PDA

View Full Version : Intervention in Libya



droid
22-03-2011, 10:25 AM
I really cant see how this could end well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/22/libya-no-fly-zone-air-strikes-live-updates

crackerjack
22-03-2011, 11:47 AM
I really cant see how this could end well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/22/libya-no-fly-zone-air-strikes-live-updates

I support it, if only cos doing nothing would green light every other under-threat Arab regime to follow Gaddafi's bomb-and-shoot suit.

That said, I don't disagree with you.

droid
22-03-2011, 12:00 PM
I think if theyd gone in 2-3 weeks back when the rebels were gaining ground, then (despite the rank hypocrisy) it might have been an effective and relatively clean intervention and the fantasy of regime change via airstrike alone may have been fulfilled.

As it stands now, I think it will end up doing more harm then good, and of course there are the many moral questions... France in particular have been playing both sides in this one.

I think it is clear that this has very little to do with democracy or human rights.

IdleRich
22-03-2011, 12:24 PM
It was hard to sit by and watch the world doing nothing (except issue statements condemning Gadaffi) while the rebels were slowly defeated so I guess I kind of support intervention if only as the least worst of a whole group of bad options. I'm sure it will end badly; it started badly, it's been bad for years and I don't predict any real change to be honest. There never is.

droid
22-03-2011, 12:55 PM
It was hard to sit by and watch the world doing nothing (except issue statements condemning Gadaffi) while the rebels were slowly defeated so I guess I kind of support intervention if only as the least worst of a whole group of bad options. I'm sure it will end badly; it started badly, it's been bad for years and I don't predict any real change to be honest. There never is.

Yeah, I really dont think this is the least worst option though TBH. Some interesting ideas here:

http://www.thenation.com/article/159084/10-nonviolent-options-libya

I agree that inaction seems unconscionable, but the track record of humanitarian intervention by the west is quite simply appalling, in fact, some pundits are suggesting that this is partly about rehabilitating the idea of the Western perpetrated 'noble war' since the entire concept has been discredited over the last decade or so.

IdleRich
22-03-2011, 01:42 PM
Maybe what I said was overly negative. I'll have a read through those options though anyway.
It's a particularly irritating aspect of Iraq (a war that a large and vocal portion of western civilians didn't want) that it discredited the idea of any kind of intervention altogether - even in this case where I suspect a lot of people would want to be on the opposite side of the argument. There's no room for subtlety in these debates - intervention is completely tainted now and I think that that was probably a cause of the hesitation on the part of the western leaders that you refer to here:


"I think if theyd gone in 2-3 weeks back when the rebels were gaining ground, then (despite the rank hypocrisy) it might have been an effective and relatively clean intervention and the fantasy of regime change via airstrike alone may have been fulfilled."

IdleRich
22-03-2011, 02:04 PM
OK, read through those and they seem like potentially good ideas and things that should maybe have been done before but they are going to take some time to show results. They're more long-term or supplementary things as opposed to actions that are going to save the rebels now aren't they?

droid
22-03-2011, 02:25 PM
Maybe what I said was overly negative. I'll have a read through those options though anyway.
It's a particularly irritating aspect of Iraq (a war that a large and vocal portion of western civilians didn't want) that it discredited the idea of any kind of intervention altogether - even in this case where I suspect a lot of people would want to be on the opposite side of the argument. There's no room for subtlety in these debates - intervention is completely tainted now...

I think intervention has pretty much always been tainted. I'm not sure there's a single example of western intervention that could genuinely be called 'humanitarian'. There's maybe 2 or 3 examples in the history of warfare that could qualify.

IdleRich
22-03-2011, 02:46 PM
OK fair enough but some are worse than others.

Leo
22-03-2011, 03:22 PM
funny how it's been portrayed in the press as a UN coalition, led by the french taking charge...yet the US were the ones to shot 120 of the 122 tomahawk missiles on the first day. hmm...

will be interesting to see how involved the arab league stays, and how much military effort is contributed by fellow arab nations.

edit: one other issue that makes things difficult is the citizens/rebels don't seem to have a recognized leader or collective point of view. tough to fight against an organized military force when you don't have someone in charge on your side.

lanugo
22-03-2011, 10:12 PM
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters', a former head of state, hitherto always a welcome guest of the governmnents of the West, turning into a 'dictator' over night, a military intervention occurring under the guise of 'peacekeeping measures', the establishment of a 'No-Fly-Zone' that amounts to the bombardment of an entire country - welcome to the year 1984, eh, 2011.

By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide. This was not the case. In fact, Ghaddafi was fighting against armed rebels in an attempt to uphold state power; that is the natural response of every government to the challenging of its sovereignty by insurrectionary forces who themselves resort to violence to enforce their claim to power. Was Ghaddafi's authority legitimate in the first place? Debatable, sure. But did the West really care for the last, what, 40 years while the oil was flowing?

No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

Leo
23-03-2011, 01:57 AM
By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide. This was not the case.

i believe that's incorrect, libyan troops were openly firing on and killing unarmed protesters at the early stages before the opposition got more organized and armed.

Dr Awesome
23-03-2011, 05:49 AM
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters', a former head of state, hitherto always a welcome guest of the governmnents of the West, turning into a 'dictator' over night, a military intervention occurring under the guise of 'peacekeeping measures', the establishment of a 'No-Fly-Zone' that amounts to the bombardment of an entire country - welcome to the year 1984, eh, 2011.

By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide. This was not the case. In fact, Ghaddafi was fighting against armed rebels in an attempt to uphold state power; that is the natural response of every government to the challenging of its sovereignty by insurrectionary forces who themselves resort to violence to enforce their claim to power. Was Ghaddafi's authority legitimate in the first place? Debatable, sure. But did the West really care for the last, what, 40 years while the oil was flowing?

No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

Erm, obviously people interpret things according to their world-view; but I think that's full of holes.

droid
23-03-2011, 10:18 AM
i believe that's incorrect, libyan troops were openly firing on and killing unarmed protesters at the early stages before the opposition got more organized and armed.

So the US could have been justified in bombing London after Bloody Sunday? And Tel Aviv should have been bombed during Israel's latest Gaza campaign?

AFAIK Ianugo is right on this point. The evidence of war crimes/human rights abuses is relatively sketchy. If killing unarmed protestors justifies intervention, then Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, and maybe Syria all qualify.

Mr. Tea
23-03-2011, 10:45 AM
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters'

Heaven forfend that mere Arabs, mere Muslims, could possibly have an active programme or ideology of their own, rather than having been either threatened or bribed into action by 'The West'. Because only white, preferably English-speaking Westerners actually have moral agency and volition, right?


By international law, an intervention would have been legitimate if there had been government actions against the Libyans population, or parts of it, amounting to a genocide.

No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

"Gaddafi is implementing a strategy of scorched earth. It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterised as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." (http://www.fidh.org/Libya-Strategy-of-scorched-earth-desire-for)

(but then, no doubt the International Federation for Human Rights is a CIA-sponsored front promoting the Zionist New World Order, blah blah blah...)

You really are the epitome of the smug, soi-disant 'leftist' who'll suck up to any old bloodstained tyrant as long as he's suitably 'anti-Western', aren't you?

crackerjack
23-03-2011, 01:52 PM
The labelling of CIA-funded insurgents as 'freedom fighters'

Mad Mel thinks the whole 'Arab Spring' movement is an anti-Semitic plot to destablilise Israel. You two should get together, maybe take turns banging your heads against each other's wall.

Sick Boy
23-03-2011, 10:32 PM
The Economist are running a debate about the intervention between As'ad Abukhalil (The Angry Arab) and Menzies Campbell (former leader of UK Liberal democrats):

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/673

lanugo
24-03-2011, 03:06 AM
Erm, obviously people interpret things according to their world-view; but I think that's full of holes.

I'm not interpreting anything according to my own world-view. I'm merely pointing out deceitful terminology and obvious inconsistencies in the official version of the events in Libya that is disseminated by the mainstream/corporate media. I find it quite astonishing that the majority of people doesn't seem to register the glaringly propagandistic language employed in legitimizing the intervention. After all, the 'media-savvy' and 'post-ideological' 21st century populace seems to be as susceptible to the power of words as were previous generations of human beings.

I wonder whether the people here on Dissensus who deem the Western intervention in Libya to be justified actually don't perceive any kind of cognitive dissonance when authorities use the term "peacekeeping measures" to refer to offensive military actions? Do you think to yourself: "Sure, that's euphemistic, however, I know that what they mean is a military operation; I'm smart enough to discern the real meaning from the standardized phrases of official language." Of course you are, but how can you be sure that the mode of expression in the official announcements and in the media didn't actually have a profound influence on your 'personal' assessment of the situation? That's how propaganda works, on a subsconscious level, and it is the more effective the more one believes one isn't lied to.


So the US could have been justified in bombing London after Bloody Sunday? And Tel Aviv should have been bombed during Israel's latest Gaza campaign?

AFAIK Ianugo is right on this point. The evidence of war crimes/human rights abuses is relatively sketchy. If killing unarmed protestors justifies intervention, then Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, and maybe Syria all qualify.

Exactly. Not to mention that members of the Arab League, a major force in the passing of the UN resolution, actually sent security forces to Bahrain to assist the local powerholders in quelling the rebellion there. So, on the hand an international alliance is formed to stop the killing of civilians in one country but on the other hand members of this very alliance actively engange in the killing of civilians in another country! The mind boggles. There's footage of government forces in Bahrain shooting protestors at point-blank range and one is left to wonder why this kind of repression is not perceived as a "crime against humanity" by the international community.

Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?


Heaven forfend that mere Arabs, mere Muslims, could possibly have an active programme or ideology of their own, rather than having been either threatened or bribed into action by 'The West'. Because only white, preferably English-speaking Westerners actually have moral agency and volition, right?

When setting up a straw man you should be careful to make it resemble at least roughly your opponent's opinion. Your drivel would be an utter non-sequitur if one couldn't tell that, in fact, you've given vent there to your own petty resentment.



"Gaddafi is implementing a strategy of scorched earth. It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterised as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court." (http://www.fidh.org/Libya-Strategy-of-scorched-earth-desire-for)

(but then, no doubt the International Federation for Human Rights is a CIA-sponsored front promoting the Zionist New World Order, blah blah blah...)

"It is reasonable to fear that the accused has, in fact, decided to murder, wherever he still can, innocent members of the public... and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately break the law..."

Only in a legal system were accusations counted as hard evidence a defendant could be sentenced on the basis of such a reasoning as above. Such a legal system wouldn't be a legal system at all and the fact that, to push the analogy further, Ghaddafi has been sentenced without conclusive evidence of his alleged crimes only proves that international law is nothing but a charade in service of the fancy-worded legitimation of arbitrary power interests.



You really are the epitome of the smug, soi-disant 'leftist' who'll suck up to any old bloodstained tyrant as long as he's suitably 'anti-Western', aren't you?

The efficiency of your mindset in breaking down reality into manageable stereotypes is quite astounding. Even if it's a bit boring at times, it must feel really cozy in your tiny little world of clichés, doesn't it?

One could almost feel sorry for you because of your ignorance but denouncing me as "smug" for actually being interested in the truth is so incredibly low and so irredeemably perverse that all pity turns into disdain.

martin
24-03-2011, 11:03 AM
No evidence of the much-purported atrocities against civilians by Ghaddafi's military forces has yet turned up. On the contrary, it is the rebels who reportedly massacred hundreds of unarmed black African immigrant workers claiming they were 'mercenaries'.

That's interesting, do you think the mutilated torso pics were doctered then? And don't suppose you've got any links to news sources with these opposing points of view? All I've managed to find (pro-Gaddafi) is some English guy writing for Pravda Online, but googling him turned up a few sites describing him as a bit of a nutter.

If this is an orchestrated campaign by the CIA etc, I still find it confusing; AFAIK, Gaddafi wasn't doing anything to hamper the oil majors' activities out there, so why go and shoot the place up?

Mr. Tea
24-03-2011, 11:28 AM
I'm not interpreting anything according to my own world-view.

Uh, apart from the knee-jerk assumption that the opposition in any Arab/Muslim state ruled by a regime unfriendly to 'the West'* must necessarily be sponsored by the CIA...perhaps you also consider Ahmedinejad the legitimate and justified defender of Iran against Mousavi's counterrevolutionary tendency... :slanted:

*and as martin points out, Gaddafi apparently has no problem selling his country's oil to Western countries, so why would the CIA want to stir up trouble and provoke violence that's going to make it *more* difficult and expensive to buy Libyan oil?



Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?

Hang on, are you arguing for intervention, or against it? The fact that violent oppression is happening in one country is not, in itself, an argument against trying to prevent violent oppression in another.



When setting up a straw man you should be careful to make it resemble at least roughly your opponent's opinion. Your drivel would be an utter non-sequitur if one couldn't tell that, in fact, you've given vent there to your own petty resentment.

Straw man, my arse. I've seen this so many times: the solipsistic worldview of people for whom everything happening anywhere in the world is about 'the West', which is to say, about us. The idea that a country, especially a Muslim country, might have internal politics and divisions, and that a large part of the populace might spontaneously revolt against a corrupt and violent despot, just throws up a 'does not compute'.



"It is reasonable to fear that the accused has, in fact, decided to murder, wherever he still can, innocent members of the public... and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately break the law..."

Only in a legal system were accusations counted as hard evidence a defendant could be sentenced on the basis of such a reasoning as above. Such a legal system wouldn't be a legal system at all and the fact that, to push the analogy further, Ghaddafi has been sentenced without conclusive evidence of his alleged crimes only proves that international law is nothing but a charade in service of the fancy-worded legitimation of arbitrary power interests.

A moment's googling turned this up: "Gaddafi bombs protesters near Tripoli (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167371.html)" - that's Iran's state-controlled Press TV corporation - and this, from left-wing anti-war/anti-imperialism news blog Another World Is Possible: "Forces loyal to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi have heavily bombarded pro-democracy protesters...[t]wo thousand people have been reported killed in the weeks-long violence." (http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/news/2011/02/28/gaddafi-bombs-protesters-near-tripoli) Unless they, too, are pawns of Thee Powers That Be...

Whereas you've already decided that the protesters are definitely guilty of killing black immigrants who are definitely not mercenaries. I've seen this contrariness-for-contrariness's-sake from you so many times before. It's not big and it's not clever.


Even if it's a bit boring at times, it must feel really cozy in your tiny little world of clichés, doesn't it?

One could almost feel sorry for you because of your ignorance but denouncing me as "smug" for actually being interested in the truth is so incredibly low and so irredeemably perverse that all pity turns into disdain.

Whereas you, alone, have access to the unalloyed, objective TRUTH.

Oh, and speaking of straw men, who are "the people here on Dissensus who deem the Western intervention in Libya to be justified"? Crackerjack says it might be, albeit with heavy reservations. No-one else here has said they support it. I'm not sure where I stand, and can see it doing more harm than good if for no other reason than that it risks de-legitimising the opposition.

droid
24-03-2011, 11:39 AM
If this is an orchestrated campaign by the CIA etc, I still find it confusing; AFAIK, Gaddafi wasn't doing anything to hamper the oil majors' activities out there, so why go and shoot the place up?

I have no evidence to suggest CIA involvement in anything going on in Libya other than the standard embassy type activities. But there have been increasing concerns (since 2007) about 'nationalist rhetoric' regarding oil revenue:


C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TRIPOLI 000967

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR NEA/MAG, EEB/ESC/IEC/EPC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/6/2017
TAGS: ECON EPET LY
SUBJECT: GROWTH OF RESOURCE NATIONALISM IN LIBYA

REF: A) STATE 150999, B) TRIPOLI 912 CLASSIFIED BY: Chris Stevens, DCM, U.S. Embassy Tripoli, U.S. Department of State. REASON: 1.4 (b), (e)

1.(C) Summary: Libya has a long history of resource nationalism linked to the policies and rhetoric of the Qadhafi regime. Beginning in the 1990's, many of these practices were scaled back; however, the removal of U.S. and UN sanctions and Libya's attendant opening to the world have prompted a resurgence of measures designed to increase the GOL's control over and share of revenue from hydrocarbon resources. End Summary.

INVESTMENT SURGE ...

2.(C) With the lifting of UN and U.S. sanctions, foreign investment has surged back in to Libya over the past three years. -- U.S. companies adopted a number of return strategies, from buying back old concessions (Marathon and ConocoPhillips), winning bids for new blocs (Chevron and ExxonMobil), or a combination of both (Amerada Hess and Oxy). Since January 2005, there have been three Exploration and Production Sharing (EPSA) rounds, in which exploration areas have been competitively bid to foreign companies. These steps have produced a flurry of new work, as the more than forty international oil companies (exclusive of oil service companies) toil to discover marketable quantities of oil and gas. -- Several new "one-off" deals have also been concluded, including massive deals with Shell and British Petroleum, and a 25-year extension of Italian company ENI's oil and gas EPSA's. -- The GOL has also shown a growing interest in developing its natural gas capabilities; an EPSA round for gas will come to a close this December.

... SPARKS NATIONALIST RHETORIC, POLICIES

3.(C) With this inflow of capital, and in particular the return of international oil companies (IOCs), there has been growing evidence of Libyan resource nationalism. The regime has made a point of putting companies on notice that "exploitative" behavior will not be tolerated. In his annual speech marking the founding of his regime, Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi in 2006 said: "Oil companies are controlled by foreigners who have made millions from them -- now, Libyans must take their place to profit from this money." His son, Seif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, said in March 2007 that, "We will not tolerate a foreign company to make a profit at the expense of a Libyan citizen."

4.(C) Beyond the rhetoric, there are other signs of growing resource nationalism. -- Some IOCs with local subsidiaries have been forced to adopt Libyan names this year, including TOTAL (now officially titled "Mabruk"), Repsol ("Akakoss"), ENI ("Mellita") and Veba ("Al-Hurruj"), although these names have yet to catch on. -- The Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) is currently in the process of reworking long-standing oil concessions with several different IOCs (Ref B), in an effort to wring more favorable terms. There is a growing concern in the IOC community that NOC, emboldened by soaring oil prices and the press of would-be suitors, will seek better terms on both concession and production-sharing agreements, even those signed very recently. -- Libyan labor laws have also been amended to "Libyanize" the economy in several key sectors, and IOCs are now being forced to hire untrained Libyan employees. The Libyan National Oil Company (NOC) has recently begun insisting that deputy general managers, finance managers and human resource managers in local offices of IOC's be Libyan. -- The enactment of Law #443 of 2006 obligated most foreign companies to form joint ventures with Libyan companies in order to operate in the country. (Note: This currently excludes IOCs, but includes all foreign oil and gas service companies. End Note).

5.(C) The latest EPSA rounds could well prove to be a testing ground for how far Libya will travel down this path. The intense competition of the bid rounds led to winning bids that TRIPOLI 00000967 002 OF 002 are widely considered by hydrocarbon industry experts to be economically untenable. Chinese and Russian bids that allow companies to book only 7-10% of future production were hailed by NOC Chairman Shukri Ghanem as "very good for us...and "[clearly] also good for the companies, since they submitted the offer"...

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI967.html

droid
24-03-2011, 12:01 PM
The whole situation seems even more bizarre and morally twisted if you consider recent history.

In 2003, Gadaffi made the famous 'deal in the desert'. He agreed to open up Libyan oilfields to Western companies (greatly benefiting BP and Italian firms), and make efforts to stem the movement of African migrants to Italy in return for the normalisation of business and political links and the eventual lifting of sanctions. Now thats par for the course with friendly tyrants, but the management of perception by the West is where it gets interesting. In order to sweeten the deal the following was requested:

1) That Libya Admit responsibility for Lockerbie and pay compensation to the families of victims
2) That Libya discontinue its WMD/nuclear programs
3) That Libya admit responsibility for the '86 Berlin disco bombing and pay compensation.

The problem with these conditions is 1) that Libya had nothing to do with Lockerbie, 2) it had no WMD or nuclear programs to abandon and 3) it had nothing to do with the '86 bombing, which was itself used as a pretext for the the April '86, US primetime bombing of Tripoli which killed one of Gadaffis adopted daughters.

So in effect, in order to be welcomed back into the fold Gadaffi was asked to rubber stamp and justify Westen propaganda and intervention going back 20 years, which it seems he was happy to do so considering the enormous potential personal gains renewed resource exploitation would bring - only now those same mea culpas are being used to back up the case for the current intervention... :rolleyes: And thats all before we even look at Blairs dodgy dealings (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361638/Libya-Tony-Blairs-dodgy-deal-arm-Gaddafi-leaked-paper-shows.html)...

Mr. Tea
24-03-2011, 12:28 PM
Libya had nothing to do with Lockerbie

That's not what Gaddafi's justice minister says...

crackerjack
24-03-2011, 12:50 PM
Re. Lockerbie, there's been allegations and evidence pointing both to Libyan culpability, and Syrian/Iranian. Think just flatly stating Libya didn't do it is pushing it a little...

IdleRich
24-03-2011, 12:56 PM
"There's footage of government forces in Bahrain shooting protestors at point-blank range and one is left to wonder why this kind of repression is not perceived as a "crime against humanity" by the international community.
Oh, and while it's at it, why doesn't the Coalition of the Willing intervene in Côte d'Ivoire? The conflict between president Gbagbo and the supposedly rightful winner of the last election Ouattara is turning into a veritable civil war. A major humanitarian crisis is expected as a consequence. Who will stop it? Or should cacao be of less interest than oil?"
This argument always comes up and I'm not sure why. Just because some atrocities have been ignored it's surely not a reason to ignore others. Would you ever say "we fucked up before, we should fuck up again"? Or are you arguing that we should be in Cote d'Ivoire and Bahrain as well?
I understand the point that the reason for selecting one rather than another is normally cynical but... that's a separate issue.

droid
24-03-2011, 01:02 PM
I dont want to drag us off topic, but this is not even controversial.

The bomb was was most likely planted by the PFLP, built by a Jordanian double agent, and paid for with $10 million from the Iranian foreign ministry with intelligence support from Syria, all with the explicit motive for revenge against the US for the shooting down of Iran Air 65 over Iranian waters.

The evidence against Libya is laughable, the trial and attempted trials were all jokes, aviation and intelligence experts have repeatedly testified to the existence of a cover up... Ask Craner if you dont believe me.

On what basis do either of you claim Libya's involvement?

IdleRich
24-03-2011, 01:03 PM
"Re. Lockerbie, there's been allegations and evidence pointing both to Libyan culpability, and Syrian/Iranian. Think just flatly stating Libya didn't do it is pushing it a little..."
Yeah, I mean the conviction always looked a bit dodgy to say the least but I don't think you can state it categorically.
Was a grubby little deal to get him out anyway. Good for BP though - at the time.

martin
24-03-2011, 02:55 PM
The bomb was was most likely planted by the PFLP, built by a Jordanian double agent, and paid for with $10 million from the Iranian foreign ministry with intelligence support from Syria, all with the explicit motive for revenge against the US for the shooting down of Iran Air 65 over Iranian waters.


Yeah, 'Private Eye' covered that pretty extensively (and made a convincing case) back in the early '00s, I seem to remember...

crackerjack
24-03-2011, 06:43 PM
On what basis do either of you claim Libya's involvement?

I'm not, I'm just not ready to give them an unconditional pardon.

droid
25-03-2011, 10:34 AM
I'm not, I'm just not ready to give them an unconditional pardon.

OK, sure, but you realise that this is like saying that you're not willing to give the CIA a pardon for 911? In fact thats a much more credible position!

I honestly didn't think there was anyone left who believed the official line, especially since they released al-Megrahii primarily to avoid what would have been a hugely embarrassing appeal.

Anyway. Id urge you to do some research on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208432/A-2m-witness-payment-bogus-forensic-evidence-Pentagon-memo-blaming-Iran-How-Lockerbie-bomber-threatened-Scottish-justice.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/27/lockerbie.features11
http://www.welfarestate.com/panam103/times.htm

http://covers.allbookstores.net/c/1244141306/book/full/9781840183894
http://www.ozzbooks.com.au/shop_image/product/027503.jpg
http://static.booko.com.au/images/covers/2/5/6/1/9780451201652.jpg

Mr. Tea
25-03-2011, 12:09 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208432/A-2m-witness-payment-bogus-forensic-evidence-Pentagon-memo-blaming-Iran-How-Lockerbie-bomber-threatened-Scottish-justice.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/27/lockerbie.features11


Well if the Grauniad and the Daily Fail can agree on a story, there must be something to it...thanks droid, I'd been unaware it was such an unsafe conviction. Maybe worth starting a Lockerbie thread?

droid
28-03-2011, 11:30 AM
Always happy to open a crack into your tiny little world of cliches Tea ;)

droid
28-03-2011, 11:32 AM
If liberal interventionists were consistent, they would advocate similar Western military action in relation to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Congo, Kashmir, Iran, Israel, Burma, etc. etc. etc. This would not only be wildly impracticable but deeply undesirable. It would lead to chaos and escalating violence on a global scale, overwhelmingly detrimental to the poor and vulnerable and fatal to the cause of democratic advance. A policy that if applied consistently and universally would result in disaster is best not applied at all.

Liberal interventionists treat great powers as neutral agents, disinterested entities that can be inserted into a situation for a limited purpose and time, like a surgeon’s knife. In reality, however, these powers have clear and compelling interests – in Libya as elsewhere – and their deployment of military force will be guided by those interests. In action, western troops are accountable not to the people they’re supposed to be protecting but to a chain of command that ends in Washington, London and Paris.

The unleashing of the great military powers undermines the universalism the liberal interventionists claim to honour: outcomes are determined by concentrations of wealth and power remote from the scene of suffering. If we’re to build any kind of just, sustainable world order, then we must (at the least) restrain and restrict great powers, not license them to act where and when it’s convenient for them.

http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1156


Oil supplies will start flowing from Libya in the next few days as the Nato-led air strikes assist rebels to push further westward from their base in eastern Libya.

In recent successes, rebels have recaptured the key oil town of Ajdabiya as well as Ras Lanuf, Brega and Uqayla further to the west.

Nato forces have also struck at Sabha in central Libya and at Misrata, which is the only significant rebel-held city in western Libya and had been under heavy bombardment from government forces.

In between Ras Lanuf and Misrata is Sirte, Gaddafi’s birthplace and the only government-held town outside of the enclave around the capital Tripoli.

This means Colonel Gaddafi’s regime now controls only a small part of the coastline in western Libya, closest to Tunisia, and has none of its oil fields.

It has been a remarkable defeat for a dictator who last week was reported by the western media to be close to winning the battle against the rebels.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/libyas-oil-flows-again-ancient-times-return

...

stevied
01-04-2011, 11:46 AM
"The Great Libyan Distraction"


The entire Libyan conflict of the last month - the civil war in Libya, the U.S.-led military action against Gaddafi - is neither about humanitarian intervention nor about the immediate supply of world oil. It is in fact one big distraction - a deliberate distraction - from the principal political struggle in the Arab world. There is one thing on which Gaddafi and Western leaders of all political views are in total accord. They all want to slow down, channel, co-opt, limit the second Arab revolt and prevent it from changing the basic political realities of the Arab world and its role in the geopolitics of the world-system.

To appreciate this, one has to follow what has been happening in chronological sequence. Although political rumblings in the various Arab states and the attempts by various outside forces to support one or another element within various states have been a constant for a long time, the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi on Dec. 17, 2010 launched a very different process.

It was in my view the continuation of the spirit of the world revolution of 1968. In 1968, as in the last few months in the Arab world, the group that had the courage and the will to launch the protest against instituted authority were young people. They were motivated by many things: the arbitrariness and cruelty and corruption of those in authority, their own worsening economic situation, and above all the insistence on their moral and political right to be a major part of determining their own political and cultural destiny. They have also been protesting against the whole structure of the world-system and the ways in which their leaders have been subordinated to the pressures of outside forces.

These young people were not organized, at least at first. And they were not always totally cognizant of the political scene. But they have been courageous. And, as in 1968, their actions were contagious. Very soon, in virtually every Arab state, without distinction as to foreign policy, they have threatened the established order. When they showed their strength in Egypt, still the key Arab state, everyone began to take them seriously. There are two ways of taking such a revolt seriously. One is to join it and try thereby to control it. And one is to take strong measures to quash it. Both have been tried.

There were three groups who joined it, underlined by Samir Amin in his analysis of Egypt: the traditional and revivified left, the middle-class professionals, and the Islamists. The strength and character of these groups has varied in each of the Arab countries. Amin saw the left and the middle-class professionals (to the extent that they were nationalist and not transnational neoliberals) as positive elements and the Islamists, the last to get on the bandwagon, as negative elements. And then there is the army, always the bastion of order, which joined the Egyptian revolt late, precisely in order to limit its effect.

So, when the uprising began in Libya, it was the direct result of the success of the revolts in the two neighboring countries, Tunisia and Egypt. Gaddafi is a particularly ruthless leader and has been making horrific statements about what he would do to traitors. If, very soon, there were strong voices in France, Great Britain, and the United States to intervene militarily, it was scarcely because Gaddafi was an anti-imperialist thorn in their side. He sold his oil willingly to the West and he boasted of the fact that he helped Italy stem the tide of illegal immigration. He offered lucrative arrangements for Western business.

The intervention camp had two components: those for whom any and all military interventions by the West are irresistible, and those who argued the case for humanitarian intervention. They were opposed very strongly in the United States by the military, who saw a Libyan war as unwinnable and an enormous military strain on the United States. The latter group seemed to be winning out, when suddenly the resolution of the Arab League changed the balance of forces.

How did this happen? The Saudi government worked very hard and effectively to get a resolution passed endorsing the institution of a no-fly zone. In order to get unanimity among the Arab states, the Saudis made two concessions. The demand was only for a no-fly zone and a second resolution was adopted opposing the intrusion of any Western land forces.

What led the Saudis to push this through? Did someone from the United States telephone someone in Saudi Arabia and request this? I think it was quite the opposite. This was an instance of the Saudis trying to affect U.S. policy rather than the other way around. And it worked. It tipped the balance.

What the Saudis wanted, and what they got, was a big distraction from what they thought most urgent, and what they were doing - a crackdown on the Arab revolt, as it affected first of all Saudi Arabia itself, then the Gulf states, then elsewhere in the Arab world.

As in 1968, this kind of anti-authority revolt creates strange splits in the countries affected, and creates unexpected alliances. The call for humanitarian intervention is particularly divisive. The problem I have with humanitarian intervention is that I'm never sure it is humanitarian. Advocates always point to the cases where such intervention didn't occur, such as Rwanda. But they never look at the cases where it did occur. Yes, in the relatively short run, it can prevent what would otherwise be a slaughter of people. But in the longer run, does it really do this? To prevent Saddam Hussein's short-run slaughters, the United States invaded Iraq. Have fewer people been slaughtered as a result over a ten-year period? It doesn't seem so.
Advocates seem to have a quantitative criterion. If a government kills ten protestors, this is "normal" if perhaps worthy of verbal criticism. If it kills 10,000, this is criminal, and requires humanitarian intervention. How many people have to be killed before what is normal becomes criminal? 100, 1000?

Today, the Western powers are launched on a Libyan war, with an uncertain outcome. It will probably be a morass. Has it succeeded in distracting the world from the ongoing Arab revolt? Perhaps. We don't know yet. Will it succeed in ousting Gaddafi? Perhaps. We don't know yet. If Gaddafi goes, what will succeed him? Even U.S. spokesmen are worrying about the possibility that he will be replaced either with his old cronies or with al-Qaeda, or with both.

The U.S. military action in Libya is a mistake, even from the narrow point of view of the United States, and even from the point of view of being humanitarian. It won’t end soon. President Obama has explained his actions in a very complicated, subtle way. What he has said essentially is that if the president of the United States, in his careful judgment, deems an intervention in the interests of the United States and the world, he can and should do it. I do not doubt that he agonized over his decision. But that is not good enough. It's a terrible, ominous, and ultimately self-defeating proposition.

In the meantime, the best hope of everyone is that the second Arab revolt renews steam - perhaps a long shot now - and shakes first of all the Saudis.

Immanuel Wallerstein

droid
19-04-2011, 12:00 PM
Get this - Gaddafi is using cluster bombs... EVIL, INDISCRIMINATE cluster bombs many of which remain unexploded for months or years after use... ...the horror!

I actually had a tea spluttering moment on Saturday when I heard that fat prick from Sky News whinging about the fact that they're, yknow, really bad and stuff and are banned by over 100 countries (except of course the US which is one of their largest manufacturers) :rolleyes:

sadmanbarty
14-09-2016, 11:14 AM
Here's a summary of the Foreign Affairs Committees Libya report.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/libya-report-published-16-17/

Here's the actual report, which I haven't read yet.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf