Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Recommended Posts

The Russians grasped in Libya hold on military base in Bengasi.

The edition informs that «thus the Libyan insurgents don't give any explanations to the Russian journalists». As the newspaper informed the SIGHT, earlier on Friday of NTV has assured that the bases to be afraid for safety of journalists of a broadcasting company of NTV which together with correspondents of "Komsomol truth» were grasped by the Libyan insurgents, no...

 

Оооо, what kind insurgents...

It is a pity it is impossible that our special troops performed operation on clearing of journalists....

 

Are you actually suggesting the use of Spetsnaz troops against journalists to stop "rebel-influenced" news coverage might be a great idea?

 

Agreed. And if that's so, how can you justify it as being a right thing after your basing on NATO's initial intervention?

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If anything the rebel forces wouldn't touch foreign journalists, they're one of the biggest reasons why outside help has come in the first place. Sure Spetsnaz troops can come in and rescue Russian nationals, that's what's supposed to happen. If they were in any real danger at all, it would seem sufficient to send special forces to extract them. Recall about a month ago that it was Gadaffi's government forces who held captive and beat up several BBC reporters before the initial coalition strikes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Our conversation comes back to same)))

 

You need to stop reading Tomski Clansiski. Read some REAL headlines and articles covering the current battles/war/mess in Libya and you'll see that most of the injured/killed reporters were in Conflict zones being targeted by Pro-Gaddafi forces.

 

And if you're wondering who will "rescue" these journalists/reporters, Have you heard of this lovely bunch of people called the "SAS", "Delta", "KSK", "COS" etc?

 

I'd put more faith in Gaddafi having his arse handed to him the Nato/UN troops backing Rebels than I would having solely Rebels trying to kick him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SomeBloke, What source of the information? You participate in bombardment of Libya? Your friend or a member of a family participate in this military operation? Whence you receive real news? News Google!?)))))

Mass media don't have belief... And on the Internet of belief isn't present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SomeBloke, What source of the information? You participate in bombardment of Libya? Your friend or a member of a family participate in this military operation? Whence you receive real news? News Google!?)))))

Mass media don't have belief... And on the Internet of belief isn't present.

 

The funny thing is it seems that you get your information from so called "mass media". If it's published, it's mass media. The trick is reading between the lines, you don't have to be so cynical about every little word. It's not like they're saying we're not bombing Libya, we are. You're suggesting that the only real news you can get is if you yourself are inside Libya and and in the midst of the fighting. News agencies do what they do, some twisted a certain way, others aren't. We're pretty intelligent folk and can create our own conclusions. So please don't assume we don't know anything, because we do.

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

sirbenedictvs, well, on the basis of that you do the conclusions?

 

I do my own homework in regards to various news agencies, backgrounds on the conflicts, various online sources, books, past events and precedents. I tie all the information I acquire together and make my own conclusion based on my own personal opinion and belief on the matter. There is no such thing as right and wrong in this world, that is relative, only winners and losers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So can someone explain to me about the discussion that they thought about splitting the country

 

I don't believe that's actually something anyone really wants, it's just something that might come about "de facto" if two sides fight each other to a standstill in the middle of the country.

If you then have negotiations dragging on and on and on, while people start going about their daily routines again and even calling "their" country by a different name...well there's your split.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that's actually something anyone really wants, it's just something that might come about "de facto" if two sides fight each other to a standstill in the middle of the country.

If you then have negotiations dragging on and on and on, while people start going about their daily routines again and even calling "their" country by a different name...well there's your split.

 

See that's the problem with any sort of regime change in which there's a foreign factor involved. There's always going to be a power vacuum until a legitimate stable government can come about. Especially when there are multiple factions seeking power in the country, there may be a civil war following the ousting of the current leader. Best scenario would be if there's already a working government planned prior to the conflict's end. Even at that there will be opposition but it will eventually iron out. The tough part being the first few years of the actual regime change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao....the anti-Gaddafi club finally had one really good idea. Use the frozen assets of Libya in western countries to finance the rebel cause! Billions of dollars! They won't get it all right now of course, but still....

 

Best thing is, the Gaddafi-government (and presumably the great leader himself) is fuming over it!:ohyeah:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmao....the anti-Gaddafi club finally had one really good idea. Use the frozen assets of Libya in western countries to finance the rebel cause! Billions of dollars! They won't get it all right now of course, but still....

 

Best thing is, the Gaddafi-government (and presumably the great leader himself) is fuming over it!:ohyeah:

 

 

Hahaha he totally got screwed on that one huh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Considering but unlikely. The coalition only launched an air campaign to maintain air superiority against Gadaffi's military, any ground operations are supposed to be dealt by the rebels. We're only there to ensure Gadaffi isn't committing atrocities against his own people. He used his air force to attack the rebels and protesting civilians; that's what prompted international intervention (France was already involved before this point).

 

I agree with the first couple of sentences. I am assuming that the rebels, insurgents, or revoluntionaries (whichever term any person wants to utilize in this thread) do not have the monetary funds or even organization to maintain any kind of skilled defense...especially in regards to airpower. Besides the point that the US really cannot provide ground support/forces in a conflict such as this because we're still running operations in other parts of the Middle East (that are costing us more than we can afford to put out as it is), getting mired in a ground battle (especially after what has happened this May) could prove potentially dangerous and would make extreme unease in politics. Not that this is happening anytime soon...so...onward....

 

I suppose the "we" you refer to, Jeremy, is now the coalition forces, etc. And, of course, there is an underlying political issue with oil (there always has been), but the sanctions made by the UN are put into place to stop the "atrocities" that pro-Gaddafi forces have committed. An international organization's, such as this one's, intent is to recognize war crimes and crimes that call for war and sanction when there are crimes against humanity made. So, the intial incident that caused world-action was the air strike against protesters.

 

However, another huge factor weighing in these atrocities isn't just the killing of civilians by pro-Gaddafi airstrikes but also reports coming out of Libya that part of the suppression of the resisting side is through the claims by (someone said?) Unicef of troops shooting children, and this just coming to light: Hundreds report rapes by Gaddafi forces, article in the NZ Herald

 

According to the article, Dr. Seham Sergewa (London-trained psychologist) had put out a mass survey after treating women and children and men for psychological disorders/states as a result of the Libyan conflict. She found that 10,000 people are suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), 4,000 children have psychological problems. After a woman sought her counsel two months ago, Dr. Sergewa added a question to the survey about sexual assault. She found that 259 women reported they had been raped by Gaddafi's militias throughout Libyan cities.

 

Keep in mind, that is the number of women who have reported being raped. I fear that there are many more to report it in the coming months. Think about the number of women who have not reported this heinous act of violence.

 

Would you want this to become another Kurdistan? Another Bosnia? Another Rwanda?

 

Libya already has become like these places.

 

I had purchased, a week ago (unrelated to the reportings I mentioned in Libya), a book on the debate surrounding the issue of "Sexual Violence" (and its psychological effects) on a broad scale. I read a section regarding rape being used as a weapon of war. Barbara Crossette, who published a New York Times article "An Old Scourge of War Becomes Its Latest Crime" in 1998, mentions the following:

 

"...It is becoming increasingly apparent that the new style of warfare is often aimed specifically at women and is defined by a view of premeditated, organized sexual assault as a tactic in terrorizing and humiliating a civilian population."

 

This article further quotes a UNESCO statistic, emphasizing that reports of sexual violence in places such as Rwanda did not become evident until nine months after strife there had ended, when women began having babies from these rapes. I still find this all jaw-dropping and extremely shocking. The motive of bringing terror to rebel-oriented civilian neighborhoods, whether ordered directly by Gaddafi or not (still being debated), and its women and children is not only to exclusively achieve "humiliat[ion]" and break the resistance's spirit but to also (if considered successful) bring about the conception of children of "pro-Gaddafi forces".

 

 

SomeBloke, What source of the information? You participate in bombardment of Libya? Your friend or a member of a family participate in this military operation? Whence you receive real news? News Google!?)))))

Mass media don't have belief... And on the Internet of belief isn't present.

 

You are stating that in order to have accurate sources of information, you need to participate in the war-torn conflict occuring in Libya? In the coming years, would you say that books published by survivors of these horrid atrocities are simply not accurate and that hundreds of civilians have lied?

 

Mass media is anything that presents news or ideas through any mode or method of communication. This Forum is considered a part of mass media because of its discussion- and opinion-oriented nature. News reported by journalists is news and some corporations mix it with opinion . It's the reader's job to decide what to believe what is specifically true and what is false.

 

I feel that the following article: "'Forced to Rape in Masrata'" by BBC News states the issue fairly. I will not quote the article, to spare some harsh details, but the main idea and reports that are coming out of Libya is that pro-Gaddafi forces may have been ordered to rape civilian women. Two detainees, 17 and 21 year old, admitted to participating in this act in Masrata against four women (aged 20-24).

 

Although the author of the article, Andrew Harding, acknowledges that this interview with two detainees was produced by rebel forces (and therefore may have a chance of incredibility), he makes mention of Dr. Ismael Fortia, an obstetrician in Masrata who has been appointed to a medical committee to investigate allegations of the war crime, estimates "the final figure will probably run into the hundreds."

 

I don't know about you, but those women are just within my age bracket. It made me uncomfortable and angry to read. As it is, there is stigma all over the world in reporting crimes such as these from either gender. In areas with predominant religious faith, it is worse. Libyan women who have been affected have fear in admitting being survivors because of the high probability of being exiled from their communities and experiencing 'retribution' from their husbands, being potentially brought to a desert and left to die.

 

Dr. Sergewa made mention that she has diagnosed some women with "acute psychosis" (hallucinations and delusions) and some that are "very depressed; some want to commit suicide" because of their shame. It's saddening what the world has come down to and the method of war in civilian-war torn parts of the world.

 

Something has to be done about this. Gaddafi does not deserve the power he beholds and should no longer have the authority to retain it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

An end to the conflict is hopefully near. Col. Gadaffi's son was supposedly captured by the rebels and is being charged by the International Criminal Court. The rebel forces have punched into Tripoli and are methodically taking the city area by area. It's only a matter of time that his regime will topple. The question now is the cleanup and the rebuilding. I honestly hope that the rebel forces (if they win) would make use of the government forces they've been fighting this whole time to help maintain order and infrastructure of Libya.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol Y'all remember Baghdad Bob?

 

Dunno what his name was....but he was telling the media hilarious stories of how US-tank crews were supposedly committing suicide in their vehicles right in front of the gates of Baghdad cuz the situation was so "hopeless" for them...:king:.....I guess the daily press conference with that dude was like a comedy show for the journalists!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...