Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 129

Thread: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

  1. #111
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    Re: Libya: Gaddafi faces final battle as fighting erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by Juiposa View Post
    I saw this earlier and was thrilled. Hopefully Ghadaffi gives up once Tripoli falls. If he does then this war wont draw itself out.
    I doubt they'll get Ghadafi, he's a billionaire.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #112
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13803556"]
    Show me reports of the atrocities committed by the rebels and then I will believe you. There are many reports for the other side. I know you want to condescend the 'good guys and bad guys' notion, but that's how its looking to be based on the facts.
    I'd be glad to show you some, as well as some things NATO has done. (http://www.france24.com/en/20110619-...-arada-tripoli) (Libyan Rebels Killing Civilians in Benghazi | Veterans Today) (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/wo...civilians.html)

    (Chicago Indymedia: Libyan Rebels Killing Civilians in Benghazi) (NATO, Rebels Accused of War Crimes in Libya) (NATO’S Massacre at Majer, Libya | Foreign Policy Journal)

    (Blacks In Libya | Libyan rebels accused of targeting blacks - Los Angeles Times) (Black Africans and other non-Libyans targeted for revenge killings: reports - International Business Times) (Libyan rebels massacre black Africans)
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  3. #113
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I think you guys have misunderstood what's going on here. NATO is simply enforcing a no fly zone because of internal crimes (i.e. Gaddafi killing his own people). The NATO no fly zone is not supporting the rebels. It was only meant to prevent a genocide. Yes, the no fly zone benefits the rebels, but when Gadaffi's forces turned the civil war around and the rebels were retreating NATO didn't change tactics.

    EU prepares for worst after Gaddafi 'genocide' threats | EurActiv


    The fact is, Gaddafi would have killed every single person who wasn't a loyalist. He doesn't care about ruling people. He cares about making money from the Libyan oil fields and losing his control over those fields. The people wanted him to step down from that power.
    Enforcing a no fly zone my ass. The main goal was to overthrow Gaddafi. The UN Security Council Resolution clearly stated (ODS HOME PAGE) for UN members "to take all necessary measures [...] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

    Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron even admitted it (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/op...edlibya15.html) when they said "Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power." (emphasis added)

    In addition to this, economic concerns come to light as almost as soon as the rebels had won, an Italian oil company (Italy: Oil company Eni 'has returned to Libya and will regain prominent role' - Adnkronos Business) returned to Libya to resume its activities.

    There is a greater geo-political role in this as well. The rebels are going to favor Western oil corporations at the expense of the Chinese, Brazilians, and Russians (Libya end-game pulls down oil prices | euronews, corporate)

    We don’t have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil,” said Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm AGOCO.
    (emphasis added)

    I think Gaddafi is a POS and should get a bullet in the head, but lets not act like the US-NATO war machine did this out of the goodness of their hearts.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  4. #114
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    I think you guys have misunderstood what's going on here. NATO is simply enforcing a no fly zone because of internal crimes (i.e. Gaddafi killing his own people). The NATO no fly zone is not supporting the rebels. It was only meant to prevent a genocide. Yes, the no fly zone benefits the rebels, but when Gadaffi's forces turned the civil war around and the rebels were retreating NATO didn't change tactics.
    No, that's the NATO spin. Of course it supports the rebels. Why else would they bomb Gaddafi while he is in his compound? What part of a "no fly zone" gives NATO the mandate to bomb Gaddafi's tanks? And the stuff about "preventing a genocide" is nothing more than speculation about what Gaddafi would do if he won the war - what reason is there to believe that the rebels (about whom NATO knew absolutely nothing at the time it decided to intervene) won't do exactly the same thing to Gaddafi's supporters now that they have (more or less) won the war? Again, this is just speculation...based entirely on preconceptions of who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. Gaddafi is a villain in this narrative, so you assume the worst about how he would react if he won. The rebels are freedom-loving democrats in this narrative, so you assume that nothing similar would occur under their victory.

    The fact is that NATO intervened for one reason: They didn't like the fact that the rebels were about to lose. They weren't interested in preventing bloodshed, as NATO intervention undoubtedly prolonged the conflict. They just weren't happy with the likely outcome of the conflict in the absence of their intervention. This is yet another case of the United States deposing a leader it doesn't like, under the guise of humanitarianism.

    The fact is, Gaddafi would have killed every single person who wasn't a loyalist.


    He doesn't care about ruling people. He cares about making money from the Libyan oil fields and losing his control over those fields. The people wanted him to step down from that power.
    Is being a corrupt leader who wants to make money from oil a sufficient justification for NATO to launch an unprovoked attack on a country and depose its leader? If so, there are plenty of other countries that should be ahead of Libya on that list, including some of our good buddies.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 08-23-11 at 04:09 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #115
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,582
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    TRIPOLI - A son of Muammar Gaddafi who rebels said they had captured appeared with cheering supporters in Tripoli, giving a boost to forces loyal to the veteran leader trying to fight off insurgents who say they control most of the capital.

    TODAYonline | World | Gaddafi's 'captured' son walks free, taunts rebels


    That is a shame. They'll probably get him and his daddy soon. Hopefully in a few days.
    Al Jazeera is reporting that Rebel Command in Basra is thoroughly embarrassed by this blow to their credibility. Al Jazeera is further speculating that either the sons were never captured or they bribed their way free. Since the rebels are not a disciplined fighting force, the latter is definitely a possibility. It's not over until we see Khadafi's entire family lined up in handcuffs in front of a tv camera, in my view. The chaos of war, and all that.

  6. #116
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Al Jazeera is reporting that Rebel Command in Basra is thoroughly embarrassed by this blow to their credibility. Al Jazeera is further speculating that either the sons were never captured or they bribed their way free. Since the rebels are not a disciplined fighting force, the latter is definitely a possibility. It's not over until we see Khadafi's entire family lined up in handcuffs in front of a tv camera, in my view. The chaos of war, and all that.
    Basra? Or Benghazi? I hadn't realized that the Libyan rebels were operating out of Iraq.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #117
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,582
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Those of you who are lambasting NATO are turning a blind eye to what you don't want to see/believe, and stretching credulity in your accusations and blamemongering. Telling a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth; it just makes the teller a liar. This is not a "US-led attack." It's a NATO attack, led by France, Italy and Spain, which the US is supporting. US planes aren't flying over Libya; French planes are. It's fine to hate America if you want, because fortunately you live in a country that allows you to hate it. But making **** up on one hand while ignoring inconvenient realities on the other serve only to have others brush you off as crackpots.

    Bottom line, Khadaffi's compound is now in rebel control, and according to NATO, no NATO bombs or planes have been used in the seige of Tripoli. Mind you, NATO's spokespeople on the Libyan operation are European, not American.

    The Libyan people began this revolution on their own, buoyed by the success of Tunisia and Egypt. America had nothing to do with any of these insurrections, despite some of the ludicrous claims made in this thread. Sheesh. Just... sheesh.

  8. #118
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,582
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Basra? Or Benghazi? I hadn't realized that the Libyan rebels were operating out of Iraq.
    Benghazi.

    . .

  9. #119
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,272
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Libya: Gaddafi faces final battle as fighting erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I doubt they'll get Ghadafi, he's a billionaire.
    Perhaps we could raise taxes on him to flush him out.

  10. #120
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: Fighting Erupts in Tripoli

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, that's the NATO spin. Of course it supports the rebels.
    The rebels are the civilians, but all the civilians are not rebels. If you disagree with the campaign, that's fine but I think you have gone beyond that. You're basically comparing Obama, GWB, all the rebels, and Gaddafi to each other, and you can't see a difference which is just ridiculous.

    Your own spin is preventing you from admitting that Gaddafi was doing more than just defending his government in a civil war. If you want to complain about spin, then stop spinning stuff yourself.

    Why else would they bomb Gaddafi while he is in his compound? What part of a "no fly zone" gives NATO the mandate to bomb Gaddafi's tanks?
    Enforcing a no fly zone requires bombings, because the pilots and planes have to be protected... A a no fly zone isn't simply shooting **** out of the sky. Being in a no fly zone and shooting stuff out of the sky simply puts those planes at risk of being targeted and shoot down by ground forces, therefore, bombings are practical.

    And the stuff about "preventing a genocide" is nothing more than speculation about what Gaddafi would do if he won the war -
    This didn't start out as a war. It started out as a protest like the Egyptian Revolution, but Gaddafi had to start killing the protesters. Instead of backing down, the the people revolted against the government and are trying to overthrow it.

    The people were simply over powered, and Gaddafi had the capabilities to completely kill them all. He was winning and killing them right up until NATO intervened. He also made genocidal speeches and loyalist defected because of his genocidal comments, don't forget.

    If he would have won, be honest. We all know he was going to win. We all know he was killing his own people.


    what reason is there to believe that the rebels (about whom NATO knew absolutely nothing at the time it decided to intervene) won't do exactly the same thing to Gaddafi's supporters now that they have (more or less) won the war? Again, this is just speculation...based entirely on preconceptions of who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. Gaddafi is a villain in this narrative, so you assume the worst about how he would react if he won. The rebels are freedom-loving democrats in this narrative, so you assume that nothing similar would occur under their victory.
    I just said I am not judging the rebels. I don't even know what their plans are for Libya. Some people think Libya might split along tribal lines, but I don't care. I don't care because it's a sovereign country, and determining whether or not they want to be democratic, slightly democratic, not at all, etc. is up to them. I only know the Libyan government was being coercive, and I support overthrowing coercive governments. I am not so much taking the rebels side as I am taking the side of the people/the civilians, whom were oppressed by Gaddafi's government. I believe many people are fighting as rebels and have differing views and visions for the nation's future. There is no single rebel leader.

    I'll always cheer for people overthrowing oppressive governments..

    The fact is that NATO intervened for one reason: They didn't like the fact that the rebels were about to lose. They weren't interested in preventing bloodshed, as NATO intervention undoubtedly prolonged the conflict. They just weren't happy with the likely outcome of the conflict in the absence of their intervention. This is yet another case of the United States deposing a leader it doesn't like, under the guise of humanitarianism.
    And if that's your opinion and your feelings. Fine... So ****ing what. You don't have facts. We can either take NATO's word or not, but the fact is they simply enforced a no fly zone. We can speculate on their hidden agenda all we want, but this isn't an American war. It's simply a no fly zone.


    Is being a corrupt leader who wants to make money from oil a sufficient justification for NATO to launch an unprovoked attack on a country and depose its leader?
    If you think that that's all there is to this situation, then you really haven't been paying attention.

    If so, there are plenty of other countries that should be ahead of Libya on that list, including some of our good buddies.
    From what I can tell, Syria is the only country that is acting in a similar manner... but I don't think it's as bad. I don't think it's a civil war there, not yet.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •