Libyan civil war. Updates.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:26 pm

I'm going to start another thread, Libyas "revolution" is not going well and it looks like it will end up in a civil war.

Good info is still hard to come by, Youtube and others are censoring videos put out by Qaddafis people. Reporters are not getting into where the fighting is. He's in Tripoli, dug in like a badger and the rebels are not doing real well. The weather is improving and the Libyan airforce loyal to Qadaffi is becoming more active. Helicopters and airstrikes are being used on rebel forces. The rebels shot down an SU-24 Fencer (?) but have not had much success otherwise. Qadaffis ground forces are well armed.

Here's a vid from on the ground. The guy is in the eastern part of the country. Accurate info is hard to come by. Nobody really knows who has what where.

msnbc.com Video Player

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:37 pm

Here's another report. The rebels aren't making much progress.

YouTube - Libya Forces Fight Rebels Moving Toward Capital

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:47 pm

And another. The tanks are Russian T-72s, the old version without upgraded armor and other systems.

BBC News - Libya: Gaddafi forces take on rebels in Zawiya

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:03 am

The plane shot down was a SU-24 mk. Roughly the same as a F-111 Aardvark. From what I gather it was done by a guy on a AA gun with only one barrel working. A lucky shot. The pilots did not have time to bail out.

Dailymotion - Les rebelles libyens affirment avoir abattu un avion, deux morts - une vidéo News & Politics

I guess Qadaffis forces are mostly allowing the rebels to advance and extend themselves then hitting back with MI-24 Hinds, tanks and APCs. Mobile warfare. It doesn't look like the rebels can match it.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:33 pm

It looks like the rebels took quite a beating yesterday.

Gaddafi hits back in battle for Libya - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Nation & World | Libyan warplanes strike rebels at oil port | Seattle Times Newspaper

I don't think they have the organization or material means to go through with this. It's going to take foreign intervention to pull their butts out of the fire. I heard British and US special ops forces are already in eastern Libya trying to figure out who to support. I think this will go on for some time. Qadaffi may win in the end. Regardless of what they media hypes, I think he's crazy like a fox, if things really go south for him he'll take out the oil wells and that will hurt.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:38 pm

From what spme of the rebels (I notice they're not calling them insurgents). are saying they would be quite happy for someone to take out the air force but the last thing they want is foreign troops on their soi, least of all american ones in case they stay. It's all about oil again isn't it.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:56 pm

You better believe it GMC.

Nation & World | Oil installations ablaze in Libya as battles rage | Seattle Times Newspaper

I heard some scuttlebutt about the rebels wiring up some of the oil fields. Considering Qadaffis forces have the upper hand if I were them I wouldn't be taking out the oil fields. If the rebs think they can buy time by doing it I bet they will. There seem to be 3 sides (tribes) in this. A group closely associated with Egypt in the north east part of Libya, another group in the south and part of the north west and Qadaffis tribe in the north west and along the coast.

Qadaffi holds all the cards, if he can clean out the interior he can move his mechanized forces out into the desert and turn around, strike towards the sea when he chooses he can hit the rebels where and when he wants. With air and artillery it's just a matter of finding the rebs and cutting them to pieces.

I'm looking up recipes for crow cuisine right now. If Qadaffi wins he will be insufferable, I wonder who in the west will be licking his boots. We need his oil.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:21 pm

This is supposed to be from fighting in central Libya. You can see something burning in the background. The vehicle is a Grad rocket launcher, not something to be used in oil fields. They're an area suppression weapon, not meant for pinpoint accuracy.

YouTube - ‫

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:31 pm

Well the rebels are apparently running. Not a lot of fight left in them, cohesion is gone. Maybe they will make a last stand somewhere. Maybe they will disappear. When Qadaffi gets things back in his hands there's going to be a purge and it's not going to be nice.

YouTube - Gaddafi forces mount onslaught

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:40 pm

While the world is focused on Japan Qadaffi is consolidating his gains and preparing to push into eastern Libya. The Arab league wants a no fly zone over the country. I don't think the more capable countries are about to do that, they have no interest is the rebels winning.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:14 pm

They have a dilemma don't they - if gaddafi is bad for using force against his own people and should be stopped then what about bahrain and saudi arabia?

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:35 am

I'm not impressed by the doublespeak going on today about this. Muammar Gaddafi may be unpopular among Western governments but what, precisely, is he doing that breaks any of their rules? He's dealing with a civil war. Sovereign governments do that, it's one of their functions. Intervening from outside in favour of the dissenting faction isn't the legal suppressing of civil war, it's waging a war of aggression against the legitimate power of the state.

William Hague is being particularly coy. "The resolution that is under discussion today includes demands for an immediate ceasefire, a complete end to violence", he tells parliament. Notice the "includes"? What he's seeking is permission to kill, and he equates that with "a complete end to violence"? Peace is War, Love is Hate? Orwell wins again.

Stop trying to kill people, Mr Hague, it's not what you were elected for and your principles in that regard are consistently and evidently non-existent. British governments have been opportunistically damaging Libya for over thirty years now in retribution for Gaddafi's interference in the internal affairs of the UK over the IRA. It's perfectly alright, it seems, for the UK to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign Middle Eastern countries but God help any ruling administration which plays back, eh.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:28 pm

I guess the Libyan army has Benghazi under fire and potentially surrounded. I saw some pics from a reporter they gave a tour of their front line. There was special attention paid to the Igla launchers on the back of fast trucks and ZSU-30 Shilkas on their transports. Egypt is apparently supporting the rebels more and I heard the UN has approved a resolution to create a no fly zone.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:41 am

And with the resolution comes the cease fire.

BBC News - Libya 'to halt military action'

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:21 am

Meanwhile in Bahrain

BBC News - Bahrain crackdown on protests in Manama's Pearl Square

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:19 am

Are we ready to see David Cameron eat his hat?I think that if we have learnt anything over the last five years, it's that you cannot drop a fully formed democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000 feet.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Cameron speech in full

Drop a bomb, Mr Cameron, and I'll ask whether it had "democracy" written on it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:02 pm

spot;1355699 wrote: Are we ready to see David Cameron eat his hat?I think that if we have learnt anything over the last five years, it's that you cannot drop a fully formed democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000 feet.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Cameron speech in full

Drop a bomb, Mr Cameron, and I'll ask whether it had "democracy" written on it.

Quality bullshit that's what we need from our politicians. The scottish tories support proportional representation on thr grounds it is the only chance they have of getting a seat. Latest news is scottish tory party conference cancelled due to lack of interest and they're taking cameron out for a fish supper instead.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:49 pm

The death toll in Libya just took a stratospheric hike, I notice.

One can only hope it brings all Libyans together in a mutual defence against foreign interference in their internal affairs. Conflating armed rebels with "civilians" is transparently propagandist, even for Westminster.

More than 110 missiles have been fired by the UK and US, officials at the Pentagon say. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed that British planes are in action over Libya. Earlier, French planes destroyed Libyan vehicles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

French planes destroyed Libyan vehicles, did they? Resist the urge to report in euphemisms please. French pilots killed Libyans.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:08 pm

spot;1355765 wrote: The death toll in Libya just took a stratospheric hike, I notice.

One can only hope it brings all Libyans together in a mutual defence against foreign interference in their internal affairs. Conflating armed rebels with "civilians" is transparently propagandist, even for Westminster.

More than 110 missiles have been fired by the UK and US, officials at the Pentagon say. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed that British planes are in action over Libya. Earlier, French planes destroyed Libyan vehicles.

BBC News - Libya: Coalition launches attacks

French planes destroyed Libyan vehicles, did they? Resist the urge to report euphemisms please. French pilots killed Libyans.Perhaps rebels and civilians are one in the same?

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:17 pm

Ahso!;1355768 wrote: Perhaps rebels and civilians are one in the same?

Not if they're armed, mate. If they're armed they're not civilians.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:20 pm

spot;1355769 wrote: Not if they're armed, mate. If they're armed they're not civilians.Where did the rebels come from and who are they?

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:26 pm

Ahso!;1355770 wrote: Where did the rebels come from and who are they?

Libyans, one's told, have tribal affiliations. The armed rebels self-identify with tribes in the East of the country apparently. What's a government to do when an armed insurrection breaks out? Quietly put up with it, or reimpose the rule of law?

Today's invasion is an offensive killing spree started by Western nations, plain and simple. One can only hope it has no effect on the outcome, otherwise it will encourage similar interventions in future. I'll be entirely happy if the current administration in Tripoli is still in place ten years from now.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:35 pm

Gadhafi is an oppressive ruler isn't he? Aren't members of tribes also citizens?

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:46 pm

Ahso!;1355773 wrote: Gadhafi is an oppressive ruler isn't he? Aren't members of tribes also citizens?

What's your point? Everyone's a citizen. Some are in armed rebellion against the de facto established government of the country. As such, they're armed rebels by definition and the de facto established government has both a legal right and a legal duty to suppress them and re-establish law and order.

In what sense are we using "oppressive" here? Every country employs an oppressive means of control whenever they enforce the rule of law. If you simply mean "my government dislikes the current government of Libya" then just up and say so. Your government got on perfectly well with the torturing bastards in Cairo for thirty years, if I remember right. Why should "my government dislikes" mean I should dislike too? I particularly dislike your own government, if it comes to that. They continue to kill far more people than the Libyans under Colonel Gaddafi ever did. I tend to look at results rather than rhetoric.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:12 pm

My point is I'm not certain of the facts, and I'm not certain you are either. From my view it appears the people of Libya began protesting their government's rule of law some weeks ago and took to the streets. I wouldn't doubt other factions with different agendas might take advantage of the situation, however, those other groups becoming involved does not invalidate the initial uprising. The government forces clearly have an advantage militarily and I see little to disagree with when that advantage is neutralized by outside assistance. It's not like he wasn't told to keep the fight fair.

Again, I may be wrong about the facts, and I'm figuring since you have so strong an opinion, perhaps you have evidence to the contrary.

You don't like the American Government and I don't care for black cherry ice cream, so where does that leave us? It is possible for the American government to be justified now and then, you know. I'm not 100% ready to say that's the case here though and I heard you crying out in the wilderness, so I came to listen. Cool?

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:25 pm

Are you suggesting that any group protesting their government's rule of law and taking to the streets should invariably overthrow their government? Wait there while I get my placard.

It's not "the people", it's "some people". It's equally apparent from the news reports that there are loyalists supporting the current government, they're "the people" too.

if I were to lead an armed rebellion against Her Majesty's government I'd be flattened by a military response in very short order, and so would your Virginian Minutemen if they were daft enough to try it. I see remarkably little difference between that response and what happened in Libya. If you see one then do, please, explain what it consists of.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:33 pm

My meaning would be a majority of the people. I'm not sure whether or not the protesters are a majority of the population, that's one of the facts I spoke of earlier.

The UK has fair and free elections as a tool for the majority to exercise their leadership preference, doesn't it? Libya?

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:47 pm

Ahso!;1355782 wrote: My meaning would be a majority of the people. I'm not sure whether or not the protesters are a majority of the population, that's one of the facts I spoke of earlier.

The UK has fair and free elections as a tool for the majority to exercise their leadership preference, doesn't it? Libya?

You'd approve of your country bombing anywhere it decided there were no fair and free elections, would you?

The rule for centuries has been no interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, with the exception of torture and genocide (both of which have been honoured more in the breach than the observance). The rules are slipping. The rules are suddenly turning into gunboat diplomacy, we're back in the 19th century bombing the natives because they don't do what they're told by the Great Powers. This is colonialism all over again.

Either a foreign country can arrange its own internal affairs or it can't. If it can't, what are countries for? What does "foreign" mean in this new world? Is it just a phrase meaning they can't come and go without a visa, or is it an indication that they rule in their own land?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:01 pm

Seems to me there has been unprecedented support around the world for the passing of resolution 1973, even amongst the Arab states. As far as I'm concerned, Gaddaffi's widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in Libya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity. A no fly zone doesnt mean foreign troops on the ground but it does mean Gaddaffi wont be able to use fighter planes, bombers against the civilian population

From the Guardian

This time the council has come together to signal its disgust at large-scale attacks on civilians and the transformation of political processes in north Africa. It is one of those rare occasions in which the use of force has been authorised under chapter VII.

Significantly, not one of the 15 members opposed action, a factor that is connected to recent events in Tunisia and Egypt and last weekend's remarkable call for action by the Arab League, and the particular authority of its secretary-general, Amr Moussa.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:04 pm

spot;1355783 wrote: You'd approve of your country bombing anywhere it decided there were no fair and free elections, would you?

The rule for centuries has been no interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, with the exception of torture and genocide (both of which have been honoured more in the breach than the observance). The rules are slipping. The rules are suddenly turning into gunboat diplomacy, we're back in the 19th century bombing the natives because they don't do what they're told by the Great Powers. This is colonialism all over again.

Either a foreign country can arrange its own internal affairs or it can't. If it can't, what are countries for? What does "foreign" mean in this new world? Is it just a phrase meaning they can't come and go without a visa, or is it an indication that they rule in their own land?To your first question: I'd approve of a country's populous determining their own fate collectively rather than ruled by a handful of people.

The rule for centuries may have been as you describe but this is a new century and things change. I have no problem with assisting a nation of people unburdening themselves of cruel and oppressive dictators like this guy in Libya. The natives in this case may be the Libyan people and the great power the Libyan government.

Foreign means everything you'd like it to mean as long as it respects the people it governs. Anything else is a dinosaur, IMV.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:49 am

Libyans, one's told, have tribal affiliations. The armed rebels self-identify with tribes in the East of the country apparently. What's a government to do when an armed insurrection breaks out? Quietly put up with it, or reimpose the rule of law?

Today's invasion is an offensive killing spree started by Western nations, plain and simple. One can only hope it has no effect on the outcome, otherwise it will encourage similar interventions in future. I'll be entirely happy if the current administration in Tripoli is still in place ten years from now.

I'll second this. I'd also like to ask a question about what will happen when the rebels move west, are they going to be murdering Qadaffi loyalists as they go? Why wouldn't they? Who's going to be responsible if this country ends up like Iraq? I wasn't a fan of Saddam, I'm not a fan of Qadaffi but these regime changes don't seem to be pretty.

I got some photos but I can't post them. I get some stupid pop up when I try.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:17 am

These are pictures of Italian Palmaria 155mm SPGs. Artillery, not tanks and an old SA-8 Gecko. Most of Qadaffis stuff is 70s era tech if not older. There's really no place to hide them either so anything bigger than a rat is easy to spot. I heard that there is fighting in Benghazi itself so the loyalists may well be trying to get cover in the city. There are reports of 43+ civilians being killed in airstrikes so far. Can't verify that.

Attached files

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:31 am

A good read.

The Club Med war

By Pepe Escobar

[...] Yet maybe there's more to doing the right (moral) thing. History may register that the real tipping point was this past Tuesday when, in an interview to German TV, the African king of kings made sure that Western corporations - unless they are German

(because the country was against a no-fly zone) - can kiss goodbye to Libya's energy bonanza. Gaddafi explicitly said, "We do not trust their firms, they have conspired against us ... Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms." In other words: BRICS member countries.

It's quite interesting that UN resolution 1973 had 10 votes in favor, zero against it, and five abstentions. These came exactly from the four BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), plus Germany. Brazil and Germany had voiced their deep skepticism over military action for days, preferring a diplomatic solution; but in the case of Russia, India and China, other (energy) motivations may have been at play. The top four BRICS members (the other is South Africa, which voted for resolution and formally joins the expanded group in April) tend to coordinate their voting in every major decision.

Fly me to the oil

So cynics have every right to invoke the time-tested mantra: it's the oil, stupid.

Libya is the largest oil economy in Africa, ahead of Nigeria and Algeria. It holds at least 46.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (10 times those of Egypt). That's 3.5% of the global total. Libya produces between 1.4 and 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, but wants to reach 3 million barrels. Its oil is extremely prized, especially with an ultra-low cost of production of roughly $1.00 a barrel.

When Gaddafi threatened Western oil majors, he meant the show would soon be over for France's Total, Italy's ENI, British Petroleum (BP), Spanish Repsol, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Hess and Conoco Phillips - though not for the China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC). China ranks Libya as essential for its energy security. China gets 11% of Libya's oil exports. CNPC has quietly repatriated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers (compared to 40 working for BP).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC19Ak02.html

[moderator intervention: full article text trimmed and reference attached, see advisory note below from Snooze]

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:25 am

I hate to be a pill, but there are pretty strict copyright laws in place now so you might consider removing most of that and just providing the link.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:14 pm

My bad. Spot took care of it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:50 pm

I'm not against the air strikes but I most definitely am against the way this article was written:

The dozen or so men clustered behind the last smouldering tank looked as if they had died while they slept.

Their blankets bore no burn marks so perhaps it was the force of blasts – powerful enough to rip the turrets off the Russian-made tanks and toss them 20 metres or more across the open field near Benghazi – that killed Muammar Gaddafi's soldiers.
Guardian

Died in their sleep? No burn marks? I'm surprised the piece didn't start "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." I thought we'd all had enough of war being sanitized. It's war. It's bloody, it's gross, it's horrible and it should remain shocking.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:06 am

koan;1355874 wrote: I'm not against the air strikes but I most definitely am against the way this article was written:

Guardian

Died in their sleep? No burn marks? I'm surprised the piece didn't start "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." I thought we'd all had enough of war being sanitized. It's war. It's bloody, it's gross, it's horrible and it should remain shocking.

My first thought was chemical...which to me is even more gross.

I think the US needs to stop right now and seek counseling. It's like that girl in high school that kept putting out in hopes that someone would love her.

It's just not gonna happen. Everyone always cries 'why aren't you helping us?' - but if it's not them getting some, they wonder at our inability to butt out.

We need to bring Americans home to defend our own borders and stop trying to pick sides around the world.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:10 am

America can't afford to keep out of the ME. We're too dependent on oil and the corporations that profit from war and oil are too powerful. Eisenhower warned us decades ago, he was simply brushed aside.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:23 am

I thought it was a joke when I saw it on The Register but no, it's true. The MoD has just removed Libya from the country list on their "complain or have concerns about military low flying" webpage.

Ministry of Defence | Contact us | Low Flying Complaints

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:48 pm

It looks like the loyalists are pushing back now after changing their tactics. I heard they abandoned the heavy equipment in favor of Toyota and Nissan trucks like the rebels have, this is an excellent way of hiding in plain sight. They also have their own volunteers to flesh out their ranks and they may be getting assistance from Algeria, Morocco and a few other places. The regimes in these countries have no interest in Libyas revolution succeeding. The air campaign has not born the fruit everyone has hoped. I heard that from the time a target is selected to the time a bomb is dropped it can take as long as 20 minutes. A lot can happen in 20 minutes.

I'm willing to bet Qadaffi has his heavy equipment in the cities, he's using lighter faster assets to hit the rebels. If they get to a city the loyalists are dug in like Alabama ticks, with better preparation, weapons, training and mobility. If the west wants this over quickly it's going to take a substantial ground force to do it, boots on the ground and one must ask just who can afford it right now.

Gaddafi winning ground war, coalition battles on — RT

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:29 pm

There's some transparent attempts at divide and conquer going on besides the violence on the ground. Which, given that the violence on the ground is already a failed gambit, is all that's left to the Western regime-change planners in the medium term. I'm sorry - all that's left to NATO, one shouldn't include the US, the US dropped this nonsense like a hot potato when it wasn't going to lie on its back and wag its tail within a month.

Where is it, I saw it earlier... here we are:Mohammed Ismail, an aide to one of Col Gaddafi's sons, was apparently told the Libyan leader had to give up power.

The British government has refused to confirm the report.

BBC News - Libya crisis: Gaddafi envoy 'visited London'

and no doubt both paragraphs are true. The glaring lie is where the BBC omits to say they were given the news by the very same "British government" which "refused to confirm the report", and that the item's meant to upset people in Tripoli rather than inform the public in the UK. One could wish it were done more subtly - I pay these incompetent freaks, the least they could do is act with a little professionalism.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:34 pm

3/25/2011

It should have been a secret deal among US, Great Britain and France.

Libya's oil interest has been sold to head countries of the NATO to exchange their support of Iran war. That's why France is so active to bomb Libya. War on Iran needs justification - a 911 alike terror attack. Britain and France would allow such false flag "terror attack" taking place in their territory. That possibly would be a dirty bomb attack.

Watch for the coming “terror attack” on Eiffle Tower, though in the name of “Islamic extremists”, actually from the puppets of western intelligence.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:01 pm

katsung47;1356864 wrote: 3/25/2011

It should have been a secret deal among US, Great Britain and France.

Libya's oil interest has been sold to head countries of the NATO to exchange their support of Iran war. That's why France is so active to bomb Libya. War on Iran needs justification - a 911 alike terror attack. Britain and France would allow such false flag "terror attack" taking place in their territory. That possibly would be a dirty bomb attack.

Watch for the coming “terror attack” on Eiffle Tower, though in the name of “Islamic extremists”, actually from the puppets of western intelligence.
As a fiction plot it's not bad. As a pretend that you're privy to secrets - I take it you'd agree they would be secrets? - you lack credibility. My money's on the fiction-writing source of the information.

The bottom line - why on earth should we believe you have access to valid information? More to the point, if someone passed it on to you, why on earth do you think they have access to valid information? Why can't you cite your source?

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:47 pm

spot;1356866 wrote: As a fiction plot it's not bad. As a pretend that you're privy to secrets - I take it you'd agree they would be secrets? - you lack credibility. My money's on the fiction-writing source of the information.

The bottom line - why on earth should we believe you have access to valid information? More to the point, if someone passed it on to you, why on earth do you think they have access to valid information? Why can't you cite your source?

Ridiculous, how police solve murder case? Did they witness the process of the murder. They mostly did it by reasoning. Do you know the case of Scott Peterson? He was indict murder his wife without any direct evidence. You will say Shark bite people though you may never saw one. That's by common sense.

I conclude so on my experience. Libya war is for oil interest, though the media never tell you so. Just like what they said Iraq war was for WMD if you still want us to believe. Did you ask Bush and US government with same attitude about the Mid-east war they activated?

They even don’t have a formal government. First thing of all is to form an oil company so they can deal. That's what caused the war.

Libyan Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s

By Bill Varner - Mar 22, 2011

Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.

The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the “Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general” of the company.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Wed May 04, 2011 9:58 am

And the next phase. Send in the troops.

YouTube - Ground attack looms in Libya - next step on NATO war list?

As is it's a stalemate, Gadhaffis troops are dug in deep, the only things I have heard is the garrison at Brega surrendered after its sub sea communications were cut with Tripoli. The rebels in Misurata are still trying to get the airport. I don't think that link is a bunch of crap. This is going to be a long drawn out affair if we don't. The Loyalists are getting supplies from somewhere and unless you strangle that country it will be almost impossible to win.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed May 04, 2011 1:45 pm

An ugly part of the civil war, for those who still feel the loyalists deserve sympathy.

Gaddafi forces accused of rape - Africa - Al Jazeera English

It's hard to know which media sources to trust but Al Jazeera had the best coverage of the Iraq invasion so I'm comfortable with their assessments. While the link you posted, Scrat, is rather good sensationalism delivered in a suit and tie, it's impossible for me to agree with their view since I've researched the evolution of the Libyan unrest via African sources. The people living in and next to the country have a pretty good idea of what's been going on for the last few decades. Anti-Gaddafi Libyans have laughed aloud at the suggestion that Western forces manufactured the dissent.