Thank you, HWNN

for the updates and additional information.


peace out, >^,,^<

---

The poor object to being governed badly, whilst the rich object to being governed at all. G.K. Chesterton

How is your link any less "skewed" and "biased"? They may not be, they may be also but how do we know? You are simply choosing to believe that you want to believe. I am at least constantly saying that Gaddafi may well be a tyrant who oppresses. But I don't remember you even for once admitting that there is a possibility that the real intentions of the intervention may not be for humanitarian reasons, irrespective of Gaddafi's role in Libya.
Why is it so hard for you to even consider the possibility that the US government CAN lie to their peoples, even after several facts and viewpoints have been presented? And why is it that whenever I mean the US govt/CIA, you and your friends seem to take offense?
And don't put words into my mouth. It is tantamount to lying, in case you didn't know that. I never said that I don't like US or its people. I have no personal feud with you, I can't see why you are so intent on trying to create one.
How do you know whether "my people" kill their own or not? And why be so generous to think that I am incapable of living in a civil manner? And US has killed and tortured their own by the way - plenty of them. Colored people - blacks, indigenous people. So kindly spare me the patronizing tone.
You can ride on your biases, but you seem to forget that it isn't for you but just for the purpose of telling the other side of the story that I post whatever I do. I don't really care what you make of them, since your own bias seems way too deeply ingrained.

Once again, the links you provided proves nothing. It is even hard to believe Human Rights Watch, they seem to be biased too. God knows who fired those cluster bombs. There are already some foreign troops from Britain,CIA members etc. on the ground. They too could have fired them deliberately into civilian areas to make the Gaddafi forces look even more evil so as to prepare the grounds for invading.

Dear JJ, the problem is that the western countries specially the US has a strickt ban over publishing the crimes their troops have been doing there for a decade in Afghanistan and in the countries on target.

This section may be cited as the ‘‘Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009’’.

How come you expect that a true story will come out to public from Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the world?

While creating hoaxes against the foes sound beneficial to the stack holders of war crimes.

---

*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*

Well, how verboten is it? You just said it. Help me out with the logic if you will: we went to war in
Iraq with the consent of the Congress to further the evil ends of Cheney and Halliburton? Are you further
suggesting that Halliburton now wants into Libya and Obama, without Congressional authorization, is
co-operating in the scheme? If this seems coherent to you I do wish that you would explain it in greater
detail to me as I am too thick to get it.

Politics makes strange bedfellows: the current US policy in Libya is apparently equally inscrutable to both American conservatives and those that believe in American Imperialism. Both want it to be about the oil.

The policy is what it is: a massacre was prevented in Eastern Libya in and around Benghazi. NATO is trying to stop the ongoing attacks in Misrata while limiting civilian casualties.

It isn't about the oil. That seems to give people headaches.


BTW, at least from the American point of view, the policy is on course: Eastern Libya has been spared a massacre. Egypt has been spared a refugee crisis. The day to day operations of a successful no fly zone are in the hands of our allies.

The military goal has been achieved. If it is a stalemate, it is one we can maintain indefinately with scant use of treasure, and no American blood or troops on the ground. I call that humanitarian, and I call it a bargain!

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)

1- If "people" is really the power then the change should have been occured without any foriegn involvement.

2- If foriegn military power was really inavitable it should be used against Israel first.

There is certainly some faults in the western philosophies.

In short, the foriegn involvement in Libya with that military power has damaged the real and the noble cause of the people's movement.

---

*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*

Jeech, the people's cause would be a dead one by now WITHOUT any foreign involvement. The dictator showed beyond doubt that he'd slalughter them all, and then sleep like a new born baby.

Also, Others in NATO have rushed to recognize a rebel council that represents only part of Libya. Obama's people refuse: they rightly assert that Libyans will decide who represents them.

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)

"No refugees"? Bull. The refugee situation is terrible.
http://newscontent.cctv.com/20110323/105520.shtml

HWNN, you may consider backing up your opinions with some facts.

Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies organized a panel discussion titled “Post-Qaddafi Libya: The Prospect and The Promise” in 1994 which Dr Ali Tarhouni, who is currently the finance minister of Libyan National Council, attended.

Other participants at the 1994 conferences included: Executive Secretary Abdul Majid Buik of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL); Former Prime Minister Abdoulhamid Al-Backoush; Omar Fathaly, formerly Director of Strategic Studies at Tripoli’s Arab Development Institute; Ezzedin Ghadamsi, a veteran trade union activist and diplomat; Political analyst and writer Ashur Shamis; Islamist scholar Aly R. Abuzaakouk; Shaha Aliriza, senior program officer, Middle East, National Endowment for Democracy; Tarik Al-Magariaf, Harvard-educated economist and son of NFSL leader Mohamed Al-Magaria; Economist Misbah Oreibi; Management consultant Mahmoud Dakhil.
http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/the-globalists-plot-post-gaddafi-libya/

The opposition groups of Libya got grants from the National Endowment for Democracy in 2009, a U.S. non-profit group "that was founded in 1983 to promote US-friendly democracy by providing cash grants funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress." The NED is allegedly involved in regime change plannings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy
http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/the-globalists-plot-post-gaddafi-libya/

All these facts point towards strong US involvement in creating the unrest in Libya.

Also, Libyan rebel commander admits that his fighters have al-Qaeda links.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

From the link: Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996. Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

So the revolt isn't entirely homegrown, eh? Your posts are desperately optimistic, HWNN, and I hate to break it to you, but most probably al-Qaeda is fighting in Libya alongside US-NATO.

---

In this world there is no literate population that is poor and no illiterate population that is other than poor. - J.K.Galbraith

Well it seems that since MG, corporates have had to do business in Libya under strict rules and regulations. Once MG is replaced by someone who would tag along with the corporates, Libyan oil and gas will be free for the oil companies to explore and exploit and Libyan market will be open. To achieve that, Libyan opposition groups are funded, armed and trained and outside elements are brought into the country so as to create a civil war situation and prolong it enough to justify a foreign intervention.
In 1994 a panel discussion took place titled Post-Gaddafi Libya involving the very same people who are now frontrunners of the opposition in Libya. And still it doesn't look fishy to you. Funding oppositions and military outfits in another country is illegal and has bloody consequences, so it's logical to assume that the intention to cause the bloodbath is behind the funding.
I notice you avoided commenting on the al-Qaeda connections of the rebels.

---

In this world there is no literate population that is poor and no illiterate population that is other than poor. - J.K.Galbraith

A fact check:

The UN/NATO/US policy:

1. Establish a no-fly zone and use that airpower to protect civilians.
2. Change the balance in power to stop the regime’s push toward Benghazi, and stop a massacre and potential flood of refugees into an already unstable Egypt.
3. The goal of military operations is limited:
a. Regime change will not be accomplished by outside military forces.
b. No ground troops.


By any fair measure, unencumbered by rabid partisan ideology, these aims have been achieved.

If the opponents of a policy were allowed to re-state the aims of that policy, then any outcome of any policy could be portrayed as failure:

The allied victory in WWII could be construed as a failure if you state that its aim was the end of all conflicts. Since the alignment of power after that war led to the 50 years of Cold War, then it’s a failure. Of course, “an end to all conflicts” was never the goal of any allied governments…did they hope for this, of course, but no one would think to hold them to account for failing to repeal the darker side of human nature.

Similarly in Libya:

The goals were not:

1. Regime change. Would they like to see the dictator go, of course. That is a long-range goal of many of the nations of the coalition, but it isn’t a military goal of the current operation. The civil war may end with a negotiated settlement, with power sharing, or with regime change. That is for Libyans to decide.
2. A speedy victory by the rebels or a speedy resolution of the conflict. I can recall another conflict that was supposed to pay for itself, would lead to cheap oil, and would be quick…in fact “mission accomplished” was triumphantly declared in May 2003. Of course, there was a multi-year insurgency afterward. No one made any such false promises about Libya.

If there is a stalemate in Libya, that is the problem of the rebels and the regime. America’s role is tangential, so I repeat, we were never promised that this would end quickly or neatly, and to the extent it is a stalemate, it isn’t an American stalemate. If others get more involved, then perhaps they are risking quagmire, but the USA isn’t.

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)

Liberals must protect the flank of the POTUS at any expense, to include intellectual dishonesty. Of course, to be
ungainly and unpleasant does not advance one's cause much.

Speaking of Viet Nam, I am sure that the airstrikes to which you refer helped win 'the hearts and minds'; altogether
a pathetic bunch.

IMO Bush is a pretty disgusting character, and yes he lied about many things starting from the WMD and the humanitarian war BS, but on this one you'll find many republicans on your side. Republican senator Lindsay Graham says: “Right now there’s just not enough momentum by the rebels even if they are better armed to break through to Tripoli. There’s not deep support for Gaddafi. So my recommendation to NATO and the administration is to cut the head of the snake off, go to Tripoli, start bombing Gaddafi’s inner circle, their compounds, their military headquarters in Tripoli. The way to get Gaddafi to leave is have his inner circle break and turn on him. And that’s going to take a sustained effort through an air campaign. I think the focus should now be to cut the head of the snake off. That’s the quickest way to end this.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/24/sen-lindsey-graham-calls-on-obama-to-cut-the-head-of-the-snake-off-and-bomb-tripoli/#ixzz1jUVPo500

BTW, giving support to one's government in bombing another country to hell just because one wants cheap oil is quite despicable.

---

In this world there is no literate population that is poor and no illiterate population that is other than poor. - J.K.Galbraith

It seems Gaddafi's assassination is on the cards. One of his compounds in Tripoli, I think, was recently hit by Nato strikes.

It is really interesting to note that the people who are denying the obvious facts regarding the very likely sinister intentions of these interventions are often the same ones who are strongly opposed to Wikileaks. A recent revelation about Gitmo from Wikileaks shows:

"A former Gitmo detainee whose files identify him as "a probable member of al-Qaeda," Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, is now a key figure on the rebel side of the Libyan revolution, a leader of a rebel brigade in the northern part of the country. When Qumu was captured in Pakistan shortly after 9/11, he was considered an enemy of the United States. Now, he and the U.S. have a goal in common: unseat Gaddafi."

This confirms suspicions that there are indeed foreign elements posing as "rebels". And that goes well with the fact that we have hardly seen any normal-looking civilians in the rebel group, and even if we have, not nearly as much as the gun-toting "rebels" who look very comfortable and familiar with AK's, rocket launchers and machine guns. And as has been pointed out so many times, and as even the Council of Foreign Relations chief mentioned, there was never any good evidence to show that Gaddafi was massacring or was about to massacre his own people. Once again, lies, damned lies and (fabricated) statistics.

That the rebels are full of foreign elements, including those of Al-Qaeda and that opposition groups like NFSL have been trained and groomed by CIA and through other organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy by the US is pretty clear.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread679750/pg1

It does not really matter what one considers reliable. Facts are still facts. Many related links have been given in this thread. Anyone truly interested and unbiased would have found merit in the provided evidence.

Besides, it is not so much about the weapons as it is about the level of comfort and body language of the so-called rebels while carrying those guns. Once again, there is no videographic evidence about civilians being targeted by Libyan forces. And the Wikileaks, the Rebel leader's admission about the al-qaeda links etc. all point towards the above-mentioned facts.

I call this fact: "Since 2005, the U.S. government's National Endowment for Democracy [NED]has apparently given over $234,200 in grant money to the Libya Human and Political Development Forum group that opposes the current Libyan government. According to the NED website, the NED gave $40,000 to the Libya Human and Political Development Forum in 2005, $54,000 in 2007, $63,400 in 2008 and $76,800 in 2009. "
It is from NED's website. Meddling in other countries' affairs. Besides, there are links related to the CIA connections, anyone truly interested would have read them and I am all for a discussion on the contents of the links. Till refutation of every single link is properly done, any allegations that the links do not contain facts will be obviously considered baseless.

Aly Abuzaakouk, executive director of the Libya Forum for Human & Political Development, was also a founding member of the NFSL, one of the main opposition groups in Libya.
Enough material has been given before regarding NFSL-CIA links.
All this surely does look like meddling to me, and more. US is also known to have made its hands dirty in other places. This is a link that I had provided before also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

The backgrounds of Haftar, regarding whom I have given several links and Ali Tarhouni are markedly suspicious, to say the least. Here is another:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/04/22/the-cia-s-man-in-libya/

It is worthwhile to note that instead of refuting points, there is a concerted effort to make it appear as if the links weren't even provided. It is a cheap ploy to try and frustrate the other person by making him re-post his links/points ad nauseum. This is evident from the fact that the same questions are repeated and supporting links are asked for even though they have been provided earlier, and this is being done quite frequently, I can see.

The noose tightens:

-Airstrikes have moved to command and control centers (the places where attacks on dangerous civilians in Misrata are plotted).

-US Predator drones, capable of pinpoint accuracy now prowl the skies over Misrata, and suddenly the thugs surrounding it, and lobbing rockets and artillery into the populace must look skyward for sudden death from above. Wonder how they like it? The civilians they've been murdering with indiscriminate fire could certainly tell them what it's like.

-Airstrikes have increasingly concentrated on ammunition dumps and supplies.

-International sanctions are starting to bite, and there are long gas lines in Tripoli.

-Rebels are being trained by NATO advisors. They are currently getting on-the-job-training at governance and adminstration as they have been the defacto government of the Eastern half of libya for more than a month now. They will soon (if they aren't already) be reaping oil revenue to fuel their efforts.

The noose tightens.

This isn't simply a war, it is a negotiation. Right now, M.G. has something to trade: an early end to the civil war by his departure that he can parlay for safe conduct to exile with a promise of no trial after transfer of power.

The longer he waits, the less leverage he has.

I have said and said on this thread that the military goal of the international forces enforcing the no-fly zone is not regime change. I have noted that the no-fly zone is a light burden for our allies, and lighter still for the USA. It can remain in place for years if need be with no strain on buget and no loss of American lives. The East of Libya is safe. As the sophisticated drone-led air war over Misrata goes on, that population will be increasingly secure. The military aim has been achieved.

Under these conditions, Libyans are contesting for their future. The rebels have international diplomatic support in the form of advisors, and the economic burden placed on the regime by sanctions.

The result will be either some form of power sharing (thougn not likely with MG or his son in place, or the war goes on to it's conclusion with a rebel government taking over. That is the choice they face. Time isn't a friend of the regime...and if MG desires to go down with the ship, I'd warrant that many of his rats feel differently.

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)