´óÏó´«Ã½

Professor Roberts makes a point of wider application:

Libya is NOT like Afghanistan or Iraq; what it is like is Bosnia.

And I don't want to see Misurata turned into another Srebrenica.

in libya,we see gaddafi militia is attacking poor people of libya..buttets never hear the cries of innocent peopole..they can protect their lives only with their owen buttets..so,there,we see a dangerous situatioin,world must have to arm these victims for self defence

US and UK have began tossing around the idea of arming the rebels just like they did with the no-fly zone.
But this time round, NO should be the answer from AU and Arab league.

Why should Libyan Rebels who have ‘Flickers’ of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah influence be armed?
Who are these weapons going to be used against...Libyans?

NO we should not be arming the rebels are the West saying it is ok to kill pro Gaddafi civilians. Attacks on any cities lead to civilian deaths not matter which side attacks if armed rebels move against civilian areas the Un forces should stop them thats what their mandate is for.Do they expect the Libyian forces to stand and be shot without retaliating.
The UN should be stopping the Rebels and Libyan army from fighting not giving air cover to the rebels.Once this is acheived then talks should be set up between the two sides to find a solution.

Arming rebels today or arming them after they are in power. What is the difference? If you try to take a moral high ground in weapon sales you are trying to justify killing in the first place. It is like trying to find a legal basis to have an atomic bomb, there is none, but how many nations have them? Would the US or Russia ever give up these weapons... so why argue when you are selling a few anti-tank missiles to people to stop a dictator killing them.... you are already in a trench... fill up the cup you have it already half full.

The coalition of UN and NATO countries currently bombing Libya and thinking of arming Libyan rebels should be careful they don’t end up in the International Court for war crimes.

The legal position on the arming rebels of another country in international law was made clear by the International Court in 1984 when they prosecuted and found the US Government guilty of arming rebels in Nicaragua which is unlawful and an act of [war] ‘aggression’.

Below is one of the relevant sections relating to the arming of rebels in international law as defined by the International Court:
‘Definition of (war] Aggression’ and ‘description of such action contained in article 3, paragraph (g)’:

‘The Court sees no reason to deny that, in customary law, the prohibition
of armed attacks may apply to the sending by a State of armed bands to the territory of another State, if such an operation, because of its scale and effects, would have been classified as an armed attack rather than as a mere frontier incident had it been carried out by regular forces. But the Court does not believe that the concept of ‘armed attack’ includes not only acts by armed bands where such acts occur on a significant scale but also assistance to rebels in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support.’

Further details and information on the case:

‘The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors.’

Source:

The dicatator is not killing them if they downed their weapons and not continue to push towards the Government forces. When are we all going to realise that this is not a popular uprising - it is regional and all the people of Libya (not just Easterns) dont all want the same things or speed of change.

Most of the people in Tripoli are relatively happy with their government - perhaps not Gaddafi but he has more popular support compared to the blood-thirsty Al-Qaida mix Easterners.

They should all go home and fortify Bengazi, Ras Lanuf, Adjabiya and then start diplomatic talks. Possibly, they should just accept a divided Libya and they can go on to show the rest ofwestern Libya and the world how they can a democracy with rule of law and freedom of speech. They have oil and support of the West, why bother trying to convince people in Serte for example; they will never accept a bunch of exiled nobodies and freedom fighters that has no compuction to ask outsiders to kill fellow Libyans.

I dont believe all the people of Misrata are pro-rebels. It has been too easy for Govt forces to instal in Misrata and they have even carved out areas amongst rebels and govt.

The rebels continue to push and provoke and try to kill govt soldiers - and we expect the soldiers to just fold or allow themselves to be killed by ill-trained rebels with terrorists elements.

Arming rebels will make things more bloody, create more resentment and prolong the emergence of a new stable Libya.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Panorama programme on Libya shown on ´óÏó´«Ã½ One, 8:30PM Mon, 21 Mar 2011, reveals that the so-called 'peaceful' [sic] Benghazi ‘uprising’ of ‘rebels’ used armed terrorist methods of a ‘suicide bomber’ to attack and blow up the Libyan Government’s Benghazi army barracks on 20th February 2011.

/iplayer/episode/b0101pyh/Panorama_Fighting_Gaddafi/

In recent days the Daily Telegraph have also published ‘disturbing’ reports about the leadership of the ‘rebels’ including links to the terrorist al-Qaeda movement:

‘West's fears over spectre of al-Qaeda among rebels’

By Con Coughlin 10:00PM BST 29 Mar 2011



Also



‘Libya: Nato chief fears al-Qaeda fighters have infilitrated rebels’

Admiral James Stavridis says American intelligence has picked up 'flickers' of terrorist activity among the rebel groups.

‘Libya: al-Qaeda among Libya rebels, Nato chief fears’

Libyan rebel forces may have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda fighters, a senior American military commander has warned.

29 Mar 2011

How Gaddafi must love all your oratory! Call for a investigation, set up a committee, lets meet again next week!
I think its your general incomprehension of mathematics that is the problem! 98 % of Libyans hate Gaddafi and want him out at all costs, including sacrificing their own lives! Therefore there are 160,000 Libyans Gaddafi supporters, but these include the families so only 40,000 men. These are the hated secret police, special forces and death squads. Highly trained and well armed they form a formidable force capable torture, fear and mass murder at a rate that would impress even Hitler or Stalin. Gaddafi rules these with a rod of iron,typical of any great dictator regularly reminding them how their lives are entirely his but extinguishing one of them for some tiny reason in front of the others! When he treats he loyal guards like this you can not imaging how badly he treats the citizens of his Libya. " I created Libya, Libya is me and I can destroy it !
If he is not extinguished he will, as he stated the other day, go to Benghazi door to door, personally killing every one he finds, men, women and children!
But that is his just an incite into his plans. The Lockerbie bombing was a personal plan of his 23 years ago, just try and think what methods of mass destruction he has thought up by now? He has had almost limitless money, and a vast country virtually isolated from the rest of the world!
Lets hope having started this the French, British and US finish it quickly! And treat any criticism as Nelson did, bye reading the messages with their blind eye!
So when you allowed him to escape your death grip, there will be only be one thing on your mind, how long before he kills me! That thought should be on the minds of citizens of Benghazi. The ex British ambassador disregarded any attack on Benghazi as his forces would be attacked from the air! Gaddafi has defeated everyone for 42 years, my money is on him, especially with such disaffected adversary in NATO! Remember Gaddafis goal is simple, total destruction of all life in Benghazi and any other town that does not support him! Don't you think he has a trick or two up his sleeve! My money is on WMD's. His shopping sprees at Belarus have been big. Nerve Gas and chemical weapons are probable, but I am thinking more like Nuclear war heads for his cruise missiles or some battle field nuclear artillery shells. What ever he uses he will have more, these he will hold the world hostage with!

After watching some hour long cable TV presentations explaining the situation on the ground and debates about the quickly changing tactical facts for the rebels, I have to conclude that this is a mission creep scenario unfolding for the NATO coalition. As the rebel forces took advantage of coalition bombing of Gaddafi armored brigades, quickly advancing to the gates of Sirte, Gaddafi loyalists stopped their advance and routed the rebel forces into a headlong retreat. Coalition air operations having decimated Gaddafi's armor at the gates of Benghazi, I expected that the rebels would quickly take advantage of the situation which they did but their lack of firepower and training stopped their momentum at Sirte. Clearly without continued air support the rebels do not have the wherewithal to defeat the loyalists. Most experts on the cable TV shows convinced me that the rebels need both more and better weapons and training. Since as former Defense secretaries like William Cohen and Paul Wolfowitz are convinced that Obama cannot let Gaddafi continue to keep his position of even only the western half of Libya around Tripoli, it became clear to me that mission creep in directions which have been denied until now such as "boots on the ground" will eventually become necessary to avoid a lengthy stalemate in Libya. The discussion in your article indicating the "slippery" nature of the wording of the UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, especially the phrase about "all necessary means", reinforces this view.

It doesn't sound either legal or moral if you ask me. I don't know how prolonging the war by arming and training the rebels will be 'protecting the civilians' (as our elected leaders call it). I'm sure the West will get away with murder like they normally do. The ICC is a complete sham that only serves rich and powerful interests. I wonder when the US will be called to book over its murderous activities in Central America.

I wonder what will happen if or when things start kicking off in Saudi Arabia. Will the West intervene to 'protect the civilians' there? Somehow I doubt it!