Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
According to twitter.
Twitter rumour mill says dead.
The BBC are a bit slow, but Sky have a correspondent on the ground with the rebels as they're entering Tripoli.
and suggesting rumours of sons captured are just propaganda.
That reporter is being pretty brave with all the sounds of gunfire, assuming that's what those bangs are.
given this time last month much the same people were urging the opposite.
The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2% to 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds. The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets.
Even sound like lads with the chanting.
And exactly like lads who have got drunk and decided playing with guns would be a good idea.
Alex Crawford's doing a great job on Sky right now. I know they got a lot of criticism, often rightly so, but they do seem to be more often the quickest at getting people on the ground and live reports.
this is probably due to the conservative nature of the beeb. I'd imagine they'd be quite nervous dropping a reporter into a scene like this - whereas SKY are quite happy to just let the camera run and see what shit goes down. this is why they are kings when it comes to live broadcasts. (as much as it pains me to say that)the Riots were another good example of their superior coverage
their press conference coverage is about 5 mins behind
Colonel Gadaffi should just tell us his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices. It can't be worth all this bloodshed.
quotation marks. Damn DiS.
As does Sarkozy, and especially Obama for supporting NATO action in the face of strong US opposition.
Relieved that a repressive dictator will be removed?
Do you think the NTC will be able to rule Libya peacefully and effectively?
Is everyone comfortable with the role of NATO in this?
I feel quite uncomfortable and apprehensive about it all.
but I do think it's going to lead to a few years of chaos before something better emerges.
I hope they get the chance to build a democracy that includes all the factions and tribes etc.
and by 'something better', I mean something that preserves their current relatively decent and free education and health systems and that doesn't just flog off all their state-owned industries and oil wealth
that's what NATO mobilised for; to protect health and education systems
But envoys have already started securing oil terminals again and oil prices are falling, so hopefully we'll get our hands on most of it.
Poor guy. He could've got a clock.
"interesting that the leader of the revolt in Libya spent his last 20 years in LANGLEY VIRGINIA. Guess where the CIA hq is?"
Source: Jay Electronica
Hold the press...
It's been pretty clear from the start with the 'Arab Spring' that America's been utterly caught shocked and unaware by it. I don't doubt for a second one of the reasons why they supported France's initiative to intervene in Libya was to try and appear to have some control/influence over world affairs that have so far slipped beyond their grasp.
I don't, however, actually believe have anything like as much control over this situation as that would imply.
the head (and sole member?) of the NTC exec is a US-educated guy, he was involved in privitisation in Gadaffi's govt. I'm sure they've had the chance for plenty of chats with him.
Rebel group choose person with the most contacts/rapport with foreign governments to be its main contact point with foreign governments? That doens't so much seem to be a conspiracy as a person spect for the job. If there's some evidence that the US has intervened in him being selected, that's a different thing entirely but there's no evidence I've heard of that that's the case.
though the fact a rebel movement chooses a "person with the most contacts/rapport with foreign governments" is already a kind of unspoken recognition of the influence of the US (are his connections as strong with the African Union or the Arab League? I don't know).
If the US didn't have an influence in matters by this stage, that would be extraordinary.
I'm sure the US was the factor but I'm guessing from the little I know of his CV he had the widest range of contacts internationally than most in the anti-Gadaffi movement.
I don't know much about the guy
a country that had a genuine popular people's revolt
a population of 80 million people in total
the longest history of any unified state in the world and thus an overwhelming ethnic majority
with tourism as their number 1 industry
is a world away from the opportunity that arises here to have influence over an underdeveloped oil-rich state which comprises of 6 or so million people from diverse tribal backgrounds
from a certain angle what one person might dismiss as 'a conspiracy theory' is a definitely tabled strategic plan for energy security
If you mean that they had a man on the *inside* of an already happening movement, and that that has encouraged western govs to support the opposition, then I can believe that. But I doubt that the embedded contacts would exist to get the ball rolling in the first place.
But (and this is a serious queation) does it matter if (big, big if) it makes the average Libyan safer?
To me a conspriacy would imply a secret agreement for motives that aren't expliclty acknowledged. NATO and the rebels seem to have an open agreement for explicitly acknowledged motives so I wouldn't say so.
there's no use us arguing over semantics
I'm not disputing America would want to have influence in Libya. I just am yet to see any evidence/reason to believe there's anything sneaky or underhand in how they've gone about doing that.
and also to Britain and France - to use their influence to secure deals in their own interests
the idea that to suggest such a thing is a 'conspiracy theory' is totally colouring such action as being 'underhand' and 'evil' or whatever when it is actually simply standard practice
It's a historical fact that certain nations use many, many techniques to impose their will on other nations and/or steer them on a particular course that would be beneficial
let's hope that in this (and in all) case(s) the Libyan people are as much the beneficiaries of their resources as those who seek to profit from them
Securing deals in your country's own interests is effectively the defintion of foreigh policy. As you say it's standard practice, hence why I'm completly lost on what the point is.
this is a lawless period in Libya's history
your comment was a dismissal of concerns that the US may be putting undue influence on the future of Libya
whereas the US might argue that they are putting legitimate influence on it
in the lawless nature of the moment no one can measure it against the Libyan constitution and come to a legal definition of it
This is potentially problematic and the problems come as much from people's perception of influence as from the reality
the conflict here may be opposite perceptions of reality
I'm sure America want the best price possible for oil. That's not a proble as long as the new Libyan government is impartial and negotiates the best price for Libya. I'm assuming that bit we agree on.
Where I think we disagree is whether there is evidence to suggest the new Libyan government will be under undue influence from the US. So far I don't believe there is.
but - and with all due respect - it isn't really your belief (or mine) that matters
it's going to be a tough job to unify the various tribal interests into a cohesive interim Government that writes a constitution for the New Libya
Any suspicions that any party might have on the people tasked with unifying those interests or writing that constitution may have an influence on the narrative
and so for that reason I believe it is a little unwise to be dismissive of the fact that Mahmoud Jibril's background may be read as being 'sympathetic' to American interests or Capitalist interests or whatever else
But as long as it's the usual suspects on the internet, I'm not sure it matters yet.
I'm assuming the people who gave the role to Jibril know his background and selected him for that reason so it comes down to if they can retain the support of the Libyan people.
Although obviously the hope'd be there'll quickly be elections and Jibril will only be in control in the longer term if that's what the people want. If he retains control without elections then it's going to be a false dawn whatever his background is.
btw Glenn Greenwald just posted this
which pretty much sums up my thoughts today on the need to continue to ask questions and on Cameron's rather triumphalist speech this morning
Cameron's claim that Nato's decision to intervene in Libya had been vindicated is utterly illogical, unless their decision to intervene to defend civilians was based solely on whether or not the rebellion could succeed in overthrowing the government. That logic suggests NATO would not intervene to defend civilians if it thought a related rebellion could not succeed. Maybe that's true, but it would be an odd thing to crow about.
and I certainly would find it odd to expect anyone to change their mind based on the fact Gadaffi's been removed (the only exception obviously being those who objected because it'd be a long-drawn out unwinnable war, of which there were a few).
The one thing I'd say (that work's partly in Cameron's defence but raises a question of whether people were upfront about this from the off) is that rationally a NATO intervention to defend civilicans had to be based on the premise that the rebellion could and would succeed. If the rebellion had failed a time would eventually have come when NATO had to pull it out and the repurcussions against those who'd attempted to rise up against Gadaffi would have been as brutal as they wre inevitable. So really it only made sense for NATO to intervene if they thought it was a winnable war (just look at Afghanistan for evidence for ths!) as it would be impossible to otherwise defend human rights in the long-term. Even now you'd hope people would have learned from Iraq that it's far too early to determine whether an attempt to protect human rights and bring peace to Libya has succeeded.
All this said, I do think this is a different circumstance to Iraq in so far as that
a) it's a case of NATO supporting an existing attempt to overthrow the government from the inside movement that appeared to have popular suport rather than an attempt to impsoe rule from the outside.
b) there was an urgent state of circumstances in terms of the level of violence being inflicted on the protesters/rebls that required a decision for urgent acton.
c) the fact that other nations in the region not particularly renowned for their sympathy to Western interests pushed for action.
I do think these three do make it a very different set of circumstances. But I agree (and it pissed me off with the Iraq war) that victory is in no way a justification.
is one that I guess should be borne in mind whenever the international community intervenes to protect human rights (btw, is the UN Peacekeeping Force still a thing? it's not something you often hear about any more), and why we should have been very suspicious of the 'clean' no-fly zone plan that was put to us back in March.
Also, I've just come up with a shonky 'low-hanging fruit' theory of international relations - over the past century, all the internal conflicts that could be resolved by international intervention have been sorted out, leaving just the really horribly difficult ones, leaving us with a looming century of insoluble problems coupled with the misplaced confidence of past successes. This is my theory so don't steal it.