JK2006 wrote:
Interesting - an intelligent friend says "but you've got to support one side against the other in a war".

My take is that IF you dont support the freedom fighters, then (by default) you ARE supporting the heavily financed and armed repression machine (because you are allowing them to continue doing what they are doing already).

Exactly; NATO's pretence that this was in order to protect civilians is shown to be a lie. It was supporting one side against the other.

Latest Amnesty report "there have been appalling human rights breaches BY BOTH SIDES".

STILL trying eh, JK ?

Ever heard of a war where there weren't abuses by both sides ?

As the rebels have been largely untrained and unco-ordinated (ie not a regular disciplined army) ... haven't they been remarkably controlled?

Wouldn't it be rather surprising if these "rebels" (repressed for more than 40 years) didn't lose control once in a while? For ever "abuse" committed by the rebels there is already evidence of similar, ongoing and repeated abuses by the Gaddafi regime.

Fair enough ITK; let the "rebels" murder innocent civilians. I always thought the NATO excuse was bollocks anyway. Who cares if women and children die as long as they belonged to the demented supporters of the last regime.

The rebels did not need to do much as all their main work was done for them by NATO, on the ground as well as by air. Even in these final days, NATO have been pounding the remaining free cities into submission.

I have no problem with the rebels wanting to change their country, but I object to western powers pretending to be on a humanitarian mission when they are engaged in regime change. Why can't they be honest about it.

Of course the "interfere in local problems" policy advocated by some did not quite get the NATO forces bombing Northern Ireland in support of those brave IRA "rebels" a few decades ago (no oil in Ireland?).

Pumpkinhead wrote:
The rebels did not need to do much as all their main work was done for them by NATO, on the ground as well as by air. Even in these final days, NATO have been pounding the remaining free cities into submission.

I have no problem with the rebels wanting to change their country, but I object to western powers pretending to be on a humanitarian mission when they are engaged in regime change. Why can't they be honest about it.

Pumpkinhead -

I would be interested to know your friends comments on the near hysteria greeting Cameron on his visit to Libya.

Just heard that Cameron and Sarkosy are being referred to as heroes. Strikes me as outrageous.

I expect, ITK, he'll say, as I would... "what do you expect when the heads of the nations that supported your tiny little protest riot and turned it into a "new regime", as opposed to those nice Tottenham rioters who didn't have NATO bombs to back them, arrive to a gathering entirely composed of paid cheerleaders? Rather as Gaddafi's supporters cheered him - I think you pointed that out? Must be nice to hop over the fence so easily. Or have you just not noticed the irony?"...

But he might be more polite than me.

angel wrote:
Just heard that Cameron and Sarkosy are being referred to as heroes. Strikes me as outrageous.

Indeed, angel ... where were all those 1000's of Gaddafi "supporters" ?

Having the shit thrashed out of them by "rebels" in prisons or in shallow desert graves, ITK.

Pumpkinhead wrote:
The rebels did not need to do much as all their main work was done for them by NATO, on the ground as well as by air.

Oh dear, Pumpkinhead ... the mis-information is quite staggering !
Check the dates ... the new government was already half way across Libya before the UN even discussed asking NATO to join in !!!

Lions indeed !

JK2006 wrote:
Having the shit thrashed out of them by "rebels" in prisons or in shallow desert graves, ITK.

You are getting a little confused, JK !

Re that Amnesty report (which you raised in a previous post) - the report actually says "any crimes committed by the rebels paled next to those carried out by Gaddafi loyalists"

I wonder where those missing 20,000 people are ?

You're confused ITK; the Amnesty report was on the London riots and said "any atrocities by the rioters were dwarfed by those of the police and the courts"... didn't it?

In The Know wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
The rebels did not need to do much as all their main work was done for them by NATO, on the ground as well as by air. Even in these final days, NATO have been pounding the remaining free cities into submission.

I have no problem with the rebels wanting to change their country, but I object to western powers pretending to be on a humanitarian mission when they are engaged in regime change. Why can't they be honest about it.

Pumpkinhead -

I would be interested to know your friends comments on the near hysteria greeting Cameron on his visit to Libya.

Libyans cheered when Gaddafi was in charge. Now they cheer because NATO is in charge. We can't rely on the reaction of the mob. In both cases the crowd were carefully orchestrated.

My Libyan friend's comments today were rather unrepeatable.

JK2006 wrote:
You're confused ITK; the Amnesty report was on the London riots and said "any atrocities by the rioters were dwarfed by those of the police and the courts"... didn't it?

I dont think Amnesty have reported on the London riots (yet) JK, but as 3/4 of those convicted were already criminals I doubt Amnesty would see it the way you do (and nor does the public !)

Going back to the Amnesty report (on Libya) which YOU raised - it also says "The regime < referring to the Gaddafi regime > kidnapped thousands, killed unarmed protesters, used cluster bombs, and launched rockets at residential areas".

Are you deliberately missing the point ITK? Nobody is denying the Gaddafi atrocities (and never has) but they are pointing out the other side (as we all knew) are ghastly too...

I quote the Amnesty report...

"Members and supporters of the opposition, loosely structured under the leadership of the National Transitional Council (NTC) ... have also committed human rights abuses, in some cases amounting to war crimes, albeit on a smaller scale," the Amnesty report said.

It said opposition supporters "unlawfully killed" more than a dozen Gadhafi loyalists and security officials between April and early July. And just after the rebels took control of eastern Libya, the report said, angry groups of rebel supporters "shot, hanged and otherwise killed through lynching" dozens of captured soldiers and suspected mercenaries, with impunity.

In The Know wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
The rebels did not need to do much as all their main work was done for them by NATO, on the ground as well as by air.

Oh dear, Pumpkinhead ... the mis-information is quite staggering !
Check the dates ... the new government was already half way across Libya before the UN even discussed asking NATO to join in !!!

Lions indeed !

NATO took action before NATO officially took action. Just as NATO were officially not taking sides. The whole word and it's oyster knows that.

JK2006 wrote:
Are you deliberately missing the point ITK?

My guess is that yes, he is - deliberately.

But it's very useful to have a historian like ITK on board; all of us who remember NATO deciding to bomb innocent civilians because Benghazi was about to be turned into Auschwitz were wrong! The rebels were marching across Libya with huge success. Thank you ITK (Stalin would have loved your historical wisdom).

JK2006 wrote:
But it's very useful to have a historian like ITK on board; all of us who remember NATO deciding to bomb innocent civilians because Benghazi was about to be turned into Auschwitz were wrong! The rebels were marching across Libya with huge success. Thank you ITK (Stalin would have loved your historical wisdom).

But we love him really

Pumpkinhead wrote:
NATO took action before NATO officially took action. Just as NATO were officially not taking sides. The whole word and it's oyster knows that.

Oh dear ... I'll leave you to your delusional and unreal world I think !