From the BBC.



Full article in the link above. Sorry, I can't dress links, will someone help?
News of the World (its a piece of shit but its the first newspaper I saw this morning) reports a similar story but puts the death toll at 100 just from an assault by special forces on a protester encampment.

Edited link to dress it - SCRawl

---

"Seriously though, every time I see something like this I think 'Ooo, I'm living in the future'. Unfortunately it increasingly looks like it's going to be a cyberpunkish dystopia, where the poor eat recycled shit and the rich eat the poor." Evilsoup, on the future

StarGazer, an experiment in RPG creation

http://english.aljazeera.net//news/afri ... 44801.html

Al Jazeera puts the numbers as at least 15 with 150 being given as an upper limit.

Well they will probably fail in their attempt to overthrow him, but at least this ought to wipe that confident smirk of his lips. Now, any time in the future when he tries to sell himself of as the poster-boy for Arab freedom, people will remember the Youtube videos of protesting crowds being machine-gunned.

So many innocent lives have been lost in the recent struggle for democracy in middle east.

May their sacrifice not go in vain !

---

I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.

And shot with sniper rifles.... and mortared.... how the hell does he get away with this?
Isn't this the bit where the US (or hell, even the UN) steps up and tells him to piss off?

---

"Seriously though, every time I see something like this I think 'Ooo, I'm living in the future'. Unfortunately it increasingly looks like it's going to be a cyberpunkish dystopia, where the poor eat recycled shit and the rich eat the poor." Evilsoup, on the future

StarGazer, an experiment in RPG creation

The US does not care about Gaddafi since he gave up overseas terrorism and supposed WMD efforts. Libya was a boogeyman during the 80s not because Gaddafi oppressed his countrymen but because hew was a thorn on the side of western interests. Just like the war in Iraq was not about Iraqi people US government will not intervene unless Gaddafi goes back to old practices. As long as he does not bother America he is free to kill people as he likes - Americans might even become his friends if he can offer them something in return like the Saudis.

---

I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.

Also, Libya is an ally in the war against terror. He actually helped or helps americans with torture etc, so they got no interest to go up against him.

Well, at least not until his hold on power is almost over. Then he will be dropped like a hot potato in favor of democracy.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

Well, yeah, bombing airliners owned by westerners full of more westerners will tend to piss off the westerners. Among other things. Is this really that hard to understand? It's not like Gaddafi's hands are clean. A hundred or so corpses raining down over Scotland is a bit more than what I'd describe as a "thorn".


Actually, I think right now it's more a matter of Americans are getting tired of multiple wars and don't care to start yet another one. If the rest of the world has issues with Gaddafi maybe they should deal with him - that way you don't have to either beg for American intervention or condemn American intervention. Really, Lybia is a catch-22 - we're damned if we do anything and damned if we don't.

As for gunning down peaceful protesters - did anyone actually believe this business of "peacefully" toppling governments was going to continue? (While Egypt and Tunisia had relatively low body counts people did die and were maimed, so I'm not sure "peaceful" is the correct description here). Gaddafi is not a nice person. He does not want to give up power. He sure as hell doesn't want any part of a western style democracy.

Sooner or later some government was going to use force instead of capitulating. And I don't think this will make him hesistate at all going forward, if it happens again he'll just order live fire again.

I'm not that surprised it's turned to violence. I was just kind of hoping the UN would say something. The US are not going to get involved in another war, I know, but isn't this exactly what the UN should be intervening in?

---

"Seriously though, every time I see something like this I think 'Ooo, I'm living in the future'. Unfortunately it increasingly looks like it's going to be a cyberpunkish dystopia, where the poor eat recycled shit and the rich eat the poor." Evilsoup, on the future

StarGazer, an experiment in RPG creation

Intervene how?

With force? How many divisions does the UN control?
Economically, with sanctions? Sure. But will the US allow that to happen now that Libya is their new stooge ally?

Describing Libya as an "ally" of the US is an abuse of the term. After several decades the US and Libya settled some disputes and have basically decided to stop jabbing at each other. That does not make them friends. Gaddafi basically wanted to find a way to protect himself from the US so what happened to Iraq didn't happen to him, basically, the minimum required to get the west to leave him alone, and in return he agreed to leave the west alone. Yes, this opens up the possibility of trade. Would you have preferred another war?

It wasn't until 2008 that the US even had an ambassador to Libya, m'kay? I don't know what you're smoking to think Libya is some sort of US "stooge", but it isn't.

Or are you just pissed that since 2009 Libya has basically banned Canadians from the country?

Why would they? All they can do is make some unhappy noises about how Gaddafi should let his people express themselves, and make the usual expressions of hand-wringing and finger-wagging. Sure, the UN can re-impose the sanctions on Libya they lifted in 2003; but that's not likely to hasten Gaddafi's departure from office.

In short, they can't really make him go anywhere. There is also the fact that with this crackdown, he's demonstrated that the Libyan military is firmly on his side, and that the only way he's going to go is by violent, messy, civil war. This is important because the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions were military coups in populist clothing. Take away the military support and both Egypt and Tunisia's uprisings would've ended in bloodbaths like Libya's is likely to.

When I see Thanas post something like this --^ I tend to go with, the US isn't going to do anything or let anything happen, because I trust him.

As for the rest, I have, as usual no god damn idea wht your talking about. Why the fuck would I care if Libya banned Canadians from the country?

Latest news reports from Benasi actually indicate that some military units may have switched sides and are now supporting the protesters. The Libyan ambassador to the Arab League has resigned his post, the implication being that he is also making a break with the current regime.

---

Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die

Really?

Libya being a partner in the rendition process:



Human Rights Watch




Source from the US Naval war college, PDF


So pray tell me, how else would you classify this?

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110220/ap_ ... a_protests



rumours are flying fast that Gaddafi may be trying to flee to Venzuela tonight.

---

Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh

May be off topic, but I was wondering if it would be a good thing if an Otto Von Bismarck style politician was able to take advantage of this and establish some sort of Federal Arab State. A politician with the savvy to both deliver needed reforms, able to play the chess game with the religious establishment, and create a relationship with the US akin to two modern nations dealing with each other instead of a modern superpower and a bunch of tinpot dictators.

It's pretty damned ironic that many of the same people who are the most vocal critics of American foreign policy (i.e., military interventions in other countries) are now being snarky and pissy because the US is almost certainly NOT going to intervene here, militarily or otherwise. Seems to me some people just want to bitch about the US for whatever reason.

I think it would be.

I personaly beleive the use of terrosim and the religious extremism is a result of the powerlessness of the arab states.

create a modern United Arab States able to influence the world stage and you eliminate the real underlying factor for violence.

---

Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh

It took Bismarck three wars, a shitload of political savvy and quite a bit of luck to succeed, he also had the advantage that the german states were mostly homogenous in culture and ethnicity. Nasser tried something like this, but his dreams were shot down when he lost the Six Days War. Let's also not forget that certain players on the world political stage would not wish for something like that to ever happen.

---

人之初
性本善
性相近
習相遠

People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Thanas is good, but he's not perfect.

In fact, I'd like to see some sort of cite for his accusations that the Libya is torturing people for the US. It's not impossible, but I'd still like to see such a statement substantiated. I wish Thanas would do that when he first makes such statements rather than waiting for a request.

There's also the possibility that the US isn't going to do anything or let anything happen because the US doesn't give a flying fuck about Libya. Why should we? If we do anything we'll get shit on for intervening. If we don't, we'll get shit on for not intervening. With all the weeping and wailing about American interference why are you perturbed if there's a case were the US doesn't intervene.


It's usually a sign that the two nations are in dispute. You're Canadian, right? Hey, if you don't want to bother to keep up with your own country's foreign affairs it doesn't matter to me.

You mean like the stuff six posts above this one?

I also don't care if you intervene. Why the fuck should you? I was simply pointing out that you likely won't let anything past the U.N. but keep putting words in my mouth bitch, it's not like yours isn't big enough for the both of us.



Yeah, see I don't actually care about Libya. Oh no! Canadians might be banned from there. Call me when it's important, like The Netherlands, or the US. You know, a country we have significant trade with.

Oh, forgive me for not daily praising the USA. Tell you what - I'll praise your country when it doesn't hold people indefinitely without trial anymore.



Whoa now. I don't care much what you think of me, but pray tell, when have I not responded positively to a request of evidence? You tell me where and I'll back up my words immediately.



Ah, so explaining why the US would not intervene is wailing and weeping. Pray tell how you arrived at that conclusion?

For the record, I do not want the US or the UN to intervene in Libya. That way lies madness.



This statement is so ironic coming from you of all people.....

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

Ally in the sense of having a common enemy, perhaps, but "ally" usually has a connotation of friendship. In this case we'd be "allies" in the same sense that the US and Britain were "allies" with Stalin and the Soviets during WWII - and that started falling apart even before the official end of the war.

The official line, at least, is that Libya has renounced terrorism and is now working with others to suppress it. Is that really so inconceivable? Gaddafi doesn't want a bunch of Islamist extremists muscling in on his territory any more than he wants the Americans to install a western democracy there.

For fuck's sake, Thanas, it's not like nations that don't like each other have never worked in a common cause before. Are you now going to claim that the US and the USSR were staunch allies because of the Apollo-Soyuz joint missions?

But more specifically - your cite for the rendition process mentions torture in "Afghanistan, and supervised their torture in Pakistan and Thailand" but not in Libya. I can certainly see the possibility that torture occurred in Libya but that particular cite does not support it, though it does support torture in other places. If you're propping up your argument shouldn't you use cites that explicitly mention torture in Libya? Seriously, you couldn't find something more explicit from Human Rights Watch?

As for your second one - it shows that states that are normally in conflict with each other are, apparently, willing to work together to prevent at least some types of terrorism (presumably that which potentially targets all of them). If you use that to support the idea that Libya and the US are now "allies" then you will have to assert that the US is also allies with Iran of all places as, apparently, they have done the same thing.

All your cites prove is that the US and Libya have cooperated on certain matters, which the US has been known to do with explicit enemies (such as the USSR) as well as with its allies. Way to blow it out of proportion. Unless you have something better than that.

And yes, I'm open to the possibility that the US and Libya were both involved in mistreatment of people but like I said, some actual proof would be nice to see when such accusations are put on the table.

It's called an "ally of convenience."