I’m not saying some civilians have not been injured, but the government seems hard-pressed to show any. BBC this morning showed footage they filmed while being taken through a hospital to see civilain victims. They were shown a little girl. A government minder expressed outrage. The little girl’s uncle expressed outrage, in the same words. Shortly later, a hospital employee slipped the reporters a note, written in English on hospital paper, saying the little girl was actually hurt in a car accident. Later, the crew was taken to the site of a bombing where there were some dead pigeons and dogs but no signs of humans. Suddenly they saw the little girl’s uncle mingling with the crowd of minders! Upon repeated questioning, he finally admitted being a state employee. Now none of the government minders will say whether the little girl was a bombing victim or not.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43310300/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
This guy is going to hang on until there is nothing left to hang on to.
Merged JimH52’s post into this older (but active) thread.
Thanks! Still learning my way around.
Another attempt [at blaming NATO for civilian deaths] ended the same way when a supposed NATO missile was found have Cyrillic script on its side.
Now BBC just showed the head of the International Criminal Court saying there’s evidence that not only is Ka-Daffy ordering his troops to rape women, but he’s issuing Viagra. Really. No, um, hard evidence of this yet though.
Gaddafi’s son Saif offers elections.
As to that, don’t get your hopes up, Saif. This is like bringing flowers to your battered wife in intensive care and saying, “You know, honey, maybe you were right, we should think about marriage counseling.”
I’m sure they put that ‘which could test the unity of the Western alliance’ as filler.
Hm! Now the rebels are manufacturing their own weapons! In besieged Misrata, yet!
Has Gaddafi even got a way to replenish his ammo supply, I wonder?
Senators Kerry and McCain have introduced a resolution to authorize limited use of U.S. military force in Libya. It “could be voted on as early as this week.”
Is that an honest question? :dubious: Are you in good faith proposing that, while rebel Libyans have figured out how to successfully reproduce elementary centuries-old technology, loyalist Libyans may somehow be incapable of doing likewise? That seems to take black-and-white thinking to new heights. You are free to favor the rebels, but that hardly means that you can logically dismiss the opposing side as a mob of quasi-retarded cretins. The world is much, much more complex than that.
And speaking of black-and-white fallacious thinking, I notice that this anti-Qaddafi love-in has produced links to almost all recent stories concerning the Libyan conflict, and yet everyone here has studiously ignored recent stories about a UN finding of war crimes committed by the rebels as well as a NATO air strike that slaughtered numerous innocent civilians. Way to ignore reality when it challenges your preconceived notions, everyone. Now, carry on.
Here’s a June 2 article covering the findings by the UN that would likely constitute war crimes. I hadn’t heard of this before:
No, I was just wondering if the necessary industrial plant is present in Tripoli or other parts of Libya that the government controls. (The rebels in Misrata did not “figure out how to reproduce” anything, they are using a steel mill that just conveniently happened to be there, and whose crew happens to be loyal to the rebellion.) If not – the most important difference in the sides’ strategic positions is that the rebels are getting some supplies from abroad, while the government is subject to international sanctions/embargo/blockade. And, of course, whoever runs out of ammo first loses, is it not so?
BBC quoted a senior British officer as saying if this lasts until September, then his country’s resources will be stretched too thin, what with the ongoing action in Afghanistan. I wonder if this means the heat will be ratcheted up some more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/us/politics/22powers.html?_r=1&ref=world
Saddening news IMO, I am disappointed at the Republican opposition to Libya, the party would not do well to return to isolationist views which it has rejected since the defeat of Robert Taft for the nomination in 1952.
They oppose it mainly because Obama supports it I expect.
Not necessarilly, Marco Rubio supports our defence of the Libyan people while Kucinich and other "progressives’ oppose it. And its not like its a Republican only thing-Democrats voted en masse against the First Gulf War, which was more justified than Libya and if Bush had intervened in Libya you’d probably be talking about how its a secret plot to genocide all the Libyans and take all their oil or something.
Careful what you wish for. We could have used a bit of Republican isolationism in the W years . . . the Bush I years . . . the Reagan years . . . The one thing worse than an isolationist is a neocon.