Libyan Military receiving special training from Egyptian and US Special Forces in the eastern Libya, and it seems Egypt is allowing larger munition through.
Aljazeera English
Aljazeera English
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UN and NATO to Gaddafi: Operation Odyssey Dawn |OT|
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
fizzelopeguss
Banned
nyong said:
Kosovo all over again, this is why you don't get involved in tribalistic shitholes...you'll find no good guys here.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
I don't see how the US/coalition involvement would increase or decrease the likelihood of executions and torture happening. Until recently, it looked like the rebels had no organization whatsoever especially when it came to handing out the weapons they took from armories with people who probably never held a gun before getting in the back of pick-up trucks to go and fight. The executions and torture are horrible but I doubt that any foreign country made a difference or not whether that would happen.
It seems that the rebels are getting more organized/disciplined and not wanting to use any amateur soldiers anymore so hopefully they stop abusing and killing any mercenaries and soldiers they capture.
It seems that the rebels are getting more organized/disciplined and not wanting to use any amateur soldiers anymore so hopefully they stop abusing and killing any mercenaries and soldiers they capture.
RustyNails
Member
CNN Breaking: Envoy for Moammar Gadhafi is testing foreign governments' willingness to accept one of his sons as a successor.
Gaddafi just doesn't get it.
Gaddafi just doesn't get it.
That's been hinted at for a couple days. Italy received an envoy representing members of the Gadhafi family bargaining for some deal. Afterwards, Italy recognized the rebels as the official government of Libya and tentatively backed a plan to arm them. Or, translating the official response to the Gadhafi envoy, from the Italian: "GTFO!"RustyNails said:
AlimNassor
Banned
Why would Gaddaffi be willing to bargain with them now? Last I checked he still had the upper hand. Not that the rebels will accept anything else then Gaddaffi leaving.
RustyNails
Member
His monies is frozen and military capability has been diminished. He's also under immense diplomatic and economic pressure.AlimNassor said:
This pretty much sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU
Those reporters were not happy to hear Obama's policies compared to that of the Republican Party. We'll find out soon enough whether he was right. The US is supposedly pulling out of combat operations (now?) and yet Gaddafi is still in power. There is so much potential for this situation to backfire horribly. The only good news is that so long as the US isn't directly involved in combat operations, there is little potential for American casualties, and thus less potential for voter-outcry. Not to mention that any failure to remove Gaddafi could be somewhat pinned on the coalition troops involved in combat. The polls do suggest that voters are against arming these people, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU
Those reporters were not happy to hear Obama's policies compared to that of the Republican Party. We'll find out soon enough whether he was right. The US is supposedly pulling out of combat operations (now?) and yet Gaddafi is still in power. There is so much potential for this situation to backfire horribly. The only good news is that so long as the US isn't directly involved in combat operations, there is little potential for American casualties, and thus less potential for voter-outcry. Not to mention that any failure to remove Gaddafi could be somewhat pinned on the coalition troops involved in combat. The polls do suggest that voters are against arming these people, though.
Dreams-Visions
Member
FUCK arming them. Fuck that. I'd be Somalia all over again. Once you hand them out, you can't get them back...and without economic empowerment, those guns will get used for something other than freedom-fighting.nyong said:
Excellent interview. I'm not as anti-intervention as he is when it comes to Israel--at least in terms of material support--but I totally agree with his line of reasoning. I'm going to track down more of that guy's stuff on Youtube and probably pick up his book later in the week.Sealda said:
He's spot on here as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSbMuZhFDDI
Basically, he predicts that whatever government comes to fruition in Egypt will be much less friendly towards the West more generally, but specifically less friendly towards Israel. Egypt is in fact quickly changing from one of the friendliest (government) stances towards Israel--including recognition of the state's right to exist--to promises to open up the Rafah crossing, strengthen the Joint Arab Defense Agreement, and threats to declare war if Israel engages any further with militants in Gaza. I'd be pretty damned worried if I were Israel right about now.
His most cited book was originally published anonymously and was widely praised, even within the CIA, for its insights. Osama Bin Laden endorsed it as well, lol. It's called Imperial Hubris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSbMuZhFDDI
Basically, he predicts that whatever government comes to fruition in Egypt will be much less friendly towards the West more generally, but specifically less friendly towards Israel. Egypt is in fact quickly changing from one of the friendliest (government) stances towards Israel--including recognition of the state's right to exist--to promises to open up the Rafah crossing, strengthen the Joint Arab Defense Agreement, and threats to declare war if Israel engages any further with militants in Gaza. I'd be pretty damned worried if I were Israel right about now.
His most cited book was originally published anonymously and was widely praised, even within the CIA, for its insights. Osama Bin Laden endorsed it as well, lol. It's called Imperial Hubris.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
About timenyong said:
Meus Renaissance
Member
nyong said:
The book is highly critical of the Bush Administration's handling and characterization of the War on Terrorism, and of its simplistic portrayal of Bin Laden as "evil" and "hating freedom." The book is notable in criticizing the idea that Islamist terrorists are attacking Western societies because of what they are rather than for their foreign policies. Scheuer writes:
"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."
Imperial Hubris argues that Osama bin Laden's war against the U.S. is a classical example of defensive jihad waged against an enemy occupier rather than an apocalyptic attack on "freedom." Scheuer is particularly critical of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which he characterizes as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." For Scheuer, the war in Iraq was like a "Christmas gift" to bin Laden not just because it distracted the U.S. military from the war against al Qaeda, but more importantly because it has provided global jihadists a failed state from which to operate that is even more conducive to terrorism than Afghanistan. By attacking and occupying the second holiest place in Shi'a Islam, the U.S. has turned Iraq into a lightning rod for jihadists from around the globe to come attack the occupying armies. The invasion, he argues, has provided credibility and substance to bin Laden's assertion that terrorists are waging a defensive jihad against foreign occupier bent on destroying Islam.
The book is also notable for its critique of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, which Scheuer insists that the U.S. is losing badly. The Taliban, he argues, was not defeated; it is simply biding its time for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops and the inevitable collapse of Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul. "Karzai's defeat may not come tomorrow," he writes, "but come it will, and the Prophet's banner will again be unfurled over Kabul."
"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."
Imperial Hubris argues that Osama bin Laden's war against the U.S. is a classical example of defensive jihad waged against an enemy occupier rather than an apocalyptic attack on "freedom." Scheuer is particularly critical of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which he characterizes as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." For Scheuer, the war in Iraq was like a "Christmas gift" to bin Laden not just because it distracted the U.S. military from the war against al Qaeda, but more importantly because it has provided global jihadists a failed state from which to operate that is even more conducive to terrorism than Afghanistan. By attacking and occupying the second holiest place in Shi'a Islam, the U.S. has turned Iraq into a lightning rod for jihadists from around the globe to come attack the occupying armies. The invasion, he argues, has provided credibility and substance to bin Laden's assertion that terrorists are waging a defensive jihad against foreign occupier bent on destroying Islam.
The book is also notable for its critique of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, which Scheuer insists that the U.S. is losing badly. The Taliban, he argues, was not defeated; it is simply biding its time for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops and the inevitable collapse of Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul. "Karzai's defeat may not come tomorrow," he writes, "but come it will, and the Prophet's banner will again be unfurled over Kabul."
It's amazing how this simple fact is consistently ignored. The whole substance behind US foreign policy is automatically ignored as soon as advocates invoke the terms 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Case in example; this thread.
nyong said:
well about fucking time, i realy dont want any more wars in that region. but its about time israel felt some pressure on it. they have been doing what they want the past few years, taking more and more land and with the us veto'ing everything they are getting away with it as well.
i realy hope egypt becomes less friendly against israel and at least opens the borders.
HawksEye said:Rebels are mounting mirage rocket launchers on pick-up trucks, not sure how effective they will be in the battlefield
Rebel Rocket-Trucks (Youtube)
Here is a video of these home made rocket-trucks in action in Libya, they seem to have dropped the paint job for ease of production
Home made rocket technical (Youtube)
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
That is some waaagh shit right there.HawksEye said:Here is a video of these home made rocket-trucks in action in Libya, they seem to have dropped the paint job for ease of production
Home made rocket technical (Youtube)
RustyNails
Member
CNN Breaking: Moammar Gadhafi sent letter to President Obama urging him to stop NATO bombings, senior administration official says.
lol. C'mon moomy. Do you think Obama will go "ok colonel" and stop the bombing raids?
lol. C'mon moomy. Do you think Obama will go "ok colonel" and stop the bombing raids?
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
Sealda said:
I was warming up to this guy until I started looking at his past statements:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btWtQ-i73UM
He's a bit of loon if you ask me... "Sir" "but Sir" "Its not like that Sir" "No one in the US knows that BinLaden hates us because of foreign policy Sir" (really? I cant find a single person who thinks al qaeda attacked us because they hate our freedoms). He seems to have an unstable character and poor chooser of words like this brilliant paraphased quote "I think dont Isreal deaths are worth a single US dollar".
adversesolutions
Member
Meus Renaissance said:
This is an outrageous assertion to anyone familiar with the history of Al-Queda.
Al-Queda was formed by an Egyptian and Saudi Arabian with the goal of assisting the Afghan Mujahadeen in the effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. From the beginning, the group has had theological justifications that define the local country rulers as the "near enemy" and the US as the "far enemy", a definition based less on the imperialist actions of the US but on its character as a force for secularism in the world.
Al-Queda is fighting an ideological war, and to boil their grievances down to foreign policy alone is absurd. Keep in mind that the US was involved in no hot wars in the middle east at the time Al Queda carried out 9/11.
What Scheuer would be accurate in saying if he said it, is that the young men who form the base for Al Queda and other fundamentalist groups are motivated more by American intervention than anything else. That is a fair statement. However, the leadership of these groups is and will continue to be motivated chiefly by ideology.
That may be an inflammatory choice in words, but his point (I think) is that the region needs to settle its own differences. He's taken a hard-stance against foreign intervention, both because of its perception among people in the region and because our motivations are, like it or not, fundamentally about our own interests to a great degree. No intervention. Period. To include supposed humanitarian efforts in defense of innocent life.PistolGrip said:
As for the video, he's not necessarily wrong. The charge of racism is equally baseless to cries of racism against Bush, but there is--even on this board--the implication that (whether due to Western exploitation, religion...whatever) people in that region don't know any better. That they kill each other, that they're socially unenlightened in comparison to ourselves, and that they would be better off if they only adopted a Western secular democracy. It's basically the same old West-teaching-savage-to-be-civilized story that we read about in the history books, albeit not as overtly racist, and often with good intent. I mean, this is arrogance...it's arguably racist...but there is definitely some truth to what he says. We've picked sides in a civil war here, not simply decided to off a leader despised by everyone. Moreoever, Western interests in Libya are undeniably economic. France was burning through their oil reserves once the flow from Libya stopped.
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
There are a lot of idiotic people true but to think that Americans all over (or even the majority) have been tricked into thinking this is the reason they attacked us is naive.Steelrain said:
the whole point of my post is that I agree with some of his statements but he has weird character and is a poor chooser of words in explaining his ideas. I definitely stand strongly behind him on the Israel issue.nyong said:
RustyNails
Member
Here's one right here.PistolGrip said:
adversesolutions said:
HawksEye said:Here is a video of these home made rocket-trucks in action in Libya, they seem to have dropped the paint job for ease of production
Home made rocket technical (Youtube)
Lol, do those even hit anything?
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Psychotext
Member
Was inevitable. Crazy G's forces have been doing their best to appear similar to the rebels for a while now. If they want to fix the issue then they need to supply the rebels with IFF indicators ASAP.
Though with that said, they'd likely make it into the hands of the enemy at some point anyway. With no effective command structure monitoring the location of the rebel troops and reporting them to NATO it's going to happen more often... that, or hitting targets in / near towns is going to stop completely.
Though with that said, they'd likely make it into the hands of the enemy at some point anyway. With no effective command structure monitoring the location of the rebel troops and reporting them to NATO it's going to happen more often... that, or hitting targets in / near towns is going to stop completely.
SouthernDragon
Member
Salvor.Hardin said:
Oh dear. That's a terrible mistake.
Well, still, thanks to NATO that the majority of them are still alive at all. Or would they rather have had that massacre in Benghazi two weeks ago?
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
A couple of interesting charts to perhaps help extrapolate an analysis of the level of intervention based upon Libyan oil.
EU Crude Oil Imports
Note China's non-interventionist approach despite its stake. Sign of a dynamic shift in global foreign policy to come from an Eastern Super Power?
EU Crude Oil Imports
Note China's non-interventionist approach despite its stake. Sign of a dynamic shift in global foreign policy to come from an Eastern Super Power?
fastford58
Member
Salvor.Hardin said:
Yeah yeah. News flash...you are in a war. Friendly fire, while unfortunate, happens. Especially in a country where armed civilians, paid mercs, and military probably all look pretty similar on imaging devices.
But yes...I'm sure they will rage. Worse yet, the anti-American horn blowers will be all over this as well (even if there was no direct American involvement).
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
adversesolutions said:
Uh, first Gulf War didn't piss off Bin Laden when Saudi Arabia refused his help, and declared a fatwa against the west?
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
Quite the opposite. I dont know how you can read his comment and think this.RustyNails said:
From this statement:
So he is saying that yes Scheuer is partly right but its not all about foreign policy. Its also about ideology. Meaning that they have guns because of their ideology and they point their guns towards the us because of Foreign Policy.
I myself see it a bit different. Foreign Policy is what ignites the hate and feeling to fight but Idelogy is what keeps it going.
RustyNails
Member
CNN's Nic Robertson interviewed Iman Al Obeidy, the woman who burst into the Tripoli Hotel couple of weeks ago accusing gaddafi's men of raping her. Good interview. She's a pretty smart lady and no way mentally ill.
theignoramus
Member
Saif? apparently the man is dim witted. While writing his doctoral thesis at the LSE, one of his economics tutours said the man had no interest in economics and lacked the intellectual capability to even undertake a doctoral thesis. really undermines LSE's credibility.Luckyman said:
theignoramus
Member
sounds like a good thing to me. Egypt will not stand idly by during the next Cast Lead and keep the Gazans in their cage. Also, I'd like the source of the claim that ElBaradei threatened to declare war, thats sounds like an extremely slanted interpretation of his words.nyong said:
RustyNails
Member
I heard on NPR that his thesis was ghost written and they found instances of plagiarism. Last I heard, LSE was conducting an investigation.theignoramus said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13010170
Um, that's strange, because I knew the rebels had tanks.
Um, that's strange, because I knew the rebels had tanks.
Its possible the Rebels told NATO that they had no tanks while in fact they did have tanks. NATO might have even explained to them "IF your not honest with us, we might accidentally shot your tanks!". However, the rebels lied to NATO about them not having any tanks. NATO might even seen on the news that the rebels had tanks but, after all, they trust the rebels to tell them the truth and they might even have reasoned that the Rebels can suit themselves then.
- Status