So apparently even Britain and France are opposing arming the rebels at the moment. When the fuck would they get it's the only way to put an end to this dictator and his crazy extinction war on his people.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Libya 2011 Demonstrations (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
The rebels are mostly normal people volunteering, even A.Younis said most of them don't have the slightest idea about fighting such a war, they can't even follow basic orders properly. The rebel army is very disorganized unfortunately, the only thing that has been holding them together is the fact that they're actually fighting for a cause they are ready to die for, which makes them fight with a lot of spirit and courage.
People saluting him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgsmcA3rd8Q&feature=player_embedded#at=34
I read it's from Tripoli. My friend lived there for 2-3 years
I read it's from Tripoli. My friend lived there for 2-3 years
Because when Britain last supplied arms to Libya it bit them on the ass. Basically there is a risk, a very real one, that those weapons would be seized by Gaddafi's troops and even used against rebel and allied forces. I'm pretty sure that the security agencies are supplying the right guys though 
Besides, as Gaddafi himself declared, he would supply Al Qaeda if western countries continue their aid to the Libyan people. So I would worry more about that than supplying the helpless civilians who are defending their freedom especially since Gaddafi himself is well known for supplying terrorist, Britain sure as hell know that.
Just to clear a few things up. How did Gaddafi get those weapons? Countries like Britain, Italy and France (and to a far larger extent, Russia) supplied them to Gaddafi. There is no speculation, this is a fact which has been discussed in the British parliament. He was buying billions of dollars worth of weapons off the Russians, which is why Putin is pissed. The issue isn't about Libyan rebels going after America, there is no threat there, it's simply to be seen as involved on the ground, either putting more weapons into the field or having troops involved. The mandate isn't to provide arms to the rebels, it's to take out Gaddafi targets. If the allied forces were to get into the battlefield arena it would be to use troops who can effectively use the weapons, they aren't going to gift millions of dollars worth of automatic weapons, launchers and tank busters to a bunch of farmers, shop workers and kids with a crate drop. They shouldn't be worried about supplying deadly weaponry to people who don't know how to use them? Hmmm, ok... Even if they aren't used on allies, journalists and bystanders they would eventually be taken off rebel troops and used against them, because there is a laughably bad structure to the rebel forces. But like I said already, I'm sure the right rebel soldiers are receiving enough help on the ground from the intelligence agencies.
I don't really get the last point? So if the allies provide aid to the rebels then Gaddafi will aid Al Qaeda? That doesn't sound much of an incentive to be honest. Besides, NATO are in control of operations now. And I hear that your arab brothers are on hand to supply rebels anyway, maybe they can organise some training at the same time.
I don't really get the last point? So if the allies provide aid to the rebels then Gaddafi will aid Al Qaeda? That doesn't sound much of an incentive to be honest. Besides, NATO are in control of operations now. And I hear that your arab brothers are on hand to supply rebels anyway, maybe they can organise some training at the same time.
You clearly missed the point. All I said was that the rebels should get the arms they ask for and Western countries should have nothing to worry about for two reasons: a) rebels aren't extremists but in fact freeedom fighters, civilian ones who only raised their weapons to fight for their right. So they will not fight, supply or indanger any of those countries in the future.
b) The kind of arms we're talking about here are ones of the same level of that in Gaddafi's hands. Since the rebels are far behind his troops in terms of weaponary, so even if some of these weapons hypotheticly fall in the wrong hands they won't be worse than the ones who are already in the hands of a blood thirsting dectator.
c) Countries that is now involved in Libya are against supplying rebels with weaponary regardless of the source. They just don't think it's a good idea ATM. That's what they declared anyway.
Gaddafi already threatened to support Al Qaeda ad other terrorist organizations if NATO and other western countries get involved in stopping his continuous massacres in Libya, which they did. So now it's not a question of will al qaeda receive support in Libya but rather a question of how to stop it. And obviously Gaddafi's downfall would put an end to that so supplying the rebels with arms actually serves not only Libyan's purposes of freedom but also the involved western countries' interests against AL Qaeda.
b) The kind of arms we're talking about here are ones of the same level of that in Gaddafi's hands. Since the rebels are far behind his troops in terms of weaponary, so even if some of these weapons hypotheticly fall in the wrong hands they won't be worse than the ones who are already in the hands of a blood thirsting dectator.
c) Countries that is now involved in Libya are against supplying rebels with weaponary regardless of the source. They just don't think it's a good idea ATM. That's what they declared anyway.
Gaddafi already threatened to support Al Qaeda ad other terrorist organizations if NATO and other western countries get involved in stopping his continuous massacres in Libya, which they did. So now it's not a question of will al qaeda receive support in Libya but rather a question of how to stop it. And obviously Gaddafi's downfall would put an end to that so supplying the rebels with arms actually serves not only Libyan's purposes of freedom but also the involved western countries' interests against AL Qaeda.
It is in Tripoli yes. They make sure that the streets he's going to is empty of any opposition before he goes out of course.
But look at this, part of the same video, where one of the people with him in the car falls off, Gedaffi looks back for a bit, and then continues his fist pumping like nothing happened. At approx 0:45
But look at this, part of the same video, where one of the people with him in the car falls off, Gedaffi looks back for a bit, and then continues his fist pumping like nothing happened. At approx 0:45
You say I don't get the point and then repeat the same points I have already replied to. That's not how you discuss. Not agreeing is a different thing. Anyhow, I wouldn't worry about any Gaddafi co-operation with Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri just called for muslims in surrounding countries to go to Libya and fight both NATO and it's allies and also Gaddafi and his forces.
Obviously I will repeat the same points of mine when I think you've not got the idea. Only making them simpler this time. What did you expect me to do? Switch sides or copy and paste a different opinion?
As for Al Qaeda, I wouldn't give much thought to what Ayman said, they're known for playing such media games. You don't really believe he gives his commands through the media to his followers right? Besides, I wouldn't worry about Qaeda that much right now in Libya, if anything countries should be worried about their actual undoubted presence in the Mali desert.
As for Al Qaeda, I wouldn't give much thought to what Ayman said, they're known for playing such media games. You don't really believe he gives his commands through the media to his followers right? Besides, I wouldn't worry about Qaeda that much right now in Libya, if anything countries should be worried about their actual undoubted presence in the Mali desert.
Apparently, EU awaits UN approval for deployment of ground troops.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/libya-conflict-eu-deployment-ground-troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/libya-conflict-eu-deployment-ground-troops
