I’m inclined to grant rebel spokesmen some credibility under the circumstances. We know that Gaddafi has, in fact, murdered political opponents, both before and during the present conflict. His security forces’ killing of unarmed demonstrators is what turned protests into rebellion.
Whereas your moral-equivalence suggestion that the rebels would be conducting massacres of their own has no basis in fact that you’ve made us aware of.
Hell, the man said on television that he would turn his country into a “burning coal,” that following his army’s capture of Benghazi he would hunt dissidents like “rats in alleys.”
Nonsense. That’s simply your naivete. “Oh, they’re going to kill all the civilians in Benghazi! Help!” Yeah, right. They mean, “Help, they’re going to kill us rebels who have taken up arms against them!”
Nor does yours. There is no indication that the Libyan Army was going to kill all the civilians in Benghazi. It is exactly as likely that the rebels will kill all the civilians in Sirte. We’ll find out. Or, perhaps, given the mission of protecting civilians, we’ll prevent that too.
Either way, I heard Obama on the news this morning saying arming the rebels is legal.
And this argument will have as much pull with the international community as the US’s recent argument that the invasion of Iraq was justified by clever reading of 1990’s Security Council Resolutions. How many people do you really think believe such self-serving drivel? If the US thinks it has a point, let it take it before the Security Council for further consideration.
A better case can be made that taking away the weapons and targeting anyone with a gun is a far better solution. Fueling the conflict makes it more violent, not less.
I have repeatedly made you aware of the fact that you beloved “rebels” have been conducting “massacres of their own” against unarmed black civilians on racial grounds. Ignoring the facts does not mean that you can pretend that they don’t exist. Reality tends to favor “moral-equivalence,” rather than the black-and-white moral scenarios that you would prefer to have.
I’m betting what’s legal will be dictated by what’s happening on the ground. The resolution is written broad enough to allow a lot of wiggle room. However, I’m not seeing much a change from February’s arms embargo (a ban on anything military related from entering or leaving the borders of Libya) to March’s 1973 resolution (still refers back to that same ban). The only change I can make out is how to enforce the arms embargo; what is actually banned (everything) and where the ban applies (Libya) is unchanged. I’m open for correction, though.
Of course, I haven’t heard the explanation for why the resolutions are different, only that they are different.
BBC is reporting Obama will not confirm reports that he signed a directive to arm the rebels. He’s not denying it either, heh. Seems he signed it “two or three weeks ago.”
That’s one big rat deserting the ship.
Reading that article, and this one it looks like the rebels are being pushed back, despite that defection.
I believe the “finding,” as they call it, was to instruct CIA operatives to gather intelligence in Libya and make contact with rebels, with an eye toward enabling arming. But not to actually begin delivering weapons into their hands, yet.
And I suspect that we’re hearing about it now because the President wants Gaddafi to hear about it.
BBC just announced Scotland wants to talk to the Libyan FM about Lockerbie. I wonder what the implications will be if he directly fingers Ka-Daffy.
The rebels are being pushed back. But then again, they don’t have artillery. On the other hand, Gadaffi isn’t getting much more ammo.
This is kind of necessary. If a blitzkrieg isn’t going to work, then the rebel army has to become an army and not a mob. Time to create discipline.
As of this morning he hadn’t been given immunity. I suspect he will hold out for that.
Oh, I’m sure they’re willing to submit to discipline, but really learning military discipline takes time.
Not really. It just means they take instructions from the operatives who are on the ground. All they need to know is where not to be when gunships are brought in. Every time Gaddafi moves a column of people/equipment NATO moves in.
Other cabinet ministers appear to be coming up missing now, too.
The “implication” is that only the exceedingly gullible would take such a statement at face value. Let’s see… A traitor, seeking to defect to the enemy, apparently wants immunity and asylum. Why *wouldn’t * he “finger” his previous superior in order to get what he wants? I know that I would certainly be doing just that in his shoes, truth be damned.
There is nothing in the Resolution authorizing the crusaders to actually choose sides and provide the rebels with air support. In fact, when the rebels were making their doomed push a couple days back, NATO participants strenuously denied that they were doing that.