...Should the West Arm Libya's Rebels?

**french frank** · 27-08-11, 10:27

Two things: the BBC's use of the word 'rebel' is most unlikely to be because 'reporters are not necessarily bright nor perceptive'. The BBC holds regular meetings to decide what terminology should be used ('insurgents' v 'terrorists' in the Middle East was one such example) in news reports. The National Transitional Council has still not been recognised by the majority of the UN members and that may explain why 'rebel' is still being used. It's also clear that the fighters themselves are not yet a united force, and it's not yet clear who or what they all represent.

Secondly, events move on. The hope is that the NTC will develop into a party of government which has the support of the majority of Libyans, that humanitarian aid will be offered quickly and any help requested for restructuring also given by other countries. These are the important issues.

Does anyone remember reading that Mahmoud Jibril said something to the effect that he should himself stand trial as a long-time member of Gaddafi's government - or did I dream that?

Edit: Or was it Jalil? - I keep getting the two names mixed up . Or neither of them?

**Serial_Apologist** · 27-08-11, 11:06

Rebels... hmmm. The leaders of the insurrection speak with wisdom and good sense, and this must provide hope worldwide. Many sympathetic to the Republican's cause during the Spanish Civil War flocked there to help out the "rebels". Many understood the "permanent revolution" dynamic to events of that time; i.e. that with fascism on the rise, the SCW would be a defining historical moment, transcendent of race, religion or nationality. And, as part of a bigger picture, so it turned out to be. I am reminded of that in seeing the numbers of Libyan ex-pats actively over there engaged in the struggle to topple Gaddafi and his remnants.

What remains unclear is the key ideological driver behind the revolution - whereas it did appear clearer in the case of Egypt: an open democratic state non-discriminating between religious groups and none. The "liberal" in me - small "l" - joins in with those who say we should stay out and leave the Lybians uninterfered to determine their own country's future - arguing that revolutionaries should themselves calculate the costs in terms of advantage and human life before launching a bid for power - Lenin was hot on this in October 1917 - while the "radical" in me says, which forces are to the forefront in the pace for change? And why are Western governments, especially the ConDems, so keen to see them succeed?

S-A

**amateur51** · 27-08-11, 11:27

Originally posted by Simon View Post

Oh come on, ff. Don't be shy. It's a straightforward enough question - an a] or a b] will do..

So, was it

a] the morally right thing to do to intervene in Libya to protect those men, women and children whom Gaddi had sworn to "exterminate" for opposing him, or

b] should we have just let him get on with it on the grounds that it wasn't our problem.

Edit: in fact, why limit this to ff? A quick poll would be good. So come on, everbody, let's have your views. a] or b]. I'm not afraid to give mine - a] every time.

Ever the simplistic choice, Simon

According to Wyre Davies for the BBC and several other journos, there has been awful slaughter in spite of NATO's best efforts

Bodies littered floor of Tripoli hospital

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14689347

The gruesome scene at the Abu Salim hospital in Tripoli serves as a reminder of what Libya and its people have to overcome as they seek to finally defeat Col Gaddafi, says the BBC's Wyre Davies.

**Serial_Apologist** · 27-08-11, 11:34

Originally posted by amateur51 View Post

Ever the simplistic choice, Simon

According to Wyre Davies for the BBC and several other journos, there has been awful slaughter in spite of NATO's best efforts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14689347

This is the dilemma, see - to intervene or not? On what grounds? With whose encouragement? And at whose behest?

**amateur51** · 27-08-11, 11:59

Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post

This is the dilemma, see - to intervene or not? On what grounds? With whose encouragement? And at whose behest?

Agreed S_A - UN & NATO should have persuaded the African Union to play a more useful and committed role as a peace broker and protector of civilians. Unfortunately they are distrustful of any organisations in which USA, UK and France are heavily involved, for understandable reasons, but there again, they could have held these nations more to account for a change. As always, it's time for the men in suits to get off their bums and do something positive for a change

Cometh the hour, cometh the ....?

**Flosshilde** · 27-08-11, 23:22

Originally posted by amateur51 View Post

Agreed S_A - UN & NATO should have persuaded the African Union to play a more useful and committed role

Hmm - if you look at the members - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union#Members - you'll see a few who wouldn't be too keen on giving any support to popular uprisings against bloody dictators, & who might now be a little bit worried about their grip on power.

**teamsaint** · 28-08-11, 09:56