Gadhafi is now in Algeria.

[Abwx]

Abwx, they're the same people he's been fighting with moral backing from the West since 08.

Likely, but times have changed , as what matter actually
for western countries is to escape from the debts trap that
are rapidly disintegrating them , and lybia is seen by
UK and France as a convenient country to milk.

The US on the other side, despite her partnership with these
agressors , is just ready to take the prize for herself if ever things
dont turn the european way, hence the US not so surprising
rear role, just in case the situation yield an unexpected outcome....

All in all, that s pure machiavelism...

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't pretend to know much about Libya, except to say that the revolution wouldn't have been successful w/o people willing to fight & die to win it. Kaddafi sure as hell wasn't going to bow to popular sentiment w/o blood being spilled, no matter how strong that sentiment may have been.

He and his family will very likely obtain asylum somewhere, likely not Algeria, because they're having their own internal problems much like those that have swept across much of the rest of N Africa... It might just inflame the population even more against the current govt...

 

[SandEagle]

how convenient. destroy every Arab country in the region whilst looking for a select few. cui bono?

"They created a desolation, and they called it Peace. "

-- Tacitus

 

[Abwx]

I don't pretend to know much about Libya, except to say that the revolution wouldn't have been successful w/o people willing to fight & die to win it. Kaddafi sure as hell wasn't going to bow to popular sentiment w/o blood being spilled, no matter how strong that sentiment may have been.

The so called rebels are a cover since they did gain nothing ,
it s NATO that is acting on their behalf and which allow them to
painfully size some areas.
As said, there are NATO ground troops wich direct the bombings.

As a clue, it s several days that the so called rebels said that
they did took the capital, yet , to this hour , NATO is unrelentlessly
bombing Tripoli wich is allegedly controlled by its puppets...

Why bomb an area that is said to be 150% under control..?

 

[MovingTarget]

So now we wait, and the long game of diplomacy begins. Whoever suggests that we bomb Algeria to get them to hand over Gadhafi is an idiot. It isn't worth it, at least under present circumstances.

 

[BarneyFife]

This is how stupid the US is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-group-founder-libyan-rebel-military-commander/story?id=14405319

The rebel groups have links to Al Queda yet Ghadafi was anti-Al Queda and we basically gave Al Queda a free country to train in with US money.

 

[bfdd]

This is how stupid the US is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-group-founder-libyan-rebel-military-commander/story?id=14405319

The rebel groups have links to Al Queda yet Ghadafi was anti-Al Queda and we basically gave Al Queda a free country to train in with US money.

duh? people on these forums still fucking deny it even when proof is shoved in their face. hell you can dig up articles from 08/09 that talk about Gaddaffi's fight vs AQ. this is such a cluster fuck for us lols. imo should probably lead to the demise of NATO.

 

[Jhhnn]

The so called rebels are a cover since they did gain nothing ,
it s NATO that is acting on their behalf and which allow them to
painfully size some areas.
As said, there are NATO ground troops wich direct the bombings.

As a clue, it s several days that the so called rebels said that
they did took the capital, yet , to this hour , NATO is unrelentlessly
bombing Tripoli wich is allegedly controlled by its puppets...

Why bomb an area that is said to be 150% under control..?

Would the rebels have won w/o Nato support? Probably not, given Kaddafi's reputation for ruthlessness. They were, nonetheless, part of a greater uprising across all of N Africa.

Nato spotters directing air strikes? Likely. They're not the people who advanced behind them to fight it out hand to hand with Kaddafi's forces. That was the Rebels.

Some difference between the real situation & the claims of both sides? You epitomize that. With Kaddafi gone, it seems unlikely that his loyalists will keep fighting much longer. We'll just have to wait & see what the people of Libya make out of this for themselves.

Kaddafi had made himself an international pariah for decades, only making nice with the Bush Admin recently, granting them a propaganda victory wrt Libya's alleged nuclear weapons program. That was merely a marriage of convenience because Kaddafi was clearly unreliable, a rogue player. When Nato saw their chance to help bring him down, they took it.

Right, wrong or indifferent, that's what happened. What's important now is for Libyans to settle their differences, create a new govt that will serve them. I hope they do.

 

[MovingTarget]

This is how stupid the US is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-group-founder-libyan-rebel-military-commander/story?id=14405319

The rebel groups have links to Al Queda yet Ghadafi was anti-Al Queda and we basically gave Al Queda a free country to train in with US money.

So what was the alternative? Ignore the situation as Benghazi gets destroyed, or worse yet, support Gadhafi? I don't think so. Even terror groups can fight for the right side sometimes. People are so keen to paint the rebels with a bad stroke simply because the US got involved that it is rediculous. As of right now, the rebels, and Libya, have a clean slate. It is up to them what they wish to paint on it. We should wait and observe their actions before jumping to conclusions. What you say may come to pass, I'm not denying that, but the bottom line is that Gadhafi had to go, period.

 

[bfdd]

MovingTarget, the West had been supporting him for 3+ years...

 

[MovingTarget]

MovingTarget, the West had been supporting him for 3+ years...

I am aware of that. It isn't something that we should be proud of. We were right to discontinue it when the uprising began.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is how stupid the US is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-group-founder-libyan-rebel-military-commander/story?id=14405319

The rebel groups have links to Al Queda yet Ghadafi was anti-Al Queda and we basically gave Al Queda a free country to train in with US money.

Links to Al Qaeda! OMFG!

I remember somebody else who supposedly had those "links", the former govt of Iraq, which never was true at all...

Righties just go all gooey inside over the mere mention of the Islamic Terrarist! boogeyman. That button has been hot-wired directly to their emotional centers by a decade of propagandistic raving....

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Why didn t the media show that almost 95% of Tripoli s adult people
did manifest to support Khadafi ?..

I've been curious about polling in Libya, specifically polling showing support (or the lack of) for the rebels.

I've googled but found nothing. Do you have links to any such polls?

TIA

Fern

 

[Fern]

So what was the alternative? Ignore the situation as Benghazi gets destroyed, or worse yet, support Gadhafi? I don't think so. Even terror groups can fight for the right side sometimes. People are so keen to paint the rebels with a bad stroke simply because the US got involved that it is rediculous. As of right now, the rebels, and Libya, have a clean slate. It is up to them what they wish to paint on it. We should wait and observe their actions before jumping to conclusions. What you say may come to pass, I'm not denying that, but the bottom line is that Gadhafi had to go, period.

Perhaps some, but certainly not all.

When this began we had threads with info on Libya and connections to AQ. Libya has the highest "Foreign Fighter Intensity", meaning the highest ratio of AQ fighters per capita. Libya was also #2 in terms of providing AQ fighters in Iraq.

Personally, I don't see a "clean slate". These Libyan AQ fighters in the rebel group were fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing and wounding US soldiers.

It remains to be seen what portion of rebels are/were AQ fighters. But it is certainly alarming that some of the highest rebel leaders are AQ.

Fern

 

[Doppel]

This is how stupid the US is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terror-group-founder-libyan-rebel-military-commander/story?id=14405319

The rebel groups have links to Al Queda yet Ghadafi was anti-Al Queda and we basically gave Al Queda a free country to train in with US money.

Where have I heard that before?

people on these forums still fucking deny it even when proof is shoved in their face.

Not really. I've not seen any emphatic representations here of the rebels. Nobody has a clue about them. We know that Gadhafi was a complete sh*thead. Beyond that who knows. He got what was coming to him.

Do you have links to any such polls?

Of course not. Of course not. There's not a single polling organization of any legitimacy that has run a poll showing that 95% of people in Trippoli supported Gadhafi.

 

[zinfamous]

duh? people on these forums still fucking deny it even when proof is shoved in their face. hell you can dig up articles from 08/09 that talk about Gaddaffi's fight vs AQ. this is such a cluster fuck for us lols. imo should probably lead to the demise of NATO.

in the world of the black and the white, you would be its king.

never mind that Ghaddafi is, essentially, the first name associated with "crackpot despots that wantonly support international terrorism."

he's pretty much the guy that founded that institution.

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps some, but certainly not all.

When this began we had threads with info on Libya and connections to AQ. Libya has the highest "Foreign Fighter Intensity", meaning the highest ratio of AQ fighters population. Libya was also #2 in terms of providing AQ fighters in Iraq.

Personally, I don't see a "clean slate". These Libyan AQ fighters in the rebel group were fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing and wounding US soldiers.

It remains to be seen what portion of rebels are/were AQ fighters. But it is certainly alarming that some of the highest rebel leaders are AQ.

Fern

This is somewhat true of all the Arab states in the Arab spring uprising. Personally, I fear the results more in Egypt, which is more powerful and had a reasonably West-friendly dictator, than in Libya which had an anti-West dictator who sponsored terrorism. But we cannot afford to spend several hundred billion, thousands of lives, and a decade or two on each one of these nations, and even if we did, there's no guarantee of success. Afghanistan is likely to be almost as fundamentalist as it was under the Taliban. Even Iraq could succumb to Islamic fundamentalism.

Seems to me that spending a few billion and removing a known terror sponsoring dictator in the hope that a better society will follow is a decent, relatively low risk investment.

 

[Fern]

Of course not. Of course not. There's not a single polling organization of any legitimacy that has run a poll showing that 95% of people in Trippoli supported Gadhafi.

I haven't found any poll yet.

Have you seen any?

I find it quite odd that none have been done/reported.

Fern

 

[Doppel]

I haven't found any poll yet.

Have you seen any?

I find it quite odd that none have been done/reported.

Fern

I haven't looked. Frankly, I don't think any poll done would be worth the paper it's printed on anyway, anymore than the 99% approval rates of Saddam. You cannot reliably determine a population's wishes in an environment that actively oppresses expression.

 

[Fern]

I haven't looked. Frankly, I don't think any poll done would be worth the paper it's printed on anyway, anymore than the 99% approval rates of Saddam. You cannot reliably determine a population's wishes in an environment that actively oppresses expression.

Seems we have a fair amount of journalists over there. I've seen blogs etc.

Plus, unless I misunderstand, Khaddafy isn't in a position to oppress anyone. I thought the rebels controlled the bulk of the country? Heck, you'd think we could at least get some polling from the 'liberated' cities/villages.

I'm not happy with the media coverage.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Seems we have a fair amount of journalists over there. I've seen blogs etc.

Plus, unless I misunderstand, Khaddafy isn't in a position to oppress anyone. I thought the rebels controlled the bulk of the country? Heck, you'd think we could at least get some polling from the 'liberated' cities/villages.

I'm not happy with the media coverage.

Fern

Why would the people assume that expressing discontent about the rebels would be any safer than expressing discontent about Khaddafy? I can't imagine that this part of the world can ever deliver any honest polling about any leaders or potential leaders.

 

[Fern]

Why would the people assume that expressing discontent about the rebels would be any safer than expressing discontent about Khaddafy? I can't imagine that this part of the world can ever deliver any honest polling about any leaders or potential leaders.

Fair question.

Fern

 

[Doppel]

Area could be full of spies and you don't know who's going to do what to you, it's understandable if a lot of people are head-down and try to stay low.

 

[Abwx]

in the world of the black and the white, you would be its king.

never mind that Ghaddafi is, essentially, the first name associated with "crackpot despots that wantonly support international terrorism."

he's pretty much the guy that founded that institution.

Among others , he did support IRA , the irish independance movement,
wich was secretely supported by the US , as well as Nelson Mandela s
ANC wich was fighting against the south african nazism...

That he was vilified in the western countries ,that think that they are
the whole world, is just another point...

Indeed, the so called rebels are the worst part of lybia, too bad
he didnt manage to wipe out theses lazy dogs that are no more
than a bunch of thieves.

How is it that there was 25% of the worforce that was foreigners
while the unemployement rate was a whopping 21% ???..

Truth is that in country where you re granted 2000$/month
to make your studies in universities abroad, these thugs
prefered to live from welfare while foreigners were doing all the work..

It s just that know their appetite has grown larger than their stomachs
as said by Khadafi at the begenning of this unrest.

Rather than listen to the propagandas, just google about
lybia s (former) standard of life....

 

[Abwx]

I've been curious about polling in Libya, specifically polling showing support (or the lack of) for the rebels.

I've googled but found nothing. Do you have links to any such polls?

TIA

Fern

In wartime, i guess that no one will express his preference
for fear that his choice may be the loosing side, wich of
course can be of great consequence if ever the winner
is crime oriented.

One must realize that lybians enjoyed a decent standard
of life , it s not like saudi arabia where the monarchy family
grant itself the total revenues of 1 million barrel oil/day , that is,
12.5% of the saudi oil revenues..