Politics Protests in the wider Arab world

[Akainu]

finally yes. Germany sucks, sry for that, but we're really not needed as permamnent member acting like that when neither Russia nor China even bothered to veto a decision that goes so far beyond a simple no-fly-zone.
theoretically the UN now could even try to take out Gadaffis army and maybe even himself as far as I understood, as long as no ground forces are used.

 

[kkck]

From what I read the UN wouldn't actually start an offensive against Gadaffi but rather they would intervene to stop any future military confrontations. I guess they want to force both sides to negotiate but I would think neither side is really up for such a thing considering how things have moved. It'd be interesting to see how things develop from now on....

 

[k-dom]

I'm afraid it arrived a bit to late. The rebellion are in a bad shape but if it can save some civilians I guess it still worth it. Actually i was quite surprised when I heard the resolution was voted. I would never have imagine a success the day before

 

[NNM]

They should not interfere. Right now, the situation looks like a poorly fabricated attempt to colonize Libya.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

They should not interfere. Right now, the situation looks like a poorly fabricated attempt to colonize Libya.

Colonize? I hope you're beeing ironic here, as if the western nations would be bold enough to just march into an arabian nation and colonize it

 

[NNM]

Colonize? I hope you're beeing ironic here, as if the western nations would be bold enough to just march into an arabian nation and colonize it

I think they've gotten lazy cooking up suitable reasons to invade other countries. At last Al-qaeda and terrorism sounded more plausible. If UN wants to play a hero, they should blow up some cruise liner in Mediterranean Sea or something like that to blame Gadaffi.

 

[Akainu]

the UN hardly "plays" anything. actually it's a rare enough occasion that a decision like this came together and it is far away from colonisation, all the more by the UN? without allowing ground forces?
that's a very tasteless joke to write stuff like you did and claim the UN would put up a scam like that without any reason or evidence, when in reality they intervene to protect the citizens - something that should have been done years ago imo, but that's another question how to handle dictators all around the world, be it in central Asia or in Africa.

 

[kkck]

I agree, I don't really see how this can be an attempt at colonization given the circumstances.... If it were an individual nation then perhaps the point could be made but given the circumstances that is hardly the case. Things are happening as we speak, we hardly have any real or even circumstantial evidence to suggest there are interests of that nature at play here. It's not like the UN has actively taken a side really (at least from what I have read), they simply have imposed a cease fire.

---

Well, more interesting developments during the last day. The UN took definitive actions against Gadaffi who apparently lied about ceasing fire against the rebels. I guess he lied so that the allies would slow down their mobilization and get a few extra moments to retake the last rebel city.... He also apparently promised to continue his fight with an apparently large number of weapons he keeps in store. I guess all we can hope now is that civilian casualties are kept to the minimum. On another note, should we laugh or just ignore chavez's offer to mediate in the conflict? Even if there was someone not allied to chavez who thought chavez mattered (ok, he does matter but no one in the international community cares about him very much) it would still be quite hard to mediate considering gadaffi apparently made it clear he would not negotiate and would hunt the rebels to the last man.

 

[NNM]

I'm not gonna judje if the UN is good or bad. But, they are joining so much forrces together just to save a bunch of terrorist scumbags in a single town? This, just sounds ridiculous. And afaik right now UN bombers in a few hours killed more civilians than Gadaffi in two weeks.
The problem with UN is that they don't have evidences. They just keep talking about "big war, thousands of killed civilians, Gadaffi's being hated by he's people, etc", but I have yet to see any of these.

 

[kkck]

I was under the impression that gadaffi was indeed hated by his people though. I even know a couple people who lived in Libya and at the very least there was not much good about Gadaffi to be heard. I guess there are people with and against him in the end... Either way, I don't think being 40 years in power without elections is acceptable in any plausible way.

 

[NNM]

I was under the impression that gadaffi was indeed hated by his people though. I even know a couple people who lived in Libya and at the very least there was not much good about Gadaffi to be heard. I guess there are people with and against him in the end... Either way, I don't think being 40 years in power without elections is acceptable in any plausible way.

Well, who cares about that any way? Lots of countries have their leader rule for well over 30 years. It's their internal affairs. People in Lybia may not like their leader, but they are not protesting. I've compared videos from Egypt (>than a million people in demonstrantion in a single town, not to mention the whole country) and from Lybia (less than a 100 people shooting their bullets in the empty air). At last, UN should clearly show the reason why are they bombing defenseless people.

 

[kkck]

Well, the incidents in Libya did not start with a civil war right of the bat, from what I recall they started with protests to which Gadaffi responded by firing at them. Basically, he shot a bunch of civilians. I don't think people would be so keen on protesting if Gadaffi would have shot any number of protestors.... I still don't think it is right for people to never under any plausible circumstance have the right to choose their leaders.

Anyways, what defenseless people are being shot by the UN? Gadaffi's army hardly counts as defenseless.... I am not naive enough to think there wouldn't be unwanted casualties in a war but you make it sound as if the UN is hunting civilians.

 

[NNM]

Proof. You and UN need to prove your words.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12661023
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=28973

 

[Akainu]

so if I held your family and threatend their life you would not protest for me?
also it would be a real wonder if a million of Libyas people would go to the streets considering three things:
1: Gadaffis regime is very repressive (stuff like I wrote above) to an extent that critics had random "car accidents" when they spoke out.
2: Libya only has about 6.5 M people in contrast to > 80 M in Egypt
3: not all of Libya is against Gadaffi. there is indeed his clan and some supporters, especially in the west and around Tripolis

oh and btw. since there is no free press in Libya and there weren't any foreign journalists either, pictures of protests there are way less reliable than those from Egypt. People protesting for the regime - like in Egypt - could have been bought as well, just like the mercenaries, so nothing new there either.

 

[k-dom]

NNM, is the Kazakhstan your real country ? If so maybe I guess we cannot understand each other. I don't know if you are happy to leave under a dictator yourself. Maybe that's why you are so eager to defend Kadhaffi.
Just so that you know how low such a man it is, he declared to the world that their was a cease fire while he continue bombarding his population.
I don't know if the UN will help the insurrection, I still think it is a bit to late. But I support anything that can help Lybia get rid of this man.
Well to be honest, when I think how Sarkozy received him with a red carpet 3 years ago and how he play the human rights saver now, I cannot really be proud of our French politicians either

 

[NNM]

I'm not defending Gadaffi. I'm just wondering why would UN choose the bloodiest way to solve this small problem.
All of you just keep talking what your mass media put in your heads. I'm asking for a definitive proof. Just prove me that Gadaffi is really THAT bad, so Lybia should be bombed to dust and I'll shut up.

Because right now UN is saying "presumption of innocence is nothing and we can do as we please".

 

[Akainu]

Gadaffi innocent?
dude, get real. he admitted terrorist acts all over the world, sponsored IRA, Lockerbie and all that. above all was research nuclear technology etc. etc. - if there is one guy that's not innocent then it's him.
also the UN doesn't do as it pleases, it plays according to the rules set for itself. had russia or china for example thought there was the slightest doubt about Gadaffi they could have vetoed it. why didn't they?
but to get back to your definite proof, how do you think that should work? I'm not even going to argue about "Libya being bombed to dust" which won't happen, Libya is neither Germany, Korea nor Vietnam where bomb carpets were dropped above civilian targets. But tell me how should be bring proof if you claim that anything we can bring (journalistic freedom) is propaganda by mass media?
or do you suggest we should believe the words of someone who first says the protests are staged by the wes, then it was al qaida and some days later wants to join forces with al qaida against the west? oO

 

[NNM]

Gadaffi innocent?
but to get back to your definite proof, how do you think that should work? I'm not even going to argue about "Libya being bombed to dust" which won't happen, Libya is neither Germany, Korea nor Vietnam where bomb carpets were dropped above civilian targets. But tell me how should be bring proof if you claim that anything we can bring (journalistic freedom) is propaganda by mass media?
or do you suggest we should believe the words of someone who first says the protests are staged by the wes, then it was al qaida and some days later wants to join forces with al qaida against the west? oO

Geez, there isn't even a single independent UN observer in Lybia. Even though Gadaffi invited them many times. Everything your media says now is a wild assumption. Even the videos in the news are showing nothing. No firefights, no corpses, no rebels, no fighter jets. Nothing. Just 1-2-3 people shooting empty air. Yet, you are saying that he is BAD. Why?

Gadaffi innocent?
dude, get real. he admitted terrorist acts all over the world, sponsored IRA, Lockerbie and all that. above all was research nuclear technology etc. etc. - if there is one guy that's not innocent then it's him.
also the UN doesn't do as it pleases, it plays according to the rules set for itself. had russia or china for example thought there was the slightest doubt about Gadaffi they could have vetoed it. why didn't they?

Because nobody really cares. You forgot to add he sponsored Sarcozy too. Oh, wait... I can see the pattern now.

 

[k-dom]

The same mass media which you provide links in your previous posts have made articles about Gadaffi behaviour. The fact that they made an article that would go against their government is sufficient proof to me that they are reliable and sufficiently honnest to cover all point of view.
http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012325572-a-zaouia-une-guerre-pour-exterminer-la-rebellion
That's a french article about a testimony describing how Gadaffi trups killed 18 civilians which were doing a peaceful sit-in.
May I also remind you that Gadaffi was in the past supporting terrorism in particular their is plenty of proofs that he was behind the 500 civilians deaths of the Lockerbie and 772 UTA flight attacks.

And what you call a small problem is just some people who are trying to get their liberty back. I don't think we have the same sence of what is small and what is not.

 

[Akainu]

yup, a clear pattern that shows sarkozy isn't a clearly good guy.
and again, someone ordering exiled people to be killed is bad, someone ordering terrorist attacks on foreign soldiers on foreign soil is bad, someone ordering to kill civilians on a plane is bad, if oyu don't even see that there's no need to further discuss this