East-Libya autonomous

[The Cheshire Cat]

This evening I heared that East-Libya (the part of Libya that is full of oil) declared itself autonomous (so I guess also an independent country?). I think this is a big thing.

Their current leader also is in the NTC. But officialy they have their own council, Cyrenaica. (In the Roman time, when Libya did not exist, at that place there were three different provincia's. One of them was Cyrenaica. Before that, it was a Greek colony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrenaica)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0306/libya.html

[Grenzer]

Well actually Cyrenaica has its origins as a Greek colony, well before the Romans were around.

I'm not sure what you mean by it being a big thing. Perhaps in terms of bourgeois politics, but I don't see how this is advance to or away from socialism.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Well actually Cyrenaica has its origins as a Greek colony, well before the Romans were around.

I'm not sure what you mean by it being a big thing. Perhaps in terms of bourgeois politics, but I don't see how this is advance to or away from socialism.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that.

I did not mean it was good. On the contrairy, I think it is awful. This will make the civil war even worse.

[l'Enfermé]

It's a recipe for civil war. Most of the oil is in Cyrenaica(In Arabic, it's Barqa). The Cyrenaicans are not happy that they have to share their oil with the rest of Libyans(a major reason for the anti-Gaddafi uprising), it's a bit like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, where Czechia was rich and Slovakia poorer, and the Czechs felt the Slovakians were pulling them down, and in Yugoslavia where Slovenia and Croatia were the richer parts and Serbia was poorer.

Anyways, the NTC is drafting an electoral law that gives Cyrenaica/Barqa only 60 seats, while the West gets 102. Cyrenicans don't like this either. They already founded their own military, the Barqa Supreme Military Council which is completely independent from the NTC. And now you have NTC guys in the West saying that if it takes military action to re-instate NTC rule in Barqa, then they will use military means, and you have tribal leaders with a lot of armed men to call upon in Barqa raging on about autonomy.

Autonomy will eventually lead to complete independence, and that would totally ruin whatever is left of the economy in Central and Western Libya, and the NTC would never allow that. So it's a recipe for civil war and Libya falling apart, which a lot of clever leftists(and even a famous Russian fascist, Dugin)predicted before Tripoli even fell.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I wonder if Libya will head down the route where the country is eventually divided between several different nation states that emerge from this civil war; currently this is what it looks like is happening.

The U.S must be thrilled about this development.

[The Cheshire Cat]

It's a recipe for civil war. Most of the oil is in Cyrenaica(In Arabic, it's Barqa). The Cyrenaicans are not happy that they have to share their oil with the rest of Libyans(a major reason for the anti-Gaddafi uprising), it's a bit like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, where Czechia was rich and Slovakia poorer, and the Czechs felt the Slovakians were pulling them down, and in Yugoslavia where Slovenia and Croatia were the richer parts and Serbia was poorer.

Anyways, the NTC is drafting an electoral law that gives Cyrenaica/Barqa only 60 seats, while the West gets 102. Cyrenicans don't like this either. They already founded their own military, the Barqa Supreme Military Council which is completely independent from the NTC. And now you have NTC guys in the West saying that if it takes military action to re-instate NTC rule in Barqa, then they will use military means, and you have tribal leaders with a lot of armed men to call upon in Barqa raging on about autonomy.

Autonomy will eventually lead to complete independence, and that would totally ruin whatever is left of the economy in Central and Western Libya, and the NTC would never allow that. So it's a recipe for civil war and Libya falling apart, which a lot of clever leftists(and even a famous Russian fascist, Dugin)predicted before Tripoli even fell.

Agreed.

[l'Enfermé]

Also, these guys are saying that Barqa stretches from Sirte to the Egyptian border.

Here's a map of Libya divided into 3 regions.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Tripolitania-fezzan-cyrenaica.jpg
Sirte is labelled "Surt", this includes a quarter of Fezzan, which isn't even Arab, and a big part of Tripolitania.

[danyboy27]

The U.S must be thrilled about this development.
Not necessarly, you need a strong autocratic state or some kind of democratic central governement to be able to extract oil, and a civil war will pretty much make that impossible for a while.

Civil war is a good thing for plundering when the ressources extracted dont require a lot of technology.

They(the us) probably expected the NTC to rule libya gadafi style and the whole thing blew up in their faces, this kind of stuff happen to them all the time.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Not necessarly, you need a strong autocratic state or some kind of democratic central governement to be able to extract oil, and a civil war will pretty much make that impossible for a while.

Civil war is a good thing for plundering when the ressources extracted dont require a lot of technology.

They(the us) probably expected the NTC to rule libya gadafi style and the whole thing blew up in their faces, this kind of stuff happen to them all the time.

I don't think you don't need any of that. Right now, the NTC isn't a unity at all, and they (the US) do succeed in steeling the oil. As long as the militia's keep fighting eachother they won't pay any attention to you. All you basically need is a band of mercenaries or a bribed tribe to protect the refineries. Then you can easily distract the oil.

But remember, in the top 10 federal contractors of the US, there are 8 corporations that deal in war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_US_Federal_Contractors) So they are trilled. Think of all the weapons they will be able to sell! And the ammunition, tanks, trucks, AA weapons, maybe even some helicopters.

And don't forget about the bankers, they love war too.

And I don't think they wanted the NTC to rule Gadaffi style. I highly doubt the US is interested in a Libya with free education, free healthcare, free housing, a state without a debt, etc.

[danyboy27]

I don't think you don't need any of that. Right now, the NTC isn't a unity at all, and they (the US) do succeed in steeling the oil. As long as the militia's keep fighting eachother they won't pay any attention to you. All you basically need is a band of mercenaries or a bribed tribe to protect the refineries. Then you can easily distract the oil.

They are succeding in stealing oil beccause the NTC create some sort of unity, with all that gone, its gonna be verry hard to extract oil. Have you ever seen what a drilling operation look like, all the experts and the logistic needed to keep the whole thing running? Blackwater was not even able to roam around bagdad with a truck of cooking pot and frying pan without getting wacked and embushed, what make you think the militia will leave a bunch of truck drivers and boat getting away with something that precious?



But remember, in the top 10 federal contractors of the US, there are 8 corporations that deal in war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_US_Federal_Contractors) So they are trilled. Think of all the weapons they will be able to sell! And the ammunition, tanks, trucks, AA weapons, maybe even some helicopters.

And don't forget about the bankers, they love war too.

Its more complicated than that, banker, weapon manufacturer and contractors are not all operating within a single voice, diverging buisness, diverging interest. For every corporation that will make a shitload of money from the ongoing chaos, i can find you another that will profit from the stability of an autocratic regime.



And I don't think they wanted the NTC to rule Gadaffi style. I highly doubt the US is interested in a Libya with free education, free healthcare, free housing, a state without a debt, etc.
Of course they are not interested in the welfare of all the libyans, but having a strong autocratic regime like gadafi had would greatly improve reconstruction, and in return will allow a bunch of corporations to make a shitload of money and extract oil peacefully.

Plundering minerals, food and wood is relatively easy to do without any infrastructure, Oil and natural gas, not so much.

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah, it's not certain how you can even extract oil if different gangs of armed men go around blowing up refineries and pipelines, and it will still take years before oil production reaches Gaddafi-era levels.

[The Cheshire Cat]

They are succeding in stealing oil beccause the NTC create some sort of unity, with all that gone, its gonna be verry hard to extract oil. Have you ever seen what a drilling operation look like, all the experts and the logistic needed to keep the whole thing running? Blackwater was not even able to roam around bagdad with a truck of cooking pot and frying pan without getting wacked and embushed, what make you think the militia will leave a bunch of truck drivers and boat getting away with something that precious?

The NTC is barely united. They are constantly fighting with eachother. Only some of the leaders live peacefull with one another because if they don't, they loose their power and a part of their money. That is not unity.

Besides, both Lybian oil Refineries (Ra's Lanuf Refinery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27s_Lanuf_Refinery) and Zawiya Refinery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zawiya_Refinery) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil_refineries_in_Libya) are located at the coast, just a few metres away from the coast (http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&tab=wl and http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&tab=wl).

It is not like they have to drive through deserts and cities. They just need to secure the refinery, as the refineries are litteraly located at the coast and the shore. If there was a big flood, the refineries would be under water.

The western and Arabian tankers that will get the oil are probably guarded by US marine ships or something. They can't take the risk of a couple of AT weapons blowing up all the oil ofcourse.

So a civil war will be of almost no problems for the US, except for the costs of the marine ships and the bribe money for a tribe or mercenaries. These costs will be annihilated with the profit they gain from selling weapons etc.


Its more complicated than that, banker, weapon manufacturer and contractors are not all operating within a single voice, diverging buisness, diverging interest. For every corporation that will make a shitload of money from the ongoing chaos, i can find you another that will profit from the stability of an autocratic regime.


Ofcourse it is more complicated, it always is. But I do think by far the most corporations will make profit from a civil war. The corporations that will make profit from a stable autocratic regime are in lesser numbers and far less powerfull that the corporations that do make a profit out of it. So the US certainly has more to gain in a civil war than in a peacefull relationship.

The only thing that they must hate is that they can't make an extension for their power out of Libya, now Mubarak and others are gone. They do need that at the moment. The NTC has a little power, bot not in the most parts of it's own country.

Ofcourse we still have to see the outcome of the revolutions in Tunis and Egypt. Maybe they will succeed in putting new strawmen in power. I don't know much about the elections in the other countries yet. All I've heard that I believe in Tunis there was a candidate for the elections that was accused by the people of Tunis to be a US strawman. I haven't heard much of it though.



Plundering minerals, food and wood is relatively easy to do without any infrastructure, Oil and natural gas, not so much.

Like I said earlier, there is not need for an infrastructure for the extraction of oil and gas, since the refineries are located at the beach. Another thing that might be a problem is the pipelines. They would have to protect those too. But that is the case in more countries, and the other countries mostly succeed in defending their pipelines too.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Yeah, it's not certain how you can even extract oil if different gangs of armed men go around blowing up refineries and pipelines, and it will still take years before oil production reaches Gaddafi-era levels.

There are gangs that will try to blow up the pipelines and there will be gangs that will be defending the pipelines. Probably more gangs to defend them, now I think of it.

To whom goes most of the oil? The US. Who is providing the gangs with weapons and ammunition? The US.

So except for the Greens, most gangs will try to keep the US befriended. So they can't blow up the pipelines. They might try to take control over them though. But this doesn't have to be a big problem for the US, as long as gangs that are dependent of their ammo and weaponry supplies take control over them.

They still have to protect the pipelines from hostile gangs and maybe the Lybian people though. But they are not the only country that have to protect their pipelines, and most other countries succeed in defending their pipelines. So it is not mission impossible.

[danyboy27]

The NTC is barely united. They are constantly fighting with eachother. Only some of the leaders live peacefull with one another because if they don't, they loose their power and a part of their money. That is not unity.
.
Initially they appeared to be somehow united, the west probably expected that some gadafi style leader would emerge from it and start take over the whole thing. it didnt.


The NTC is barely united. They are constantly fighting with eachother. Only some of the leaders live peacefull with one another because if they don't, they loose their power and a part of their money. That is not unity.

Besides, both Lybian oil Refineries (Ra's Lanuf Refinery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27s_Lanuf_Refinery) and Zawiya Refinery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zawiya_Refinery) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil_refineries_in_Libya) are located at the coast, just a few metres away from the coast (http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&tab=wl and http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&tab=wl).

It is not like they have to drive through deserts and cities. They just need to secure the refinery, as the refineries are litteraly located at the coast and the shore. If there was a big flood, the refineries would be under water.
.

Ofcourse it is more complicated, it always is. But I do think by far the most corporations will make profit from a civil war. The corporations that will make profit from a stable autocratic regime are in lesser numbers and far less powerfull that the corporations that do make a profit out of it. So the US certainly has more to gain in a civil war than in a peacefull relationship.
.[/QUOTE]
a civil war will mean less or no oil extracted, and some weapon sales(lybya is already flooded with gadafi era weapons). a takeover will mean reconstruction job, privatisation of the public sector AND oil industry, and a steady sale of verry expensive weapon to an increasingly autocratic regime. You cant sell a squadron of apache helicopter or a multi million f-15 to a militia movement, but you can do it to an autocratic regime like saudi arabia.





[QUOTE=Student;2378885]
Like I said earlier, there is not need for an infrastructure for the extraction of oil and gas, since the refineries are located at the beach. Another thing that might be a problem is the pipelines. They would have to protect those too. But that is the case in more countries, and the other countries mostly succeed in defending their pipelines too.
And the oil derrick, and the pumping station, and the worker working at the facilities, and the power plant and the phone line and the road system and...
you need a national infrastructure to extract a ressource like that, you got no choice, no matter how close you are from the beach.

and beside, just like in the criminal world, bribing aint gonna always work, one time or another, some folks will takeover the power plant, or a pumping station, or a derrick and this kind of continuous incident will slow down the amount of oil you can extract.

It might seem simple to extract oil and natural gas, but its not.

[danyboy27]

To whom goes most of the oil? The US. Who is providing the gangs with weapons and ammunition? The US.

You are naive if you think the chinese will miss an opportunity to get their hand on oil. The us is not the only one to sell weapon, russia and china does that at a way better price.



So except for the Greens, most gangs will try to keep the US befriended. So they can't blow up the pipelines. They might try to take control over them though. But this doesn't have to be a big problem for the US, as long as gangs that are dependent of their ammo and weaponry supplies take control over them.
.

Has i demonstrated earlier, not necessarly.



They still have to protect the pipelines from hostile gangs and maybe the Lybian people though. But they are not the only country that have to protect their pipelines, and most other countries succeed in defending their pipelines. So it is not mission impossible.
there are not many pipelines right now in libya.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Initially they appeared to be somehow united, the west probably expected that some gadafi style leader would emerge from it and start take over the whole thing. it didnt.


Please stop calling it Gadaffi style. The US don't like the Gadaffi style. Just call it a dictator, if that's what you mean.

Oil industry does not belong any longer to the Lybian people. Another privatised company took over, I think it's from some Arabs now, the friends of the US. So that's okay for the US.

Also, don't forget that some tribes, especially in the East, are sitting on oil and are very rich. If they get a fair price for their oil they are richenough to buy some armored vehicles or helicopters. And maybe some more advanced weapons. And what do you mean with flood with Gadaffi era weapons? It's not like Gadaffi distributed them amongst the Lybian people.
On the Contrairy, Gadaffi was the first African leader to give his normal police no guns. That didn't work uot very well though.






And the oil derrick, and the pumping station, and the worker working at the facilities, and the power plant and the phone line and the road system and...
you need a national infrastructure to extract a ressource like that, you got no choice, no matter how close you are from the beach.


Ofcourse, but you don't have to spread it, just build everything in one compley near the beach. Some things may have to stand somewhere else, but it wouldn't be to much things.



and beside, just like in the criminal world, bribing aint gonna always work, one time or another, some folks will takeover the power plant, or a pumping station, or a derrick and this kind of continuous incident will slow down the amount of oil you can extract.

It probably will, but the US keeps falling for that trick. Just look at Sadam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc.
They might fall for it again.

[The Cheshire Cat]

You are naive if you think the chinese will miss an opportunity to get their hand on oil. The us is not the only one to sell weapon, russia and china does that at a way better price.

Don't start the 'if you think this and this, you are naïve/retarded/an idiot' thingy. It is like threatening, and I don't like that.

Ofcourse they won't miss an opportunity. But there is no opportunity here as far as I know. After the fall of Tripoli, I saw on the French television a diagram which showed the Lybian oil was already divided amongst the Western countries. US got the most, ofcourse. But it's not like they are selling it at the moment. It is just being shipped to the Western countries and every countries gets his share according to their help to the US.

And I have never heard of Russia and China selling weapons in Lybia. You got a link?


Has i demonstrated earlier, not necessarly.

It was a message to Borz, not to you.



there are not many pipelines right now in libya.

Which makes it even easier to defend them.

[danyboy27]

Please stop calling it Gadaffi style. The US don't like the Gadaffi style. Just call it a dictator, if that's what you mean.
.
The U.S liked gadafi for a while, even sent peoples get tortured over there.
Gadafi was a dictator and a pawn of the U.S governement, what happened to him is no more different of what happened to saddam or other regimes used by the U.S governement. Its was a dictatorship, for a while caused troubles to the U.S, was bribed by the U.S, used and then disposed of.



Oil industry does not belong any longer to the Lybian people. Another privatised company took over, I think it's from some Arabs now, the friends of the US. So that's okay for the US.

You see, Libya is member of the OPEC and virtually every arab countries(with oil) are also member of it. That mean the price of oil will still be determined by OPEC, the Oil is not gonna be cheaper than usual.


o, don't forget that some tribes, especially in the East, are sitting on oil and are very rich. If they get a fair price for their oil they are richenough to buy some armored vehicles or helicopters. And maybe some more advanced weapons. And what do you mean with flood with Gadaffi era weapons? It's not like Gadaffi distributed them amongst the Lybian people.
On the Contrairy, Gadaffi was the first African leader to give his normal police no guns. That didn't work uot very well though.

Advanced weapons are useless without training and logistics. It does not matter how rich x province is, if its under constant attack, they are not gonna be able to use, let alone maintain those.

Gadafi had a SHITLOAD of weapons stockpiled trought the country, when the war broke out, the cost of Ak-47 and RPG dropped in the whole region, there where ton of small arms, ammunition, rocket luncher stockpiled everywhere before the war broke. One of the reason for that was the sweet deal the George bush and gadafi during the early year after september 11. Beccause gadafi gave up his chemical and nuke program, the U.S lifted most of the embargo that where in place, it allowed Libya to purchase a lot of russian and american weapons.




Ofcourse, but you don't have to spread it, just build everything in one compley near the beach. Some things may have to stand somewhere else, but it wouldn't be to much things.


You cant really do it, since the oil derricks are pretty spread out trough the oil rich region.

[danyboy27]

Don't start the 'if you think this and this, you are naïve/retarded/an idiot' thingy. It is like threatening, and I don't like that.
.
i didnt wanted to insult you, but your reasoning is Naive.

Ofcourse they won't miss an opportunity. But there is no opportunity here as far as I know. After the fall of Tripoli, I saw on the French television a diagram which showed the Lybian oil was already divided amongst the Western countries. US got the most, ofcourse. But it's not like they are selling it at the moment. It is just being shipped to the Western countries and every countries gets his share according to their help to the US.
.
got any sources for that?


And I have never heard of Russia and China selling weapons in Lybia. You got a link?
.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/russia-announces-ban-on-arms-sales-to-libya-1.348314
a 2 billion dollars contract prior to the invasion. Armored vehicules, Ak-47, rpg, AA gun, it was mostly russian stuff.

[danyboy27]

Which makes it even easier to defend them.

I was responding to your claim that the there will be a lot of pipelines controlled by many countries in libya.

[The Cheshire Cat]

The U.S liked gadafi for a while, even sent peoples get tortured over there.
Gadafi was a dictator and a pawn of the U.S governement, what happened to him is no more different of what happened to saddam or other regimes used by the U.S governement. Its was a dictatorship, for a while caused troubles to the U.S, was bribed by the U.S, used and then disposed of.


That is just propaganda. It's just to make their war more legimate. The people they were talking about were actually Lybians. Ofcourse they were sent back to Lybia, they had no meaning for the US. Gadaffi hated the US and often had speeches for the Arabian Nations to tell them they had to stand up against the US.



You see, Libya is member of the OPEC and virtually every arab countries(with oil) are also member of it. That mean the price of oil will still be determined by OPEC, the Oil is not gonna be cheaper than usual.


It's probably going to be free for a certain amount for certain countries, as a 'reward' for their help.


Advanced weapons are useless without training and logistics. It does not matter how rich x province is, if its under constant attack, they are not gonna be able to use, let alone maintain those.

If you have a guided missile launcher, you don't have to aim. Shoot and forget is what I believe the US militairy call those weapons. You just wait until the weapons bleeps so you know it has a tank for example on the radar and you pull the trigger. You don't have to aim very well to do that.



Gadafi had a SHITLOAD of weapons stockpiled trought the country, when the war broke out, the cost of Ak-47 and RPG dropped in the whole region, there where ton of small arms, ammunition, rocket luncher stockpiled everywhere before the war broke.


During the fightings in Tripoli, there were litterally NATO helicopters flying over to drop ammo and weapon supplies all over the country. There are a shitload of American weapons there now too. I doubt however they gave the Lybians the 'good' stuff, probably old Russian weapons. It would have been stupid f they dropped their own weapons.

[The Cheshire Cat]

got any sources for that?

I'm looking for it, as soon as I find it I will send it to you. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/russia-announces-ban-on-arms-sales-to-libya-1.348314)


http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/russia-announces-ban-on-arms-sales-to-libya-1.348314
a 2 billion dollars contract prior to the invasion. Armored vehicules, Ak-47, rpg, AA gun, it was mostly russian stuff.
(http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/russia-announces-ban-on-arms-sales-to-libya-1.348314)

You got your new from an Isreali new website. Isreal was probably even more excited for the war in Lybia than the US were. It really is about the most untrustworthy source you can find.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I was responding to your claim that the there will be a lot of pipelines controlled by many countries in libya.

I wasn't claiming that. I said other countries have to defend their own pipelines in their own countries. Like Isreal. Sometimes one pipeline gets blown up, but they mostly succeed in defending them.

[The Cheshire Cat]

What I just thought of, US might not have interest in a stable Libya, the US has certainly an interest in a autonomous and independent stable East-Libya. I mean, they don't really care about the rest of the country. If there is a war there, it is good for selling weapons and ammo and maybe even oil for their trucks. Because they can't get oil for their trucks when East-Lybia which has the most oil is no longer part of Lybia.

So that way US can both easily sell/take and distract the oil from East-Libya and sell weaponry to West-Libya at the both time. That would be perfect for the US ofcourse.

[danyboy27]

Russian arm sales
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/europe/05russia.html

Libya helped to torture for the U.S and Brittish governement.
http://intelnews.org/2011/09/05/01-812/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/03/us-libya-usa-cia-idUSTRE78213Y20110903
http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/tony-blair-watch/878-how-tony-blair-helped-gaddafi-torture-libyan-dissidents

Libyan massive weapon caches.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15532923
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/libya-video-shows-unguarded-surface-air-missiles/story?id=14827930

[danyboy27]

Hell, a big corporation here in Quebec called SNC-lavalin helped gadafi to build bunker and jail for him.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/snc-lavalin-defends-libyan-prison-project/article1919872/comments/

[danyboy27]

An interesting article concerning the future of the libyan oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/next-war-libya-one-for-oil

[The Cheshire Cat]

I had a whole reaction on your message, but for some reason I couldn't post it and now everything is lost, so I will tell the shorter version as I don't want to type everything again.




Russian arm sales
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/europe/05russia.html



Replacing an Israeli source by a rightwing US source doesn't help. Besides, Libya was souvereign nation under constant threath of terrorist attacks and from time to time even US attacks ( like when 2 Libyan jets were shot down by US jets for no reason, or when US bombared a part of Libya which got Gadaffi's daughter killed). Libya had the right to buy weapons.Besides, all countries buy weapons.




Libya helped to torture for the U.S and Brittish governement.
http://intelnews.org/2011/09/05/01-812/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/03/us-libya-usa-cia-idUSTRE78213Y20110903
http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/tony-blair-watch/878-how-tony-blair-helped-gaddafi-torture-libyan-dissidents



Intelnews --> A blog run by 2 US 'intelligence experts'. I wouldn't trust those. They don't even investigate what they post. They say the same thing as other major media and give comments on it.


Reuters --> US rightwing media. They tell lot's of bullshit.


StopWar --> seems okay. They only tell about one Libyan man arrested by MI7 and given to Libya though. They do not report of governments delivering people to Libya to get them tortured. We don't even know why the man was exiled, arrested and tortured. I believe it isn't even in the message, which is weird.


Besides, every government tortures. I'm not saying it is okay though. But the US and UK don't have to send people to Libya for torture. There is nothing Libya can do what the CIA can't. Control on torture in US and probably in the UK too is very weak and in the US (don't know about the UK) the controllers are often not allowed to visit people who are getting tortured.


And why would Libya accept people to torture them? Libya was not a friend of the US. He often told the Arab Nations to stand up against the US. And he supported the IRA until his very own death in their battle against the English troops. He even gave weapons and to the IRA. So the UK didn't like him very much probably.




Libyan massive weapon caches.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15532923
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/libya-video-shows-unguarded-surface-air-missiles/story?id=14827930



Both BBC and ABC are US rightwing propaganda machines.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Don't start the 'if you think this and this, you are naïve/retarded/an idiot' thingy. It is like threatening, and I don't like that.

Language Please.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Language Please.

I'm sorry, but why can't I say that? I'm not insulting anybody ( if I did, I'm sorry), I'm giving some examples of what certain people sometimes say.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'm sorry, but why can't I say that? I'm not insulting anybody ( if I did, I'm sorry), I'm giving some examples of what certain people sometimes say.

Discriminatory language against those with cognitive disabilities is not allowed on this forum. It is a matter of principal which Rev-Left upholds.Even if you are not insulting anybody it is a bigoted word to use nonetheless and as such it is prohibited here.Discuss this with a Admin if you wish to know more though the policy is strict.

[danyboy27]

Bourgeois sources are not necessarly unreliable, you gotta pay attention to what you are reading tho.

But hey, if you want to patronize everyone who is using bourgeois sources, be my guest.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/detroit-mayors-new-t168775/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/gunmen-kill-27-t168760/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/putin-re-elected-t168611/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/sarkozy-too-many-t168723/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/stagnation-military-spending-t168563/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/senator-john-mccains-t168672/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/cia-and-truth-t168695/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/shocking-video-libya-t168544/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/700-gunmen-surrender-t168781/index.html

Media outlet like reuters are also reporting that the NTC is responsable for massive torture and mass killing.

Just beccause the bourgeois media say something you dont like does not mean its false.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Discriminatory language against those with cognitive disabilities is not allowed on this forum. It is a matter of principal which Rev-Left upholds.Even if you are not insulting anybody it is a bigoted word to use nonetheless and as such it is prohibited here.Discuss this with a Admin if you wish to know more though the policy is strict.

Okay than, I'm sorry. I did not mean someone with cognitive disabilities. I just meant it as a generic bad name.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Bourgeois sources are not necessarly unreliable, you gotta pay attention to what you are reading tho.

But hey, if you want to patronize everyone who is using bourgeois sources, be my guest.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/detroit-mayors-new-t168775/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/gunmen-kill-27-t168760/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/putin-re-elected-t168611/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/sarkozy-too-many-t168723/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/stagnation-military-spending-t168563/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/senator-john-mccains-t168672/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/cia-and-truth-t168695/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/shocking-video-libya-t168544/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/700-gunmen-surrender-t168781/index.html

Media outlet like reuters are also reporting that the NTC is responsable for massive torture and mass killing.

Just beccause the bourgeois media say something you dont like does not mean its false.

I dont think patronize means what you think it means... But that doesn't matter. I agree that not every single message is false. It does become more untrusthworthy though when only bourgeois media report about it. If it were also independent media saying the same thing, it probably wouldn't be false. But so far I only got bourgeoisie media sources, 1 source that was a little bit 'weird' and one source saying something different than what you were claiming.

And Reuters started reporting about atrocities of the NTC after the Civil war. It was too late then. They do that stuff on purpose. They know who their dealing with and they report very little and mostly too late about the bad thing about them. That is too me as worse as lieing.

[danyboy27]

I dont think patronize means what you think it means... But that doesn't matter. I agree that not every single message is false. It does become more untrusthworthy though when only bourgeois media report about it..

Or it could also mean the only one with the structure to report it are the bourgeois.
Dont forget that most of the indie press rely on the bourgeois news.


If it were also independent media saying the same thing, it probably wouldn't be false. But so far I only got bourgeoisie media sources, 1 source that was a little bit 'weird' and one source saying something different than what you were claiming.

Do you really need an indie guy to go in Russia, ask the russian if they sold weapon to libya, then to libya to witness with his/her own eyes the weapon caches? Russian confirmed it sold weapons to libya, what else do you want?




And Reuters started reporting about atrocities of the NTC after the Civil war. It was too late then. They do that stuff on purpose. They know who their dealing with and they report very little and mostly too late about the bad thing about them. That is too me as worse as lieing.
Actually the bourgeois news did reported summary executions and kidnapping before and during the civil war.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/stopbombinglibya/kingsley2/1/hello-world/

[The Cheshire Cat]

Or it could also mean the only one with the structure to report it are the bourgeois.
Dont forget that most of the indie press rely on the bourgeois news.

Bourgeoisie media have the same sources as indie media. Namely reporters. There are also independent indie reporters. Besides, there are only a couple bourgeoisie media, like Reuters and Associated Press, that 'make' the news. Only they have reporters. Most other media buy the news from them and copy it without even checking it. This has been proven numeral times.


Do you really need an indie guy to go in Russia, ask the russian if they sold weapon to libya, then to libya to witness with his/her own eyes the weapon caches? Russian confirmed it sold weapons to libya, what else do you want?

No, I need a trustworthy independent man/woman with contacts in Russia and/or Libya that can come up with prove. Do you really only need a bourgeoisie guy to ' go to Russia, ask the Russians if they sold weapons to Libya, then go to Libya to witness with his/her own eyes the weapon caches' ? Because most of the times, Bourgeoisie reporters don't do that. They buy news or they adjust it to their likings.


Actually the bourgeois news did reported summary executions and kidnapping before and during the civil war.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/stopbombinglibya/kingsley2/1/hello-world/

Yes, that is why is said 'mostly' . There were some messages about atrocities from the NTC, but those were only very very very few and they did not pay much attention to those messages. There were far more, and often incorrect, messages about alleged atrocities by the Libyan Army and loyalists.

But we are getting of topic. I suggest we stop this discussion, as it doesn't attribute to this thread. Besides, you will not be able to convince me on this matter and I am probably not able to convince you as long as we keep talking about details like this.

[Sir Comradical]

Pretty sure I predicted this shit a year ago.