Doesn’t everybody?
More importantly, the Arab League condemned the airstrikes as soon as they began, and has reiterated this condemnation regularly since then. Even more importantly, no Arab League member has, to the best of my knowledge, launched a single air sorty against Libya.
To pretend that the Arab League is somehow a major participant in this Western war of aggression against Libya is, to borrow Tom’s word, disingenuous.
I see the Maestro continues to play the orchestra brilliantly. How long does the engagement last?
Islamists blamed for killing General Abdel Fattah Younes as Libya’s rebels face up to enemy within
–Much more at source.
Libyan clusterfuck.
You are failing to make your case while increasing the chances that we will simply ban you for trolling.
A few airstrikes does not equate to the rebels letting others fight their battles. The majority of the conflict remains a ground war in which only Libyans are seriously involved.
Thus your claim is not factual.
After the first airstrike, one member of the Arab League questioned the role that the airstrikes were to play in the conflict. Within hours, having heard what the real target of the strike had been, he noted that his concern was misplaced and that he still supported the NATO actions. You have repeatedly used that single cautionary–and retracted–statement to pretend that the Arab League opposed the actions of those supporting the rebels, ignoring the fact that it was the Arab League’s request that NATO intervene and ignoring almost six months of Arab League support for the actions.
Thus, your claim is not factual.
Your persistent use of the terms “Christendom” to refer to secular countries and your use of similar insults against other nations are mere trolling.
Thus, your claim is not factual.
I have, indeed, “explained” to you what you are doing. You are not in a position to admit it, but you are in a position to stop it. It is your choice, but you have passed the point of being sheltered by a presumption of innocence. You may continue to defend your perspective, but you will stop behaving as a troll.
[ /Moderating ]
Um, from a Libyan perspective, it’s been a clusterfuck for six months now — since, you know, citizens have been shooting at each other for that long. From a Western perspective, this is bad news, but it’s not exactly the end of the world, either.
It’s no surprise jihadist Islamists have a presence in Libya, and it’s highly unlikely this civil war is going to end with them in power. There just doesn’t seem to be that kind of enthusiasm on the ground for their POV. The majority of the rebels don’t know what they want, but they don’t want that.
I’m sure you’re right. It’s mostly just worrying that they haven’t been playing ball so well with the democrats for the last couple weeks (in Egypt, either). It complicates the situation, it weakens the democrats, it will likely help block social reform in the future… it’s not helpful. It’s definitely not the end of the world, but it’s not helpful.
“A few airstrikes?” Are you serious? And you actually have the audacity to accuse anyone else of misrepresenting the Libyan conflict? Truly amazing.
In case you’re interested, Western planes have carried out many thousands of airstrikes in Libya during the past several months. You can find a workable summary of the action here:
Here’s a recent four-day excerpt from late July:
“20 July: NATO aircraft flew 122 sorties, 53 of which were strike sorties, targeting vehichles, heavy weaponry and buildings, including storage, command and operations facilities, with most targets in the vicinity of Zlitan and Misrata.[279]
21 July: NATO aircraft flew 124 sorties, 45 of which were strike sorties, targeting storage facilities, anti-aircraft defenses and various military vehicles, largely near Tripoli and Zlitan.[280]
23 July: NATO aircraft conducted 125 sorties, 56 of which were strike sorties, targeting storage facilities, anti-aircraft defenses, heavy weaponry and command centers, with most of the strikes taking place near Brega, Tripoli and Zlitan”
Bolding mine. Care to reconsider your amazingly ignorant “a few airstrikes” assertion?
The more I listen to you pontificate on the topic, the more I realize that you know little to nothing concerning the conflict under discussion.
Amr Moussa is not a “member” of the Arab League, as he is a person rather than a country. Moreover, he was at the time the head of said Arab League, thus making his statements those of the organization itself. Moreover, after the original retraction you weakly refer to, Mr. Moussa went on to reiterate his calls for an immediate end to Western military action and full talks with the Colonel’s government:
Much as you would like to pretend that the Western war of aggression has wide Arab support, I’m afraid that you cannot wish your personal beliefs into reality.
Readers should note several things:
-Commissar rather obviously did not quote one of the key comments in his own cite:
-As indicated by the timeline, the war had been going on for almost half a year before the outgoing head of the Arab League reversed his position (this was after he reversed it twice in March, IIRC). A war that was supported and pushed for by the Muslims in the Arab League and took roughly half a year before they tired of it is hardly a “Crusader” effort. To say nothing of the fact that France is aggressively secular in both its political and cultural climates and Great Britain, while somewhat more religious in social matters, has a fully secular government.
-A “war of aggression” has an actual legal standing and is illegal under intentional law. Ignoring the fact that Commissar has gone on record claiming that nobody can say anything is illegal under international law unless a judicial tribunal has already ruled on that specific instance/transgression, as the Security Council explicitly authorized the use of force, it is therefore not a war of aggression.
Just keepin’ it real, yo.
No. I was being sarcastic. And you are trying to change the subject to avoid dealing with the fact that the actual war remains a Libyan conflict on the ground while you try to pretend that “Europe” or “the West” is carrying on the entire war, itself.
Which is what I said.
Not really, your desire to see the whole world as a totalitarian playground, notwithstanding. His comments were not made in the context of a declaration from the Arab League, but simply a personal expression of an officer who had already stepped down from his position three weeks earlier.
There was nothing weak about my statement and he did, indeed, state in the following days that he was not calling for an end to airstrikes, only expressing concern about them and calling for a peaceful resolution.
I have made no claim for “wide Arab support,” so you can go burn your straw man elsewhere. I simply noted that your claims were based on selective misreading of actual events and statements.
As for wishing beliefs into reality, you had probably better avoid mirrors.
You may want to go and do some actual research before attempting to debate matters beyond your knowledge. The Security Council resolution in question authorized the protection of Libyan citizens, not the indefinite and indiscriminate bombing campaign that Christendom has wrought. I have linked to numerous articles showing that numerous nations, including Russia (a Security Council nation), have maintained that the current Western actions fall outside the scope of the resolution. I am sure that you will keep ignoring these cites, of course, in your interesting attempt to pretend that there is a resolution authorizing this war of aggression out there.
This is precisely why I usually do not waste my time debating with you. When I point out a fatal flaw in your argument, you claim that your argument was not meant to be a serious one, after which you fall back on unsubstantiated claims such as “the actual war remains a Libyan conflict…” And how do you define that? Given that you “sarcastically” dismissed one of the largest and longest aerial bombing campaigns in the history of mankind as an irrelevant sidenote, what exactly enables you to claim that the “actual” conflict is being decided by the Libyans? Or was that a “sarcastic” statement as well, and one that you will abandon upon being called out on it?
Readers should be aware of the fact that the SC resolution was open ended in scope, mandated no end-date, and specifically called for “all necessary means” to be usedto protect civilians from Quadaffi’s reach and was authored under Chapter VII, further making it explicit that a solution to the conflict would be military in nature. As such, the claim that this is a ‘war of aggression’ is simple bombast.
As noted, Commissar has already gone on the record as stating that nobody can declare that a violation of international law has occurred, in any case, absent a tribunal carried out by the International Court of Justice. How he has reversed his stance is an exercise for the reader, of course. On the theory of international jurisprudence that any nation on the Security Council may unilaterally declare that the scope of a resolution has been exceeded, perhaps the less that is said, the better. Especially since other nations on the SC rather obviously disagree.
Massive breakthroughs in the Misrata and Nafusa fronts. On the Misrata front, the rebels are at the gates of Zilten, making this the first major city they have assaulted from the outside. There is talk of skipping Zilten and continuing to Khormus, which is the only thing between them and Tripoli.
On the Nafusa front, the rebels have captured Hawamid and Josh and surrounded Tiji. Fighting at Tiji.
The bombing is not indiscriminate so you are just saying things to get a rise out of other posters.
You have already been told to stop trolling with by the use of silly terms such as “Christendom.”
This is a Warning that you are way out of line both for trolling and for ignoring staff instructions.
[ /Moderating ]
This is why I rarely waste my time posting in your tirades. You twist every point into an unrecognizable straw man in order to keep your diatribe going.
You posted no “serious flaw” in my argument. Rather, you complained that the rebellion was being waged by the Europeans when all they have provided has been air support and the actual conflict remains a ground war among Libyans. How do I define that? Well, the troops that are actually on the ground shooting at each other, marching on cities held by the other side to attack and conquer them, and imposing their own rules on the land they hold are Libyans. It is the way that wars have been fought for a few thousand years and it is pretty much the recognized definition of warfare.
I never claimed that the aerial bombing was a “sidenote.” You are inventing a position for me that I have not expressed. I did use the sarcastic word “few” to identify the raids, but only because you were claiming that they were the entire scope of the conflict while you pretended that the ground war did not exist. (And your claim of “largest and longest aerial bombing campaigns in the history of mankind” is not so much an exaggeration as nonsense. Larger and longer campaigns have gone on in WWII (in multiple locations and years), Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, (twice), Iran/Iraq, Iraq, and a number of other times and places.) A bit of honesty on your part would reduce the incitement to respond with sarcasm that you will then twist into a straw man attack on reality.
I would say the ground conflict is being fought closely with coordinated “western” airstrikes. I understand the people on the ground are taking more risks, but the air and ground forces are not two disjointed operations. We bomb, we tell them we’re done bombing, they try to advance. Basically. That’s my impression, anyways. There’s also cruise missiles, helicopter strikes, naval blockade, arms embargo, and financial freeze. The rebels are capable of none of that.
With that in mind, it’s not crazy to state NATO is overstepping the boundaries of the UN Resolution which “limits” the military to a no-fly zone and protecting Libyan civilians. While I personally do not think that places a limit on UN Members, it does give that impression.
City Center of Ziltan captured. Ziltan hospital captured. This is pretty big news.
G-troops expected to pull back to Al Khums.
Rebels not expected to advance on Tripoli directly.
It’s not a reasonable read of the resolution, however. Not even close. Pretty much the only thing that they’re forbidden from doing is putting boots on the ground. The resolution does not spell out how civilians are to be protected, nor what the limits are of the “all necessary means” that are to be taken in order to protect them.
As Quadaffi has ruled as a tyrant for quite some time now, and the revolution occurred due to Quadaffi’s thugs murdering protestors, and the rebels are fighting now to be free of his rule and the violence he unleashed against those who petitioned for redress of grievances, it’s not at all an unreasonable interpretation of the resolution that civilians can only be protected adequately once Quadaffi is deposed or dead.
I agree that your and my reading of the resolution is not unreasonable. I would even go further than you and say boots on the ground are allowed as long as they don’t occupy any part of Libya.
But it’s also not unreasonable to think going on an offensive march to overthrow Gadhafi falls outside the scope of protecting civilians. Protection seems to imply defensive. It’s just not crazy to think that is all.