable. A standing post or a few patrols each day to the shops, a checkpoint or two at the town’s edge with fighters checking identification, instructing their colleagues not to steal and stopping cars departing the town with stolen goods — these might have been enough. quote:So far, the rebel leadership has been unable to rein in the militias under one authority. It also has not set clear rules governing who can be arrested and what their rights are in detention. There's a few suggestions for them. I though the UNSCR resolution was about protecting ALL civilians, yet we are arming these people. I guess it's ok though, it's only a little bit of rape.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
Jut posted:Have a loving plan to stop the country turning into a complete cluster-gently caress for the next decade before dropping bombs? Hmm so your first takes on the resolution. quote:NFZ fine, I just don't like the "here, you can pretty much what you want" clause that was added. quote:The resolution is UN sanctioned regime change. A No Fly Zone is one thing, but the resolution went past that to pretty much telling CQ he's not getting his cities back. quote:I think they are going above and beyond enforcing a no fly zone. Stopping indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers is one thing, preventing CQ, who after all is the recognised leader of Libya, from trying to reclaim his country is another. Of course a few days later you decided the Resolution didn't actually mean that. quote:So the UN have officially taken sides in the war. So what do you think Resolution 1973 actually says and, if possible, what will you think it actually says tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
Jut posted:Don't take sides in a civil war? Your main issue seems to be war crimes, but your solutions, or I suppose your hindsight, would have led to a massacre, as opposed to what is happening now- which is typical (for a war such as this) war crimes being committed. You also don't have the information or facts to generalise the entire campaign or the NTCs control. You have no more information or facts than anyone else in here, yet you make broad statements about the NTC that may or may not be true. That's why everyone is bored of your criticisms, you start with a hard fact and you use it to generalise the entire rebel force, the NTC, NATO, and the entire intervention. Get some perspective first before you adjudicate the fate of millions based on the actions of a few.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Also inaction is taking a side. It's the whole 'great power -> great responsibility' thing. Unless one is of the particular philosophy that might makes right, in that case Gaddafi has the right to rule in the case of NATO inaction by the virtue of military power. Most empathic human beings think that's a bad thing though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Your main issue seems to be war crimes, but your solutions, or I suppose your hindsight, would have led to a massacre, as opposed to what is happening now- which is typical (for a war such as this) war crimes being committed. You also don't have the information or facts to generalise the entire campaign or the NTCs control. You have no more information or facts than anyone else in here, yet you make broad statements about the NTC that may or may not be true. That's why everyone is bored of your criticisms, you start with a hard fact and you use it to generalise the entire rebel force, the NTC, NATO, and the entire intervention. Get some perspective first before you adjudicate the fate of millions based on the actions of a few. My solution, as mentioned ages ago, would have been for NATO to stop CQ shelling cities, prevent the rebels from advancing on cities, and force a political solution. Essentially taking the "if you two can't play nicely, I'm going to make you sit in the corner" role. Not arming a volitile and disorganised fighting force and letting them use those arms to "liberate" civilian areas as they did on the previous page. We've still not learned from the clusterfuck that is Afghanastan or and Iraq, not having plan for what comes next. It's telling that NATO *still* are still sitting on their thumbs saying "eeer what happens if CQ loses?", and now France is the latest NATO member to start getting cold feet with regards to military action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Jut posted:My solution, as mentioned ages ago, would have been for NATO to stop CQ shelling cities, prevent the rebels from advancing on cities, and force a political solution. What kind of political solution? Lareous posted:It amazes me still how the rebels use unconventional poo poo that we wouldn't think of using to resist a tyrant. And managing to succeed at it. Bicycle troops were a regular sight in the world wars. But ya I think the Gaddafi troops have to be seriously running out of ammunition at this point which probably plays a role. Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Also inaction is taking a side. It's the whole 'great power -> great responsibility' thing. Unless one is of the particular philosophy that might makes right, in that case Gaddafi has the right to rule in the case of NATO inaction by the virtue of military power. Most empathic human beings think that's a bad thing though. This is absolutely not how it works in international politics. No one has the 'responsibility' to interfere in a sovereign nation's affairs, that's straight up imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:This is absolutely not how it works in international politics. No one has the 'responsibility' to interfere in a sovereign nation's affairs, that's straight up imperialism. I meant moral responsibility. As in 'in a perfect world the strong
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:This is absolutely not how it works in international politics. No one has the 'responsibility' to interfere in a sovereign nation's affairs, that's straight up imperialism. So the UN is imperialist by default then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I meant moral responsibility. As in 'in a perfect world the strong In a perfect world NATO would actually be a peacekeeping force instead of a globalized military industrial complex, and they would not be shelling cities and supporting rebel advances blindly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:In a perfect world NATO would actually be a peacekeeping force instead of a globalized military industrial complex, and they would not be shelling cities and supporting rebel advances blindly.  NATO isn't blindly "shelling" cities. Every target is checked and approved by the chain of command which is in contact with the rebel forces as much as possible. And propaganda is being used to warn Gadaffi's troops of impending attacks. And NATO's track record here has been excellent. You're being dishonest. You can't peacekeep after there's no peace. Ask Roméo Dallaire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:21
|
|