- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 31,577
- Reaction score
- 30,730
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
It's been all of, what, 12 hours since they were captured?
Saif al-Islam has not been captured. those reports are false.
It's been all of, what, 12 hours since they were captured?
Saif al-Islam has not been captured. those reports are false.
BBC News - Libya: Clinton condemns rape as weapon of war
Col. Gaddafi's claim wasn't supported by credible reports and credible news agencies.
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.
Still, its remarkable they weren't shot instantly. Do you think Gaddafi would have given them the same privilege? I highly doubt it.
I posted this report five months ago (3/27/11)Neither is this. I see no evidence in your source; just hearsay from Hillary Clinton and some Libyan officer who apparently doesn't like Gaddafi.
Source: Washington PostAfter Libyan woman’s rape claims, methods of Gaddafi government put on display
TRIPOLI, LIBYA — A woman provided journalists with a glimpse into the methods of the Libyan government Saturday when she was dragged from their hotel by security guards and government minders seeking to stop her from telling her story of abuse. “Look what Gaddafi’s militia have done to me,” she said, raising her long black robe to reveal scratch marks and blood on her thigh. There were also bruises and lacerations on her cheeks, and marks on her hands and ankles indicating that she had been tied up.
A small group of reporters gathered around to listen. She gave her name as Iman al-Obaidi and recounted how she had been detained by Gaddafi militiamen at a checkpoint two days earlier and raped by 15 of them. “I was tied up. They defecated on me. They urinated on me. They violated my honor,” she said.
As she spoke, hotel staff members, security guards and government minders closed in on her and began dragging her away. Journalists who tried to protect her were punched, and one, Charles Clover of the Financial Times, was knocked to the ground and kicked. Eventually, the woman — screaming, “They are taking me to jail!” — was hauled outside to an unmarked car, which whisked her away at high speed.
Neither is this. I see no evidence in your source; just hearsay from Hillary Clinton and some Libyan officer who apparently doesn't like Gaddafi.
This Viagra claim has all the hallmarks of being standard war propaganda carefully crafted for maximum outrage, rather than a factual claim. And until I see some actual evidence supporting this idea, that's what I'm going to assume it is.
An example of rebel atrocities: Libyan rebels accused of arbitrary arrests, torture - CNN
An example of NATO atrocities: NATO cites errant missile in Libya deaths - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com
But I forgot, it's perfectly fine when the "good guys" do it, because it's collateral damage unfortunately necessary to win. Never mind that you'd never excuse Gaddafi doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. :roll:
I have no idea. I don't find it so implausible that Gaddafi might hold some rebels for more than 12 hours before killing them, even if for no other reasons than intelligence gathering and arranging the logistics of it.
Do you honestly believe that there no difference between the NATO member nations and Libya?
American war has killed civilians and so has Gaddafi, so Obama and GWB are just as bad as Gaddafi?
AdamT said:War crimes are never okay. Sadly, civilian casualties are often unavoidable.
SheWolf said:Do you honestly believe that there no difference between the NATO member nations and Libya? American war has killed civilians and so has Gaddafi, so Obama and GWB are just as bad as Gaddafi?
Kandahar said:I don't buy the argument that they have the moral high ground because they didn't "intend" to kill civilians
I doubt they'll get Ghadafi, he's a billionaire.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 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.
(emphasis added)“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.
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.
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.
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.
Basra? Or Benghazi? I hadn't realized that the Libyan rebels were operating out of Iraq.
I doubt they'll get Ghadafi, he's a billionaire.
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.
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.
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. :roll:
If the US decided it wasn't going to support this, the NATO intervention would not have happened. Period. The US is the only NATO country with a sufficient fighting force to sustain these attacks. Even the French and British (the European countries with the strongest militaries) are woefully unprepared for even a minor conflict like this and would not have been able to act without the United States.
-George W. Bush, describing people who protested the Iraq War
I have no problem with them rebelling and overthrowing Gaddafi on their own if that's what they want to do. I have a problem with the United States deciding that it is going to determine who should be in power in Libya and then deposing the existing government with military force, under the guise of saving lives.
That's not quite true. NATO needed America in the early days to take out Gadaffi's air defenses. Since then we have had a much more limited role.