Tyrsonswood

Internet police just marked you as a terrorist and a weapons trader...... Just say'n

__________________

comp_ali

This damn Arab League is useless. Ghaddafi has been bombing the libyans abd they did nothing. Argggh!
On the other hand, it is getting worse in Bahrain as well.
BBC News - Gulf states send forces to Bahrain following protests

Not to mention yemen and others as well. I hope we can reach stability soon.

__________________

temeteus82

Ali blame Russia and China for the non-fly zone not be be reality. They are the two factors that are blocking the resolution!

__________________

blibbax

It is legit for a nation or alliance of nations to take military actions without security council approval to prevent grave humanitarian disasters.

If Russia and China, as well as the USA and Germany, are against a no fly zone, that doesn't mean it cannot happen.

What's preventing it now is a general lack of willingness to take any decions in which individual goverments could be held responsible for the consequences.

__________________

temeteus82

Germany don't have permanent seat in security council and US is pro no-fly zone...

As for Russia and China ... Oh well they have their own internal politics involved in this if they approve they will have truck load of trobule at their backyard..

__________________

blibbax

US being pro is news to me - good news, though

They were strongly against it for most of last week, on the grounds that they were unwilling to fly jets over Libya without first attacking anti-air installations.

__________________

comp_ali

BBC News - Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi That's a good news although a bit late.

__________________

MIG-31

BBC News - Libya: Coalition launches attacks

__________________

comp_ali

I hope this will end well. the middle east is a piece from hell now.

__________________

blibbax

110 cruise missiles from NATO warships in the med last night. 110!!!...

__________________

comp_ali

I just hope we aren't heading for worse, as long as these nato forces will just bomb ghaddafi militants and not civilian it is fine for me. And most importantly they should go back once ghaddafi is finished. I hope nothing fishy happens.

__________________

temeteus82

Ali guess who is saying that they didn't hit military targets.

As far as I can tell they targeted Libya's radar installations SAM sites.

__________________

blibbax

I'm hoping that the lesson that the west has learnt from all this is that it doesn't pay in the long run to prop up corrupt but stable regimes.

__________________

comp_ali

This is the first stage I think to secure the sky for attacking ghaddafi militants afterwards. They should do it quick or ghaddafi will keep pushing forward.

__________________

blibbax

Massive amount of pics of destroyed Libyan army vehicles coming through now.

Gaddaffi is using some sort of human shield around his compound, pretty appauling stuff.

__________________

Tyrsonswood

"human shield"

Isn't this something all of these dictators do when threatened?

They're damned cowards is what they are!

__________________

comp_ali

+60 people has been killed yesterday. They need to be carefull will civilother wise they are doing the same as ghaddafi. I was hoping that Egypt army take part in this plan but at least there are other arab forces taking part and I understand that Egyptian army is under high pressure regarding egyptians interior affairs and protecting the vast borders of Egypt.

__________________

BlueMak

I think the "West" should have stayed out of this one at this point. It doesn't matter what happens next, the muslims will end up getting pissed off and do their usual for any civilian (or "civilian") casualties.
The West should have attacked, even without UN approval, as soon as the G man attacked with his planes civilians. A "couple" of attacks against the airfields and then let go to let the rebels do what they can. As it is now, even if the G man is out by tomorrow, there will be more bad blood among the muslims against the West. Yes, many thousands were probably saved from slaughter by G man's forces, but no one there will remember that.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others, have plenty of military power to do more against the G man. Let the Arab League deal with it.

The West should either finally liberate or "liberate" the Middle East, or just let them do whatever they want in their region. Just trade for the oil and don't intervene. Any middle ground is counterproductive and just stalls any change towards democratic changes for any people there who want it.

People are being killed every day in Yemen and Bahrain. Nothing done about it by the West OR the Arab League (I will leave the African Union out for obvious reasons). In fact Saudi armed forces entered Bahrain to suppress any insurrection. Where is the reaction to that? Oh yeah, Iran is "evil", Iraq is a joke now days, and everyone else (including Iran) is afraid that their own people will demand freedom and, the scary part, change of political system.


I just hope there are as few casualties as possible and there is peace in Libya ASAP.


I do have a question. Why Odyssey Dawn? It's such a bad bad name. Odyssey took about 10 years with the death of everyone on the "good" guys apart from one. Lots of fighting, lots of being lost and having no idea where you are and how to reach the end of your trip. Going back and forth, etc.

Just a bad name IMO.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

blibbax

It's not about intervention for the sake of it, it's about a humanitarian crisis. If the situation in Bahrain or anywhere else reaches a humanitarian crisis that can be (relativley) easily solved through military means, I think that will happen too.

Also, when you speak of "the muslims" with sweeping (not particularly complimentary) generalisations, and refer to the "G man", you don't come over particularly well, BlueMak.

I do, however, agree with one part of your sentiment - lasting and pleasant peace in Libya ASAP with the bare minimum of casualties on any side.

__________________

BlueMak

It's not about a humanitarian crisis. If that was the case then we would see far more similar interventions all over the world, even in weaker military powers. It's not about saving lives.

G man is Gaddafi. I don't know if you thought something else because that's how it sounds.

As for the muslims reactions, I don't see anything inaccurate with what I mentioned. I don't care how I "come over", I hate political correctness when it is used to take away freedoms, especially freedom of speech. The UK (since you are from the UK) didn't become the free country it is by shutting up against what one perceives as wrong.

Every time one shuts up from fear or to appease some group, does nothing less than piss on the graves of every one who fought for the country to be free. I don't do that.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

blibbax

It's pretty rare that a humanitarian crisis has such an obvious solution, but I do see your point.

I do associate the name with something else, as it happens, but that wasn't my issue - it just seems very light hearted and informal for a situation that isn't.

I don't care about political correctness, and I endorse full freedom of speech. I didn't say that you ought to shut up, I said that you were making a sweeping generalisation - I hoped that you did not wish to tarnish every single muslim person with the same brush, hence my comment that you were not coming over well. Perhaps, however, you intended to say this.

Not making generalisations of this nature is not a matter of political correctness, it is a matter of factual accuracy. "The muslims will end up getting pissed off" is blatantly untrue. You can be sure that a decent proportion (probably most, but definitley at least some, as far as I can tell) won't.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

__________________

BlueMak

I didn't consider showing more respect to the G man. G man is a much better name than I would use, but it would go against the rules here. Or that calling him G man would perhaps make any crimes he committed appear frivolous. No matter, I stand by what I called him.

As for "the muslims", I guess I will try to be more accurate and try to not make generalizations like SOME muslims do when doing things like, burning churches, killing non muslims just for their religion not being Islam or even the "right" type of Islam. Or for example when there are suicide bombers against, you know, everyone. When thousands of muslims (or at least some of them are muslims, right?) go to the streets to celebrate a terrorist act, that's their generalization mistake. When G man slaughters his people by the hundrends or thousands that's not very nice, but when the same G man CLAIMS that there have been only hospitals and schools and kindergardens hit by the Western bombings, (because lets face it, that was why the West attacked and succeeded in attacking only schools, hospitals etc....duh) and that supposedly 60 civilians died, then the leadership of the arab league shows remorse and anger and muslims all around, at least from the arab world from where I heard, read and watched, start getting "upset" and making subtle threats/warnings....that's generalization.
Because lets face it, making a generalization is horrible! Slaughtering people is, meh.

No, I am not angry or anything. And of course not every single muslim is a murderer or a criminal. But that wasn't my point, was it? Or should I go by name and say X,Y.Z are "bad" muslims, A,B,C are "good" and if I can't do that, I should be quiet....right?
I am not going to apologize if anyone's feelings got hurt because of p.c. Because this is what it is.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

Neshi

It doesn't matter that he generalizes, everybody knows what is meant. And if you look at it from factual accuracy, he didn't say anything untrue.
The group of people that will get upset, are muslims. Not all muslims, but muslims none-the-less. so it can be said that the muslims will get upset.

Another thing, those muslims that won't get upset don't let their voices get heard.. so what does it actually achieve to be politically correct other than a lot of talking about the way things are said. Those muslims will get upset no matter how you say it.

__________________
If one does not attach himself to people and desire, never shall his heart be broken. But then, does he ever truly live?

Life is just too damn short for if's and maybe's

blibbax

I meant to say that you appeared to be taking the situation insufficiently seriously, but whatever, I don't suppose that this point is of any particular importance.

So it's ok for you to insult muslims as a whole because some muslims make that mistake too?

The response from muslims that I've seen to the western intervention has been very mixed, but generally positive.

Don't be silly. I know you're being sarcastic, but still.

I'm not suggesting that you list out names of good and bad muslims (that would be far too subjective anyway), or that you be quiet, or that anyone actually cares about political correctness.

What I am suggesting is that you add a qualifier when you suggest that all muslims hold or will hold a particular sentiment, because actually, you have no idea what kind of people are contributing to and reading this thread, and you may well insult someone, and that's my main concern. I know that it would annoy me intensley to see a phrase like "the British are anti-european", even though that's just as valid as "the muslims will get annoyed".

I repeat that political correctness is neither important nor interesting in this discussion. However, is what you're suggesting here that it's ok to insult those who won't speak up for themselves?

__________________

BlueMak

But that's the thing, not saying things as they are because that someone might get insulted, is against freedom of speech, against democracy in general.
If one doesn't like what I or others, say, SAY IT. Everyone is free to do it. That's the good thing about freedom and not fearing to say what you think because someone might get upset...Because if "you" shut up because of fear that you might upset a group of people, that's terrorism, at least in the Greek meaning of the word. Or in English, that's succumbing to fear of (most of the time) violent reaction or the threat of one.
People need to stop worrying so much how musllims might react and stop losing their freedom one day at a time. Bombs are not the biggest threat to freedom, shutting up is.


And, Neshi, thank you.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

blibbax

I agree that you shouldn't not say something because of the risk of insulting someone, when that something is correct.

When that something is incorrect, or even might be incorrect, even if it may seem close enough to the truth to make no difference to you, then it doesn't seem right to come out with it.

Continuing my earlier example, if you said that the British are anti-European, that'd be a reasonable generalisation, but I'd be annoyed not because it's insulting (which it is) but because it isn't true. A very large minority (or possibly a small majority) of Brits are pro-European.

At any rate we're going wildly off-topic, and I'm not sure we're likely to come to an agreement any time soon.

__________________

BlueMak

The thing is, I wouldn't say British are anti European, not that being anti European is something bad.

What I said was not incorrect. But repeating it would serve no purpose now.

__________________

The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm Sic semper tyrannis.

comp_ali

Can we get back to the libyan case.

__________________