Confusion over what rebels want..

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by enlightenment, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last week, in Libya, there was a photo, and in this photo were rebels with a banner that declared that this was Libyan business, and that the West should not internvene. This appeared to be followed up with more insider feeling that the rebels did not want, nor would they welcome, foreign internvention.

    They want to settle the thing among themselves? Permit them to do that then, because, as I have said before, by going in armed, there is that risk of killing more people that Kaddafi is responsible for, it is said.

    Not to mention the fact that any intervention involving the UK or the US would lead to (fair?) cynicism about oil.

    But wait..

    Word reaches me today that the rebels are actually critical of the West for not having intervened, and delaying in doing so.

    :confused:

    What is their position?

    It cannot be both at the same time, so did they have a sudden change of heart, or am I being to suspicous if I suggest that maybe the idea is being sold to us, nice and subtle, by attributing quotes to unnamed people apparently 'pressuring for intervention'..?

    Anyone?

    I am confused.com

    ;)
     
  2. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    The difference is, last week it looked as though the rebals would easily win.

    And then Gaddafi got organised, rolled out the tanks and jets, and the rebels realised they would be slaughtered.

    No wonder there was a change of heart. :)
     
  3. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    the thing is, it *can* be both at the same time, because a) people are not that logical and b) the rebels and the libyan people contain a number of fairly different factions, including:

    1. young people who want freedom, jobs and the right to listen to britney spears and use social networking tools
    2. older people who are fed up with the status quo (e.g. much of the army)
    3. people who have a grudge against the regime (e.g. long-standing underground opposition groups of various stripes including communists, berber ethnic separatists, other tribal opposition groups, army cadres)
    4. home-grown islamists e.g. the local ikhwaanis
    5. returning jihadis (gadaffi exported a lot of his undesirables by giving them weapons, money and one-way tickets to afghanistan and iraq, telling them to go and fight the americans instead) - a lot of whom live in the east of the country
    6. foreign jihadis (e.g. al-qaeda in the maghreb, although thankfully there are not so many of these as in iraq)
    7. ex-pats e.g. the ones here in the uk and italy
    8. people who want to nick stuff that normally you can't nick unless you work for gadaffi (e.g. aspiring gadaffi mk IIs) and their cronies
    9. miscellaneous others

    as you can probably see from the list, all of these people would have conflicting demands, ideals and attitudes to outside invention depending on who it was from, so i can understand the confusion. what hague's abortive sas mission was probably about was finding out who, if anyone, was in charge and whether they were open for business.

    bananabrain
     
  4. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,225
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    oh my BB, you are so outta touch....


    young people have sooo moved on from Brittiny Spears....
     
  5. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not so sure.

    Seems one hell of a u turn.

    Maybe we need to take a closer look at who these rebels (the flip side of the terms 'terrorists') are.

    Are they one loosely organised group, or do they comprise of several small and entirely disorganised groups?

    Do they have spokesmen who speak with a single voice, or are there various people speaking, some saying different things?

    How many are there in number?

    What sort of access to arms do they have?

    Would it be possible to perhaps assist them by way of providing better arms, so that they have an increased chance against Gaddafi's forces?

    The politicians are saying there would be logistical problems with this, and I do not doubt it, however, it has to be a better option than the UK or the US putting troops there. Aside from anything else, we cannot afford any more conflicts.

    I don't wish to get all James Bond, but if Gaddafi really needs to be gotten rid of, would it be entirely out of the question for the best in US, British and French secret services to get together and figure out a way of getting close enough to him to take him out? Appreciate that there would be massive security around him, right enough, but aren't these assasins experts in that kind of thing?
     
  6. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hm, I though you were expressly against assassination? Or is it okay so long as it isn't Mossad? ;)

    Btw, we did send the SAS in. That was a total farce.

    And now Cameron trumpets that the British will prepare to strike against Libya. Which is a surprising statement to make seeing as Cameron is also closing down a number of RAF airbases, eliminating the very tornadoes he says we might use, our last aircraft carrier just got sold for scrap, so all we have left is a handful of Eurofighter typhoons stationed in Malta, who cannot reach Libya without special refuelling arrangments which we probably don't have at present.

    In which case, our military effort in Libya is probably best summed up by the Telegraph's cartoonist, Matt:

    [​IMG]
     
  7. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ha ha :D

    Yes, I think there is some posturing from Cameron and his party, perhaps in the hope that Gadaffi will somehow be intimidated by it.

    I don't think he will, there are no signs of it, indeed, I would argue that the Col would like nothing better than for the West to attempt force.

    As to assasination, yes, in principle I am against killing, however, were it a choice between that or a conventional 'liberation' (lots of dead Libyans), then that would be better.
     
  8. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    That no matter what the West does or doesn't do, the West is to blame for all their problems.
     
  9. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you really believe that?

    You portray 'them' ( I assume you mean Muslims), as being whiney, seeking to shake responsibility for their living conditions or loses onto the West.

    Do you think that is an entirely fair comment to make?

    And to what extent do you believe the West to ACTUALLY be culpable?
     
  10. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gaddafi Given Ultimatum To Stop Attacks - Yahoo! News UK

    According to this it seems as if there might be hope of some sort of halt to Gadaffi's actions. For how long is anyone's guess, but the UK, US, and France now seem to have made their position clear, so what happens next is crucial.

    If Gadaffi resumes killing, and does not heed the no fly zone, then this patently puts those nations mentioned in a position in which they will now have to act, as they have said they will, that seems clear to me.

    So it's fingers crossed that this supposed new tone from Gadaffi's camp is not only for a short time.

    However, I think it may spark up again.

    Rebel factions want him out, this has been their best chance, and I don't see them losing interest now, at least not without massive concessions, if at all. They are going to continue rebelling, and that means Gadaffi's forces will need to go out and do something. It is likely there would be more deaths in that situation. By the same token, even if Gadaffi somehow paid off the rebels and appeased them, you have to wonder if he can still remain leader of this nation, after all that has happened.
     
  11. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, looks like Cameron wants to try to save his flagging public image, by being the 'hero'.

    Yes, I really am that cynical, I really do feel leaders pick and choose when to be the world police (for example, what about Saudi forces across the Gulf States, Mr C?).

    He had best hope that Gadaffi complies, and decides not to meet this with aggression, as I do not think we can afford a long drawn out operation, not to mention that it would soon backfire on the Tories, if the body count began to rise.

    But we have played our hand now, and must wait and see what the response is to it.

    I would be surprised if Gadaffi simply bent over to the West, that would be out of step with the man, so this could get messy...
     
  12. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not "all" Muslims, of course (universal generalizations are never fair) but it is an increasing widespread and annoying trend. We have certainly seen a lot of it on this board.
    For what, exactly? The conflicting overlapping promises made at the end of WWI certainly made for a lot of anger and enduring conflicts. But the general problem that Muslim governments are corrupt dictatorships is not a situation the West created.
     
  13. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny how we see different things, Bob.

    I don't think Muslims have much of a true representation on this board, at all. Indeed, I don't know of any other Muslims who post here, save for Sally, who always debates v well, I believe, and who I have a fair bit of respect for.

    I wouldn't at all say that she is whiney, nor that she blames all the problems of Islamic nations on Western nations, I believe she gives blame to Western nations when it is deserved.

    We should not be so blinkered as to think we must always follow the party line, and that any deviation from it is somehow unpatriotic.

    If the party line is flawed, then break away from it is something we should actually do.

    One of the reasons I have never wanted to belong to a political party, a religion, or a given idealogy is simply that there are going to be things within it that I do not wish to comply with, on the basis that I disagree with - therefore, I would always rather just be my own person, without being obsessive over what the next life will be like, and if I am pleasing an invisible entity.

    At this moment in time, I would appear to the observer that Islam is a more aggressive religion than either Christianity or Judaism (and, yes, Hindusim and Sikhism as well).

    There is a body of evidence to suggest that this is the case, but I do not think Islam is 'more violent' by default.

    I think there are all sort of political and cultural factors, rather than one single reason, yet I have long maitained that one central factor may be that Islam is the youngest of the three Abrahamics.

    There is no question that followers of Judaism and Christianity once did things that were every bit as terrible as the most deranged Islamist would today, and that both went through a period, a long one, in which blood of others was very much on their hands. This is not even up for debate, everyone I know accepts this.

    But over time, both eventually settled, at least in the West (Christianitiy in Africa - EEK!), into something far more moderate and modern, something that could adapt to, and live within a modern and fair society.

    However, like I say, this has taken a long time, and like I say, Islam is a much younger religion, so in many respects, if Judaism is 30, and Christianity is 20, then Islam is only 5, and still going through the phase of being driven by fixed ideas and having emotional tantrums. That analogy isn't intended as offensive to Islam, btw, it is there to underscore a point.

    If that is the case, and with recent events, there may be case for saying that Islam is still going through the more violent phase that both Judaism and Christianity once did, but like the other two, they will come through this more hard line phase, and emerge with something that is more moderate, and more in keeping with what we would see to be humane laws.
     
  14. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is if we sell them weapons so that they can take power, then sell them more, so that they can retain power.

    Saddam was once our mate.

    That's what the controllers do, they keep shifting their enemies/friends around.

    Only a few weeks ago, Gadaffi was now seen as an ally in Western circles....whoops!

    This is why I have nothing but doubt when our Gov try to tell us who our enemies and friends should be, what we should believe, and this is why I have a healthy suspicion of the agenda of the MSM.
     
  15. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    I will agree the weapons business is ugly. But arms embargoes are a fairly common kind of sanction to express distaste for a regime, and the result is generally just that they buy arms from elsewhere, and shift their other business elsewhere, without much improvement of the situation. A general shift to less violent regimes overall is what is needed.
    Yeah, when he and we both found ourselves fighting Khomeini-- but that was after a dozen years of him denouncing the US and especially the UK as arch fiends. I didn't think at the time it looked really smart for Rumsfeld to be shaking his hand, though I had no inkling of the avalanche of stupidity that was to follow. There is nothing good to be said about our handling of Iraq.
    An ALLY???? Oh come on. Nobody ever thought of him as that. Blair did allow him to be treated as somebody to do business with, like anybody else; and that wasn't very smart. But as for the US, come on: we bombed his house, a pretty blunt expression of our sentiments (of course we were royally lambasted for THAT too).
    As I've said before, we really would be happier dealing with more reasonable regimes: there just haven't been any, so we deal with who's there. That is not a situation of the West's making.
     
  16. Sam Albion

    Sam Albion akaFrancisKing:ViveLeRoi!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    9
    ...as far as I can see, the rebels wanted "The West" (translation: anybody) to help them not be slaughtered on the streets. Gaddafi said they were all cockroaches and would be crushed.

    The rebels didn't mind fighting on the ground; they didn't have the equipment, but they had the public's support, and they had enough fire in their bellies to give it a try. They did not want an occupation -- they did not want foreign troops on their streets, fighting FOR them. All they wanted was for the West to impose a "no fly zone" to enable them to have a "fair fight"... (The rebels only had one plane, and that got shot out of the sky a few days ago)...

    The West sat and talked about going to help. A lot of Western leaders were reluctant to intervene, either due to "Afghanistan/Iraq" or due to Libya's big-cash-dollar pot of oil and their regular purchases of western military hardware.

    Now "the West" has gone in, to try to enforce a no-fly zone so that Gaddafi can't drop bombs on the rebels.

    I reckon... better later than never... "The West" should've acted sooner, been more decisive, but... they didn't.
     
  17. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hopefully the action will be a fast one.

    Britain has a massive budget deficit, and couldn't even properly equip its troops safely in Afghanistan.

    And yet here we are, attacking yet another country.
     
  18. enlightenment

    enlightenment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yup - those are my thoughts.

    I don't think for a SECOND that Cameron has sanctioned this out of fluffy care for the people.

    He hopes to come out of it looking the 'hero', imo.
     
  19. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    I have no desire to defend the barsteward regimes of the Middle East, I'm actually very happy to see them go.

    I would however like to ask if you think a government which "leaks" lies to a newspaper and then relies on the press release to attack another country over something they have already been reliably informed doesn't exist is a reasonable regime?

    What about one that tortures prisoners, holds people under emergency laws without a fair trial for years on end and provides military funding, training and arms those very Middle Eastern regimes we dislike so much?
     
  20. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    So's your old man!
     

Share This Page