Breaking News: The Usual Suspects; US, France Britian to bomb Gaddafi to save the people

[LayZie G.]

Nassir, you stated the following:

I argued that Libya shouldn't be de-estabilized but immediate political reform must be pressured on Libya & Gaddafi. According to CIA's world factbook, Libya has 22 states with a head of government.

I will go even further and add that potential for human loss, through intervention is great but that inaction is much worse. In fact, outside intervention does not offer solutions to Libya's internal problems but neither does so called "reform" you are proposing. What you are suggesting is reform on the assumption that Libya is lacking leadership and just needs a make over of sort. Once the wolf's head is removed, normalcy will be reproduced and thats a flawed argument. Waayo, reform means having a viable civil society who can organize in a short time, without having to confront the problem of division in the country, as Libya is known to be a tribal society, all operating under committees and towns people as heads of so called (states), different interests, etc, one in which you described as making up a 22 different associations etc. Libya is no Egypt. So what you proposing is the impossibe as Libya needs to rebuild their federal system, they need to come up with new constitution, they need to assemble freely in a fair and democratic election.

 

 

In short, Libya's problems can not be casted aside nor can they be characterized as needing"reform" only...Libya faces difficult future, she has many challenges ahead and country re-building is what needs to take place not so called reform.(u are saying that Libya has solid foundation, one which needs to be improved and I am saying no, the foundation is poorly constructed and its not on solid footing, which means it needs to be demolished and rebuild.)

 

 

Lastly, no, I don't believe foreign intervention is a viable solution but right now, its the only solution as the status quo is unsustainable. Anyone, with a sound mind will tell you internal problems can only be solved internally and foreign intervention only exacerbates the problem.

 

and as for my Macalinkeyga aka Nuune,

 

 

nuune;703542 wrote:

Lyzie-Gaal

,

 

wasn't I the one who was posting countless news articles one after the other denouncing Gadafi and supporting a peaceful protest like the one happened in Cairo and Tunis.

 

Now when myself and 98% of Solers who posted here outlined the intentions of the West against Libya, you all of a sudden made us supporters of Gadafi and his regime.

Nuune, he who should not be mentioned by name is making more sense than you caawa and he is a secessioner.

 

Since when does he make more sense than you? Aniga macalinkeyga aa tahay and I wuv you but leave Gaddafi's mess for Libyans and address Silaanyo for the last time. You can't speak about the Silaanyo mess but waxaad rabtaa inaad i dhahdo aniga Sarkozy aan taageeraa? See waaye macalin?

 

BTW, i take offense to your earlier assertion about supporting Sarkozy. The only person I support here is you Nuune ya macalindiid....:p:p

[nuune]

^^ ii dhaaf Siilaanyo, wuxuu aaminsanyahey qadiyada Somaliweyn, laakin dhibka jiro waxaa weeyaan, niman waalan oo uu wasiiro ka dhigtey ayaa maskax falluuq ku ridey wadaadka, isna dharkuu xoorey.

 

On the Libya issue, waan isku soo dhawaaney xoogaa mar hadaad ciinkaas Sarkoogy aad hawadaa ka tuurtey.

[nuune]

The Guardian

 

Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya: beware the lies of March

 

In 1999 and 2003 this was the very week Britain went to war – or, as the government put it, liberate people and protect civilians

 

 

It's March, the sun is shining and spring is just around the corner. Oh, and Britain is bombing a foreign country again. If you've got a distinct feeling of deja vu about what's been going on this weekend, then it's hardly surprising.

 

In this very week in 1999 Britain took a leading role in the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 

And on this very day in 2003, Britain took a leading role in the bombing – and invasion – of Iraq.

 

And now we're at it again in Libya.

 

We're being told we have to intervene in Libya to "protect the Libyan people" from being murdered by the forces of Gaddafi. We're told that having declared a ceasefire, Gaddafi "stepped up the attacks" on civilians. And that doing nothing about the dictator is simply not an option.

 

Now all this could be true – but our experience of other March military assaults in which Britain has played a prominent role suggests we should, at the very least, treat with one huge barrow-load of salt the claims currently being made about why we're going to war.

 

Back in March 1999 we were told that we had to intervene because the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was "set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during world war two". That wasn't true.

 

In March 2003 we were told that we had to invade Iraq, because Saddam had WMDs that "could be activated within 45 minutes".

 

That wasn't true either.

 

Far from Milosevic engaging in a "Hitler-style genocide", what was occurring in Kosovo was a civil war between Yugoslav forces and the western-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, with atrocities committed on both sides. And the claims about Iraqi WMD were pure hogwash put forward to justify a military intervention to topple a regime that the west, having supported in the 1980s, now wanted out.

 

Both in 1999 and 2003 our leaders lied to us about the real reasons for our country's involvement in military conflict. How can we be sure that what is happening in 2011 is any different?

 

If the US, Britain and France are acting out of genuine humanitarian concerns for Libyan civilians, why has there been no discussion of similar action against the government in Bahrain – which last week invited into the country military forces from that great democracy Saudi Arabia to crush pro-democracy protests – or against the regime in Yemen, where 45 anti-government protesters were killed on Thursday?

 

The other lesson to draw from the previous March conflicts is that military interventions – sold to the public as reasonably straightforward operations against dictators with little public support – rarely go to plan. Nato thought that a few days of heavy bombardment would force Milosevic to cave in – they were wrong: the war lasted 78 days and at the end of it the Yugoslav federal army was undefeated.

 

The invasion of Iraq, its neocon cheerleaders assured us, would be a cakewalk, with grateful Iraqis – all of whom hated Saddam Hussein – lining up to hand bouquets of flowers to their "liberators".

 

And today, supporters of the Libyan action, such as the Tory MP Colonel Bob Stewart, predict that Gaddafi's forces are likely to desert. But what if the advocates of military action are wrong – as they were in 1999 and 2003? What if support for Gaddafi within Libya is stronger than we have been led to believe? Then we could be involved in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.

 

The Libyan intervention is of course different in one respect from the assaults on Yugoslavia and Iraq in that it has been officially sanctioned by the UN security council. But UN backing doesn't mean that we shouldn't remain cynical about the real reasons for the attack.

 

For all the talk of "liberating" the people and protecting civilians, the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq were classic imperialist ventures whose real aim was to extend western economic and military hegemony. It's unlikely that this latest March assault on an independent sovereign state is any different.

[Polanyi]

Man, Libya is going to be screwed after this. The rebels will make some gains, but Gaddafi will hold on in the absence of any ground invasion and and the country will essentially become a failed state of North Africa. This is not a long term solution.

[Valenteenah.]

Difficult not to feel cynical about this intervention.

[General Duke]

I was just watching General Wesley Clark on TV he was NATO Supreme Comander when it bombed Belgrade.

He stted that there will probably be "two Libya's, a democratic one based around Benghazi & a vengeful one on Tripoli led by Dictator Ghadafi". If one then gies back to what Admiral Mullen sated earlier in the day we get a clearer picture of the horrid things to come. The creation of a divided nation at war with itself.

[General Duke]

Libyan anti-aircraft tracer fire erupted in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, as international forces pounded the country's air defences and patrolled its skies

[General Duke]

A Libyan man carries a blanket to cover the body of a loyalist soldier killed in a French air strike on the outskirts of Benghazi. Gaddafi loyalists claim civilians have been killed

[General Duke]

Robert Fisk: Remember the civilian victims of past 'Allied' bombing campaigns

'

Raafat-al-Ghosain: "She was intact, her hair undisturbed, and a small streak of blood coming from the top of her head"

...........................................

How life past catches up with life present. The Americans killed Raafat al-Ghosain, puctured above, just after 2am on 15 April 1986. In the days that followed her death, United States officials claimed that Libyan anti-aircraft fire might have hit her home – watch out for similar American claims in the coming hours – not far from the French embassy in suburban Tripoli.

 

But three weeks later, the Pentagon admitted that three bombs dropped from an F-111 aircraft as part of the US attack on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in reprisal for an attack by Libyan agents on a Berlin nightclub, had "impacted in the vicinity of the French embassy" and had caused – to use the usual callous euphemism – "collateral damage".

 

Ms Ghosain was aged 18, a graduate from an English school on holiday from London, a promising and beautiful artist whose individual death went unrecorded in the country that killed her a quarter of a century ago. Her mother was Lebanese and her father Palestinian, working for a Libyan oil company. She is forgotten today.

 

We remember, as usual, our own dead. But not the dead of others, Libyans or Lebanese, Afghans or Syrians. We blue-eyed folk count. The rest are "collateral damage". I thought of Ms Ghosain yesterday morning as the "Allies" – a phrase trotted out immediately by the television clamouratti, I noticed – started their "ground preparation" against Libya with their "air assets" against Colonel Gaddafi. Then it was Ronald Reagan. Now it was Barack Obama. Better luck this time, I suppose.

 

At the funeral of the civilian dead in Tripoli 25 years ago, Colonel Gaddafi's mobs urged the press to the front of the cemetery. We were to record the result of America's murderous onslaught first hand. But when I saw the Lebanese and Palestinian flags over one of the coffins – the cedar tree over a white and red tricolour, from the country where I lived and still live – I ran through the overgrown cemetery and sought out the dead girl's distraught and badly wounded mother, Saniya. "We are Muslims but we have one God," she told me then. "We are one people. I hope Mr Reagan understands that."

 

For years, Ms Ghosain's father, Bassam, sought redress. He witnessed the suffering of his other daughter, Kinda, and asked the American authorities to pay, at least for her schooling in Beirut since they had caused her sister's death. Ms Ghosain had been sleeping in the television room of their home, next to the French embassy, when she was killed by a 2,000lb bomb which flattened the neighbours' house, killing all five of them.

 

Mr Ghosain recorded what he saw when a Libyan civil defence team raised the wall from his daughter's body: "She was lying on her back with the head turned on the right cheek, she was intact, her hair undisturbed, and a small streak of blood coming from the top side of her head, flowing down her left cheek."

 

On that occasion, it was the death of an American soldier in a Berlin nightclub that was the cause of the raid. Yesterday, of course, it was a United Nations resolution to prevent Colonel Gaddafi from killing civilians, just like Ms Ghosain.

 

Over the years, I got to known the Ghosain family in Beirut, wrote about them, went out to lunch with them, visited their home where their daughter's wonderful paintings still hang. I got to know the parents, and also Kinda, who has since married. But it was with some trepidation that I called them yesterday. Mrs Ghosain answered the phone. "I hope they get him this time," she said. And I asked, timidly, if she meant the man with the moustache. Colonel Gaddafi has a moustache. Mr Obama does not. "Yes," she said. "I mean Ghazzefi." "Ghazzefi" is the Lebanese Arabic pronunciation of the man's name.

[N.O.R.F]

We all understand geopolitics. Let’s not plead innocence. This war was inevitable

 

Inevitable, not because of the uprising but because of Muslims accepting dictators, corruption and greed as a form of governance since the end of colonialism. The events we see on our screens shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The west’s lust for oil and its attempted justification of ‘we are protecting the people’ shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Now we have got that out of the way, the question that remains is:

 

Is bombing Libya (and possibly getting rid of the Gadhafi’s in the process) the lesser evil as opposed to letting him brutalise his people?

 

Personally, I’m leaning towards a yes.

[nuune]

BREAKING NEWS:

 

US fighter plane downed by Gadafi Forces in Libya, this is a breaking news,

 

The plane is an F-15E Eagle, the Telegraph added in a report from a correspondent on the ground in Libya. US officials were not immediately available for comment.

[Valenteenah.]

^ Well, they (US) are now insisting it crashed and wasn't shot down.

[Fiqikhayre]

Good may more fall down inshaallaah.

[RedSea]

It's rare occurance technologically sophisticatedF15 Eagle just went down due to technical malfunction. These things get inspected before take off which leads me to think the U.S military wasn't forthcoming with the truth.

 

Libyans might have lost their stationary surface to air missiles, but still have mobile radars and portable surface to air missles which are capable of shooting down something like the F15/e.

[Nabad_dadaye]

dad ayaa waxey ku wareereen maxaa kale ayaan suubinaa maadaama gadafi uu shacabka laaynayo ,wax kaloo naga celin karo majirto ,waxan layaabanahay wexey tahay ma wexey umaleyeen in NATO u imaatay shacab muslim ah oo dhibaateysan iney u gargaaraan (bani aadamnimo) ,aaway qaraarka UN ee no-fly gone ee israel lagu soo oogi lahaa shacabka falastiin waa tan maalin walbo diyaarado lagu duqeynayee meey NO-FLY GONE ku qaadaan ,wey iska cadahay qofka aaminsan NATO ayaa libya shacabkeeda caawineyso inuu qaldan yahay , cunaqabateenka hawada ma in goobaha shidaalka laduqeeyaa , shalay iyaga ayaa heerkan gaarsiiyay oo gaddafi kursiga ku hayay illaa uu shacabka caburka u adkeysan waayay markey kacen shacabkana ayagaa hadana dowladii la burburinayo, somaha arintu in la tirtiro dowladaha oilka leh ee islamka , libya marki sidi somali oo kale noqoto waxa xiga yeman ,syria ,bahrain,sucuudiga ayagana shacabka ayuu NATO taageerayaa maad taagnaaneysaan.