I think the Rebellion in Libya deserves it's own thread separate from other discussion of countries facing political unrest in the Middle East. The situation in Libya has become completely violent unlike the recent political unrest spread across the Middle East which has been chaterized by an opposition that is completely non-violent.

Libya is in the beginnings of a Civil War. Gaddafi holds Tripoli in the West and few other cities. The Rebels hold the second largest city Benghazi and oil fields in the East. Gaddafi has used mercenaries to kill and attack protesters, civilians and rebel forces. Gadafi has seen many mass defections from his armed forces, but continues to hold on to power. The military in Libya has never been particularly strong due to Gaddafi being fearful of them.

The U.N Security Council has issued strong condemnations on Gaddafi as have most leaders in the world. A No Fly Zone is currently being considered by N.A.T.O to try and accelerate the downfall of Gaddafi. Hugo Chavez has attempted to broker a peace between the warring parties to little avail. Dutch military personnel have been captured by Gaddafi forces and British S.A.S were captured and then released by Rebel forces in the East.

Latest News

@Reuters
Reuters Top News
Libyan rebels beat back attack on Misrata: residents reut.rs/i2bUgh
39 minutes ago via Tweet Button

@cnnbrk
Sources: British special forces briefly detained by Libyan opposition forces have left country. http://on.cnn.com/hNwtQB
about 1 hour ago from web

Yahoo: (AP) Libya forces fight rebels advancing toward capital

Gaddafi is off his rocker. Libya has oil money that they could easily use to cull this rebellion peacefully. In Saudi, King Abdullah payed off his citizens in fear that they would have a revolution of their own. It seems a lot less messy than mowing down your own citizens. I read in Time Magazine that when Gaddafi first ordered several planes to attack the citizens, the pilots of those planes never did what Gaddafi requested. It seems like he is slowly but surely losing his power. I guess once you have been in power for 40 years in such a corrupt government you do what you know. Scare people into submission.

When Gaddafi first came to power, he was a war hero(a colonel) Libya's people were celebrating in the streets. It was his own coup that resulted in the fall of the Shah. Very ironic the way he is dealing with this uprising.

Caught on Video: General Petraeus And Secretary Gates Share Private Joke About Attacking Libya..

It seems they are on the verge of a civil war on Libya, so ridicoulous that a country that has managed decent economic situation and has the higher standard of living in Africa finds itself in this situation.
Also unlike the cases of Tunisia and Egypt everybody was on the west was on the same page, now we have clear differences between those who want the NATO to get involved and those who dont.
I dont know, I feel this is going to end badly .

They are clearly joking, we are not going to invade them haha. But it would not surprise me if we somehow did

Lets just hope USA can resist the temptation of using chemical weapons.

What I don't understand is how a country that achieved such a high standard of living like Iran would overthrow the Shah of Iran, and install a different government. It is perplexing.

But it really isn't when you actually look at the country instead of its leader. Gaddafi purposefully impoverished the Benghazi side of the country while enriching his own clan that is located around Tripoli. There was a reason that the revolution started around Benghazi and surrounding cities and not where the Gaddafi tribe was. Also this should give you an idea that inspite of a decent economic situation ( for a few people) there were severe limitations on civil liberties written by Libyian poster in another forum ( who I haven't heard from in a week)

So in the end the revolution/ civil war wasn't wholly unpredictable. It was very predictable if you believe in things like human dignity, human rights, etc.

The media makes it seems like these rebels are everywhere and that they are the majority. I highly doubt they are the majority. Gaddafi imo has the right to bomb those people into oblivion until they stop the uprising. It just seems most of the people would not want the overthrow to happen now with a possibly of civil war. So most people do not want the violence. Solution is to not do anything. Let Gaddafi stop the rebellion then you have some elections.
But ohhh no lets invade he ordered the Lockerbie bombing hahaha. They are all a joke

Your theory is invalid.

Ya i believe this guy he must be a great source and that the majority agree with him. I am wrong

Thank god you've given us this accurate insider info. I am so glad that someone who actually knows what is going on has commented in this thread. It is so useful when knowledgeable people report what they know. Please continue sharing your thoughts in this thread.

Please continue sharing your opinion. You have given us all insight into the world that most spend a lifetime searching for. We are grateful, and we hope you have more to teach us.

Why does he have the right to violently surpress peaceful demonstrations? The violence of the opposition forces is in reaction to the violence by the Qaddafi clan. What other mean of oppisition is there, if all non-violent options are continuously responded to with violence?

Qaddafi's entire reign is built on fear and violence, he has no right to do any of the things he does, but since he is so powerful and has so many resources at his disposal, he could do it anyway.

The idea of Gaddafi stopping the rebellion and then having elections is complete madness.

Titus,

Afaik Robert Fisk is a drunk old fool these days so take it with a grain of salt.

Does he even provide any evidence for the claim in that article? I can't find any.

There are plenty of much better reporters from the region. Fisk is an ideologue.

Its not just the right wing part http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...bert-fisk.html

Abu Muqawama (Andrew Exum) is a very prominent blogger and scholar of contemporary security issues, the Middle East and counter-insurgency, he was an Afghanistan advisor to President Obama and is a pretty important figure in the Democratic security institution right now. It doesn't show the whole of the left rejects Fisk (they don't), but he is an example of the big part of the left which does reject Fisk as a crank, a hack and an ideologue. Fisk is loved by the anti-American/anti-Imperialist left, and mostly by the far-left. Much of the more moderate left, the centre-left or establishment left (for want of better words) reject Fisk as a hack.

Fisk is basically the journalist equivalent of Chomsky. Loved by the hard-left and many on the left, but still rejected as a bit of a crank and a radical by wide swathes of it.

I still love the column he wrote which prompted the term Fisking to be invented. He got beaten up by some Afghans fleeing the fighting in late 2001, and proceeded to blame himself for being a white man, saying them beating up and robbing him was perfectly justified basically since he was an oppressive white man and they were oppressed brown men. It was just awful.

Sam Kinnason was right...to win the war just drop cheeseburgers on them

Especially for the brown men,having been forced to step so low.

I don't know. It sounds very possible, maybe even probable. I'd quite like to see evidence though - something Fisk doesn't give (and it's hardly an isolated incident). I'm a stickler for evidence - I don't like relying on hearsay recounted by left-wing ideologues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

Aspirations for democracy explain it. He was a brutal dictator, terrorizing people with Savak, his secret police. Up until 1954, it was a parliamentary democracy and people remembered that and wanted to go back to it. But he so thoroughly devastated the political opposition that few rivals remained, outside the Mosque. So Khomeini and the Islamists dominated the revolution. And besides, the wealth went to a rather narrow layer of people.

If you are interested, Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men is a good read.

Obama does not have the balls...
He will just solemnly pronounce empty threats...
The kind of stuff that doesn't work in a school yard.

Meanwhile, in Africa men still have balls...
Qaddafi may be the Embodiment of Evil...
But you have to admire his willingness to FIGHT.

His forces are LIQUIDATING the untrained rebels...
While Western correspondents and media...
Lather the uprising with romantic spin.

Qaddafi's air force is just for show...
The real fight is T-72 tanks versus AK47s.

http://www.debka.com/article/20743/

ok, this is the mizzing puzzle in the piece, I made the mistake of looking at the whole data.