Libya: Qaddhafi Violates Ceasefire, Foreign Forces Mount Attack

[Thoma Yosip]

Egyptian people must be GLAD, they removed Mubarak before coalition forces brutually.

The Egyptian military did not conduct military operations against the protesters in Cairo and other Egyptian cities. There was no reason to attack Egypt because the Egyptian military acted responsibly. Do you understand?

 

[hembo]

After more than 40 years in power, Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi is facing the greatest threat to his rule. Rebels control much of the east of the country and pockets of resistance are spread across the country.

Unrest broke out across Libya on 16 February after the arrest of a human rights lawyer. Events quickly escalated with rebels seizing control of several coastal cities and senior Libyan diplomats defecting overseas. Col Gaddafi is firmly in control of the capital Tripoli, and his forces have made gains against the rebels in areas east and west of the city.

Explore the maps by clicking on the tabs above to see who controls what and where the latest clashes have occurred.

 

[Thoma Yosip]

That's because all the people like you and I want this killing to end. Just to oppose us, no other reason.

Do you think the killing would stop if the US, the British, the French, the Canadians, the Danish, the Italians, and the Arab League did nothing? Or would the killing get worse as Ka-Daffy massacred his own people?

If you hate the US, do not take it out on the people of Libya who oppose a murderous lunatic.

 

[hembo]

Does going into Libya make Barack Obama a "liberal hawk" and not that much different from his predecessor? Doug Bandow argues at the Huffington Post:

He may be a little less enthused about going to war than is the neoconservative Greek Chorus that cheers every conflict everywhere, but in practice he is no less willing to use the military.

Bandow says Libya is not America's war. He points out the hypocrisy of Washington attacking Gaddafi while Saudi forces help Bahrain put down its protests. He curiously argues, without expanding, that the attacks on Libya are not justified on humanitarian grounds. He says America should not be "the world's permanent 911 number".


The full article is here

 

[Thoma Yosip]

Terrorist Attack on Libya!

I agree. The terrorist is Ka-Daffy!

 

[Lankan Ranger]

Three U.S. B-2 stealth bombers dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield
less than a minute ago.

Libya no-fly zone

 

[fallstuff]

Here is a timeline of the major developments in Libya since the start of protests inspired by uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. It's been chopped down from a lengthy Press Association filing. It shows that when civilians began taking to the streets calling for change, Gaddafi responded immediately with deadly force.

17 February: Libyan protesters start demonstrating. Security forces respond with snipers and live fire.

18 February: 35 protesters are reportedly shot by Libyan security forces and taken to hospital after attempting to march on one of leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's homes.

22 February: Gaddafi vows to fight to his "last drop of blood" and on television calls for his supporters to "fill the streets" and "attack (the protesters) in their lairs".

23 February: British government begins its delayed evacuation of Libya. A day later, the EU and Russia condemn governments in north Africa and the Middle East for using force to break up peaceful demonstrations. Gaddafi rolls out his now-familiar tactic of blaming al-Qaida for the uprisings.

4 March: Interpol issues an "orange notice" worldwide alert against Gaddafi and 15 associates.

15 March: Gaddafi's troops begin bombing the eastern city of Ajdabiya to retake it from Libyan rebels. A day later the UN security council starts debating a no-fly zone. The Arab League, Britain and France back the resolution, tabled by Lebanon, while Russia and Germany express doubts. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, calls for an immediate unilateral ceasefire in Libya.

17 March: The security council approves a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya. The resolution is backed by 10 Security Council members, with five abstentions, but crucially there is no veto.

18 March: The Gaddafi regime responds to the resolution by announcing an immediate ceasefire and "the stoppage of all military operations" but its forces continue to attack the opposition-held cities of Misrata and Adjadbiya.

19 March: Leaders from Europe, the US and Arab League meet in Paris and switfly agree to send in the jets. The French jump the gun, sending in warplanes before the official agreement. Overnight the attacks begin on Gaddafi bases and positions

They are saying there isnt enough info to support or veto, hence the opinion the bill was rushed. I think they are right.

 

[President Camacho]

Do you think the killing would stop if the US, the British, the French, the Canadians, the Danish, the Italians, and the Arab League did nothing? Or would the killing get worse as Ka-Daffy massacred his own people?

If you hate the US, do not take it out on the people of Libya who oppose a murderous lunatic.

Please read whom I was replying to. What did he say. Then try to comprehend what I meant. To say the least, you will be enlightened.

 

[Rank]

Egyptian people must be GLAD, they removed Mubarak before coalition forces brutually.

nothing Special even Condition situation of EGYPT will be extremely bad US UN never ever go for attack over EGYPT because they dont want long term problems with EGYPT... The problem is ISREAL with EGYPT Border so they dont want any big problem and issue with EGYPT! not good for ISreal!

 

[hembo]

The BBC's Paul Adams in Washington says: "Eight years to the day after his predecessor launched the first air strikes against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, President Barack Obama announced that American forces were once again attacking an Arab country. Despite the fact that French warplanes struck the first blows, it is clear that this early phase of operations is an overwhelmingly American affair. All but a small number of cruise missiles have been fired from American ships and submarines. But Mr Obama seems anxious that this not be interpreted as yet another American-led foray into the Arab world. The Pentagon says it will transfer command of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the coming days, almost certainly to Nato. But that will happen only after the Americans have established that the first wave of attacks has done sufficient damage to Libya's air defences for a no fly zone to be safely patrolled."

 

[VelocuR]

^@stealth....you made more sense, good point!


Anyway, Pakistan should experiment its BABUR MISSILES from jets to destroy some targets since 100 Tomahawk Missiles launched.

 

[hembo]

More Western aircraft from Canada, Denmark and Spain are arriving at Mediterranean bases, and are expected to be in action again today. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe says the raids will continue until Col Gaddafi stops attacking civilians, withdraws his troops from areas they have penetrated, and allows Libyans to express their aspirations to democracy.

Dr John Gearson from the Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London said Libya did not have much chance to defend itself. "But it really depends on whether or not Col Gaddafi takes the view that the public relations battle is actually going in his direction. All he has to do is sit it out and not do anything, in which case we'll have to be very careful about what we do. Or the international coalition takes the view that this opportunity has to be exploited now."

Meanwhile, the UK's Observer thinks Col Gaddafi could well be satisfied with a stalemate which leaves NATO impotently policing empty skies while he maintains a stranglehold on his people and taxes the unity of the alliance opposing him.It believes only the Libyans themselves can change the regime.

Observer Editorial here

 

[hembo]

Issandr el-Amrani gives a critical, some might say pessimistic, analysis of the international intervention on his Arabist blog, wondering how the coalition will topple Gaddafi's regime while avoiding the side effects of a prolonged civil war.

Amrani predicts that the coalition's mission will move from air strikes to ground attacks and wonders how the rebels - whom he refers to as "insurgents" - will treat pro-Gaddafi civilians and the remnants of the regime.

It gets more complicated [if] the Qadhafis are gone, both Westerners and Arabs may be ready to deal with regime remnants (particularly if they play a role in getting rid of the Qadhafis) but the insurgents may not want anyone associated with the former regime in place. So prolonged civil war is one possible outcome, yet again. This is why some kind of recognized leadership for the insurgency that is able to negotiate with whoever comes after Qadhafi is necessary.

Link to the blog- "5-questions-few-are-asking-about-libya"

 

[hembo]

 

[hembo]

The Sunday Telegraph says it is critical that the removal of Gaddafi is not the prelude to the catastrophic breakdown of order seen in Iraq.

Link to the article