Caught on video: Horrifying proof that Libya's freedom fighters have turned into brutal torturers

[David__77]

A terrified Libyan man is beaten and tortured with electric shocks by youths who appear to be former revolutionary fighters.

The images, taken from a video handed to The Mail on Sunday in a Tripoli refugee camp, will be seen as fresh evidence that those who deposed Colonel Gaddafi with the help of the West are adopting methods as brutal as the dead tyrant’s.

The film shows three men tying up the blood-spattered man before whipping him repeatedly with cables, touching him on his skin with electric wires and taunting him as he pleads for mercy.


The man being whipped with cables on the video was Saleh Barhoun Gersh, who had run a general store in Towerga - which was loyal to Gaddafi during the conflict until the town was ransacked by fighters from nearby Misrata. When the rebels arrived, Mr Gersh was so frightened he wore women's clothes to disguise himself

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099957/Video-proof-Libyas-freedom-fighters-turned-brutal-torturers.html#ixzz1m7o00gg2

[Bonobo]

1. To some of us it was obvious that we were not backing "good guys".

Nor were US motivations virtuous in this military intervention.

There is very little that can be "fixed" by military intervention but a lot that can be fucked up.

[Arctic Dave]

3. It fixed everything we wanted fixed, the existing tax structure for oil exlporation and production.

But saying that makes you a meanie.

[TheWraith]

4. You mean the tax structure that robbed all oil revenue from the Libyan people?

And gave it to the dictator and his family? That one?

Your tired "the west is always evil" conspiracy theories are showing.

[Arctic Dave]

75. Do we really have to go through this again? Did you not learn your lesson last time?

"But under Moammar Gadhafi the terms of those deals were strict. The dictator effectively imposed a 93% tax on any oil the companies produced in Libya."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/25/news/international/libya_oil/index.htm

Now go piss off with your whiney comebacks.

[tabatha]

9. Really, can you provide some specific details?

I thought that a new government had not even been elected yet, and a body to write the constitution will only be elected in June. And that all oil contracts drawn up by Gaddafi would be honored.

Please, I would love to learn any other information about the oil contracts.

[Arctic Dave]

77. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson last time we went around on this.

Read the post to The Wraith.

Are you going to try and pull that tax/royalty BS like last time?

Also, honoring contracts and taxes have nothing to do with each. Honoring the contract just means they will be able to produce whatever they had agreed to, it doesn't mean they will still be held to the same tax structure.

Anything else about oil production you would like me to give you a clue about?

[tabatha]

5. Really? You are dismissing a whole nation because of the acts of a few.

Then all of those who backed the Blacks in South Africa backed bad guys, because crime and rape in South Africa are the highest in the world and it was not like that before 1994.

Simplistsic statements like that are just horrible.

[Bonobo]

8. I didn't dismiss a whole nation. I will tell you specifically who I dismissed.

I dismissed those who support US military intervention and pretend they are doing it for humanitarian reasons. There is very little than can be "fixed" by dropping bombs and killing.

I also dismissed the angry mobs that were part of the Libyan resistance we supported who hated Qaddafi in part because they said he was Jewish and others who hated him for using black people as part of his mercenaries. They went on savage hunt for black people living in Libya. Those are not the actions you want to see in a group that you are arming.

Period. End of my "dismissal".

[tabatha]

12. I supported the intervention because of humanitarian reasons.

NATO killed less than a 100 civilians and protected thousands from slaughter by Gaddafi - just as is happening in Syria now. I guess no interference is OK, even if people are slaughtered in the thousands.

Most of the "mobs" wanted to not be afraid any more and to be able to vote. Please provide a link to a report about mobs of people who hated Gaddafi because he was Jewish.

You mean these mercenaries?
"A witness claimed that mercenaries were more willing to kill demonstrators than Libyan forces were, and earned a reputation as among the most brutal forces employed by the government. A doctor in Benghazi said of the mercenaries that "they know one thing: to kill whose in front of them. Nothing else. They're killing people in cold blood".[197]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war

Why are these not the "bad guys"?

[Bonobo]

32. First, the Jewish thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WorldEdition/stalemate-feared-in-libya_n_838840_81584869.html

From Ricard Engel:
"1 in 5 rebels were fighting Gaddafi because they said he was Jewish"

[Nevernose]

38. Most of the black people in Libya were there to wor the oil fields

And were in no way mercenaries. It was simply a "let's blame the immigrants" thing for many of the rebeles.

[Bonobo]

40. My mistake. Thanks for the correction. nt

[Bonobo]

47. Crickets on the jewish thing? I gave you the answer you requested.

It was none other than Richard Engel and few people doubt that he knows his stuff.

He reported that rebels were largely anti-semitic. So where is your reply?

[ellisonz]

99. Most of the Arab World is antisemitic.

When they say Jewish they basically mean enemy. You have to remember that there haven't been Jews in a country like Libya in significant numbers in 50 years. The word is morphing in meaning. Antisemitism is a rote reaction.

[sabrina 1]

15. Thank you, Bonobo. Once I saw how brutal and racist the

so-called 'rebels' were and there was no way to deny those reports, it was literally impossible to go on believing this was in any way a 'people's movement'.

The reports from Libya since the brutal, war crime committed when Gadaffi was sodomized on the street with a knife in grotesque display of incredible depravity, condemned by every decent human being, have been heart-breaking.

All the social programs instituted during the previous government's reign, are no longer available. A country that was once prosperous, more so than many in Europe, has now been destroyed. But the worst reports have been about the tens of thousands of supporters or those who were neutral, being dragged off to jails and tortured have been heart-breaking. Add to all of that the fact that the numbers supposedly killed by Gadaffi have now proven to have been false, the original reporter of those figures presented to the UN, admitting, he had no clue and just went around asking people and basically made them up.

For Africa in general, as one African leader said, Libya's invasion by Western Powers is the beginning of the next colonization of the African Continent.

Additionally, the numbers of civilians killed by NATO bombs far, far exceeds earlier reports, although with the chaos that now exists in a once stable country, as someone said, the NTC cannot control the violence, it is hard for human rights organizations to get accurate figures. There have been mass killings with bodies found bound and executed.

This was the humanitarian intervention that actual Libyans, not the expats we usually heard from, did not want.

I am only sorry I ever supported to begin with. But not for long as it did become apparent that things were not what we thought from pretty early on.

Those poor people. They live in fear every day and human rights organizations are having great difficulty getting to see those who are detained, or identfying the Black Africans who were slaughtered for their families. Anyone left there, if they are still alive, must be terrified. I hope they manage to get out

[tabatha]

25. Boy, you would have had a hard time living in South Africa after 1994.

The whole nation would have been judged as murderers, rapists and criminals.

[sabrina 1]

31. Yes, another African Nation destroyed by Colonialism.

Requiring as always, even more bloodshed to get out from under the yoke of Imperialism. Because there will always be those who get used to, and rewarded for, collaborating with the invaders. And once the country decides it wants its freedom, they will have to fight both the invaders and those who benefited from the invasion.

Or are you saying that S. Africa was NOT a victim of Imperisalism?

Anywhere there has been Western interference it takes decades, or longer to overcome the effects of it.

The battles fought to get out from under Colonial rule always, always, divide nations and result in even more bloodshed. Another nasty fact about invasions. And another reason never to support them.

And that is what Libya is now facing for its foreseeable future. The denials that anyone in Libya supported Gadaffi were pure western propaganda. They are organizing a 'united Libyan front' now to take back Libya from the 'rebels' or whoever they are. If the goal is to destabilize all these countries, then mission accomplished, and how tragic for those who are living there.

Egypt and Tunisia were absolutely right to insist on no intervention. And as a result, there were far fewer deaths than had NATO decided to provide some humanitarian assistance. It will take time for them to get the freedom they fought for, but it is THEIR fight.

[joshcryer]

35. Gaddafi came to power thanks to the CIA.

By the end he had close ties with the CIA and did rendition for Bush.

So I can't say I disagree with you.

Our meddling created Gaddafi and Libyan self-determination got rid of him.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/qaddafi_rise_to_power_in_libya.html

[tabatha]

41. Where the EFF did I say something about colonialism.

The point I have made over and over again is that many people take a long time to get over being brutalized - sometimes never. That is what happened in South Africa, and what happened in Libya.

Both peoples were oppressed, suppressed and brutalized. By whom, it does not matter. What matters are the victims.

I am a humanitarian who believes that there is good in everyone, but life sometimes knocks those people badly - such as people who suffer from PTSD and end up murdering their spouses. Many in South Africa, Libya and just you watch, Syria are afflicted with PTSD.

And I will NEVER, EVER dismiss an entire nation based on the behavior of a few - first because it is inhumane, and second I am not the judge of other people - something you seem to love to do.

[sabrina 1]

55. I gave up responding to you as you always devolve into personal attacks.

I'm sure your intentions are good, but Colonialism/Imperialism has destroyed nations around the globe for centuries, and sorry, I do not support interference when it involves bigger and more deadly weapons than are already there. Show me one incidence of a country that benefited from Western Colonialism? Iraq? Name one African nation, or one South American nation that was better off after so-called 'humanitarian' intervention??

President Obama delivered an eloquent speech on 'humanitarian intervention' in 2007 explaining why he opposed it. He was right then, I hope he remembers his own words and his own reasons for opposing it, especially when the motives of the interventionalists are far from pure.

[joshcryer]

67. Obama has always been pro-intervention, he was against unilaterally using power...

...without congressional approval. After a few months in office with power, of course, that changes.

But his debate with McCain:

OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.

But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.

Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.

[sabrina 1]

85. And that was a contradiction of what he said in 2007.

He opposed he said, specifically 'humanitarian intervention'. He changed his mind again. It's hard to keep up with the many changing of positions, on so many issues. However, I think at this point, presidents are told what to do and what to say. So, Congress is where to focus attention.

[joshcryer]

88. No, he did not. That is simply false, total revisionism.

Please do not revise history when you cannot back it up with facts.

You are trumpeting an anti-Obama view that Obama flip flopped on humanitarian interventions, he did not. I already established that. You have provided no evidence to the contrary, and I don't expect you to.

The quote you are talking about from 2007 is:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Yes, he flip flopped on that, marginally. (His lawyers decided he didn't, the congress decided to not do shit about it, so it was a wash.)

Otherwise, you are completely off base and your criticism does not rest in reality.


Obama Calls for Unilateral War Against Pakistan

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama campaigned as a pro-war candidate, he was always going to do what he did.

FYI I disagree with Obama's drone wars and his answering the Libyan call for help was merely an accident of history. China and Russia could've just as easily vetoed it, and it would not have been "not all bad." The outcome would've still been similar, lots of chaos and dead in the streets.

[sabrina 1]

93. That is not the quote I am talking about.

From 'Audacity of Hope':

“I agree with George W. Bush when in his second inaugural address he proclaimed a universal desire to be free,” Obama wrote. “But there are few examples in history in which the freedom men and women crave is delivered through outside intervention.”

And I am not going to go searching for it now, but he expanded on that in a question and answer session after a speech he gave in 2007 when asked if he supported Humanitarian Intervention by using the miliatary. His answer was no, that he did not. However when asked again later in the campaign, maybe even that year, he had changed his mind. That change was attributed to his association with Samantha Powers:

It's true Obama doesn't have a long record of foreign policy stances. "He's not fully formed," argues the conservative military historian (and Obama supporter) Andrew Bacevich. "The paper trail is thin," says Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. Nonetheless, the candidate's views are not hard to discern. He believes the United States makes itself safer by promoting "dignity" in other nations through diplomacy and foreign aid. He also believes crumbling societies and failed regimes such as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe must be confronted by the international community, including the United States, before they ignite and become threats. And while he sees Iraq as a "dumb war," he's game for smart warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama's views started to crystallize when he came to Washington. The new senator fished around for foreign policy talent and scheduled a brief dinner with Samantha Power, a professor at Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and the author of the 2002 book "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide. The dinner went on for hours. Soon Power was taking a weekly shuttle from Boston to Washington to tutor Obama on foreign policy.

Power believes the United States creates long-term problems when it fails to intervene in failing states or to protect threatened populations. "Security for Americans at home and abroad is contingent on international stability," she writes in "A Problem from Hell", "and there is perhaps no greater source of havoc than a group of well-armed extremists bent on wiping out a people on ethnic, national, or religious grounds." That is what Obama now believes.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/19/obamas-wars

So he supported Humanitarian Intervention 'through diplomacy and foreign aid'. But once he hired foreign policy advisers, he began to change. Although even then, his statements were vague when he spoke about intervention

And I'm not the only one who noticed the changes in his stances on foreign intervention. Steve Clemons also was disappointed and clearly remembered as I do, his original position of intervention by diplomacy and foreign aid rather than military intervention:

Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the center-left New American Foundation, has watched with mounting disappointment as Obama clarifies his stance on foreign interventions. "He's not the Obama we thought he was," Clemons says.

Clemons, not alone among liberal foreign policy analysts, believes Obama listens to two groups of experts: liberal interventionists and "progressive realists." The latter group, rattled by the Iraq war, agrees with one of Obama's most traditional homilies from his memoir The Audacity of Hope: "There are few examples in history in which the freedom men and women crave is delivered through outside intervention."

But his position on this has always been arbitrary. Earlier, he seems, although it's never clear, to support intervention, but doesn't really clarify what kind. After his association with Power however, he was much more inclined to at least infer, that he would use military intervention. As I said, he changes, changed his mind several times on the issue.

[joshcryer]

94. And yet, that position does not suggest that he "opposed it" as you falsely claimed.

Must be very muddled memory, because he never held the position that he ever "opposed it" (your words). In Libya Obama did attempt diplomacy, even as Gaddafi was making speeches about cleansing the country of its "rats." It wasn't until a whole month later that action was done.

Obama was fully consistent on this policy, there was no "change of mind."

As far as power is concerned, I believe Obama's original position was naive, and it sold well to those who ignorantly believed he was a populist, so it worked out for him, his own naivety. Bush got the Presidential position to have enormous military powers (see: targeted killing, which Obama has taken to extremes no one had ever conceived), and unfortunately in the history of the United States no President has ever not used those powers when they wanted to. No President. None. Power corrupts.

[sabrina 1]

95. I'm going to end this conversation because it is the second time you have reverted to

your old habit of calling me a liar. All I will say is, Obama openly opposed military intervention for humanitarian reasons in 2007 when asked about it publicly. And as is clear above, wrote about it in his book.

[Fool Count]

102. Her intentions are good? Don't kid yourself. Having observed pattern of her posting here -

frequency, content, correlation with US action etc. - it is pretty clear to me that she is just a paid
operative doing it for money. No honest participant could be that stupid or could spend that much time
in front of a computer for a hobby. You could almost predict what US government will do from
the contents of her posts - clear sign of a paid shill. Same goes for joshcryer who is doing his
job in more half-assed fashion and should be reported to his superiors for slacking off. There is
no point in arguing with them, they would just keep posting some non-sensical responses until
an opponent gets tired and gives up or goes to work. I guess, not leaving a thread hanging is
in their script.

[joshcryer]

28. I disagree. What is needed is perspective.

What is needed is for people here on DU who should know better to use their brains and recognize when they are being manipulated into focusing on one incident of violence by a random group of thugs instead of 42 years of violence by the state. Over and over and over.

[tiny elvis]

50. 42 years of violence by the state

some bad incidents in a few weeks does not extrapolate to 42 years of horror because
this time it is all good?
the US is there to help?
a magic wave is sweeping the world?

[sabrina 1]

57. Good advice, stop allowing the propaganda we receive here to influence

you, we should have long ago learned that from the Iraq lies. Unfortunately some of us did then and do now, but enough people fell for the lies causing the deaths of untold numbers of innocent men, women and children.

Which is why I never watch the MSM. They lost all credibility a long time ago when it comes to anything that has to do with the ME and Africa and S. America.

[joshcryer]

68. Huh?

You completely missed the point of that post.

[tabatha]

7. Please see post #6

[joshcryer]

19. Broad brush, much?

No better than those criticizing the entire OWS movement on the actions of a few.

[tabatha]

26. It is mind boggling.

What is also mind-boggling that the fact that militia from Benghazi and Zintan are trying to protect these people is just not on the radar. Have an opinion, no fact in hell is going to change that erroneous opinion.

[Bonobo]

33. When China comes in and arms the OWS movement

Who then overthrows the govt. and murders US politicians on the street, THEN I will accept your analogy and will soundly criticize both the Chinese govt. and the elements of the OWS movement that took over power and turned the movement into a nightmare.

[joshcryer]

36. So, actions of a few can be applied to a whole group if there's a mass insurgency or violent unrest.

But, if it's peaceful protesters it's not OK to apply the actions of a few to a whole group.

[Bonobo]

46. My chief criticism is against those who support US military intervention in other countries.

I think it does no good and has a greater potential to increase problems.

I see no evidence that this Libya situation will be any different. Just more violence, an increase in chaos and suffering.

It is ironic that you talk about ME applying the actions of a few to a whole group since it is YOUR thesis that the suffering of a small group of Libyans can justify the destruction of the entire system that the US supported for 30 years.

It was a system with great injustice, but it was also a system with great stability that gave a good standard of living to many.

What will take its place and why did the US really intervene? Are you foolish enough to think it was done for anything other than selfish motives?

[joshcryer]

52. It was going to be bad either way.

Do you think persecution by both sides would've magically not existed had nothing been done? That's a really naive position.

Meanwhile I do not, in fact, contest that the suffering of a small group of people justifies anything. It is a result that is common in conflict, it is unfortunate.

And it is far less than I expected. (I expected it to at least be closer to South Africa.)

Now, we supported the end of apartheid, why don't we support the end of Gaddafi's regime?

Meanwhile, and you know this, I have steadfastly maintained that the US didn't do it out of caring.

[sabrina 1]

86. No, it wasn't going to be bad. That is what you are meant to believe.

Check out the history of Libya first, then check the reports from the UN from most of the African and other countries, even grudgingly, western nations and it is clear that was one of the most stable, most prosperous, most educated countries in Africa, the ME and even parts of Europe. There was no people's uprising, it was all orchestrated and we fell for it. I hate to admit it.

[joshcryer]

87. Patently dishonest.

There was blood in the streets and there was no indication that the Libyan people weren't going to fight back with everything they had. There were incidents of racial violence in the past under Gaddafi (indeed, some believe fostered by Gaddafi), and Gaddafi was racist with his "opening of the floodgates" of "black immigrants to Europe" if he didn't get paid to stop it. Either way it was going to be bad.

Saying otherwise shows a complete and utter lack of compassion for a peoples, and is just utterly beyond the pale.

"It wasn't going to be bad."

What a compassionateless horrific view.

You think the thousands killed in Benghazi weren't going to keep fighting? That the thousands killed in Misrata who withstood a siege with no outside help for months weren't going to keep fighting? You have no basis with which to make the claim that "it wasn't going to be bad." None whatsoever. Just more cruel observations of a society that wanted only its self-determination and rose up in 21 cities across a nation. More people rose up against Gaddafi than who rose up against Ben Ali and Mubarak combined.

I'm tired of propaganda and untruths being fed to me, trying to convince me, someone who spent almost a year covering the situation, that Libya would've been "better off." Tired of it.

[sabrina 1]

96. Another personal attack from you.

[SidDithers]

43. Well said...nt

Sid

[chrisa]

22. We will never learn, will we?

We are the dummy that keeps touching the red-hot stove top, despite being repeatedly burned (Al Qaeda, Libya, Iraq, etc.)

[tabatha]

2. Did you know that there are some ex-freedom fighters who are protecting the Tawerga in Libya?

They are not all bad.

After apartheid was over, 3,000 white farmers were killed by Africans bent on revenge.

And the wife of the author of the Cry, Freedom fled the country because of the violence after apartheid.

Not all South African Blacks are like that.

I would never be so presumptuous to tar all of them with the same brush.

Did you know that some military personnel in the US who suffer from PTSD, murder their families?

I would never be so presumptuous to tar all of the US military with the same brush.

I am not protecting those who commit these heinous crimes - I am protecting those who do not and are being feathered and tarred because of the bad guys.

[David__77]

14. Yes, there is no unified force.

And that is how things go with large-scale social movements. I disagree with the broad-brush headline of this article.

My own father got PTSD from Vietnam, so, yeah, I know about all that and the terrible consequences. I do think that the heroes of that war were the ones who refused to fight the Vietnamese people, however. And my own personal experiences inform my political views.

[EFerrari]

18. Freedom fighters, my @ss.

[tabatha]

27. Wise, my ass.

[EFerrari]

39. You're still defending these people, not only after their abuses have become plain

for the whole world to see but also after you, more than once, claimed the NTC was taking care of this.

Sorry, they are not interested in freedom at all but in control and the NTC is not taking care of anything. Both of those statements were and are still today abjectly wrong.

[tabatha]

44. If you read what I said

I am not defending the people who are committing the atrocities, I am defending the people who are being broad-brushed unfairly because of the actions of a few. You know, "those people".

I know, because as a White on first coming to the US, I was accused of being anti-Black because I was from South Africa - not because of anything I said or did. In fact, a friend of mine, "colored" but looking White, was accused of the same thing even though she had suffered under Apartheid.

If you cannot understand what I am saying, then some brain action may be necessary.

[Bonobo]

48. Do you give South African whites the pass on apartheid as you did Germans vis a vis Nazism? nt

[tabatha]

56. Nope. Because I personally fought against it.

[Bonobo]

59. Got it. Germans = not responsible. South Africans = responsible.

Still waiting for the link on the book absolving Germans of responsibility.

I

[tabatha]

63. Nope you have got it wrong.

The explanation is with the link to the book.

[Bonobo]

66. BTW, I was arrested demonstrating for divestment from the Apartheid govt. of S. Africa. nt

[EFerrari]

49. And in response to this OP, you post an incredibly idiotic propaganda piece

from the Feb17 mill that insists racism is not racism.

There is no rational response to that.

[joshcryer]

21. 20k were murdered during apartheid, 175k were murdered after.

We still consider the end of apartheid a good thing, and rightly so, freedom trumps short term chaos.

The racists used the post-apartheid numbers to diminish apartheid and make it out to be a "good" thing (indeed, if you search for these numbers you will find racist screeds touting them as a need to return to apartheid).

I consider this situation not fundamentally different. Here we have a swath of people, rightly, defending OWS when actors act stupid, and against their own interests (particularly after being brutally repressed for so long), but on the other hand diminishing, disregarding, insulting an entire group of people on the actions of a few in Libya.

It's disgraceful.

[tabatha]

30. Yes, it is funny how some people here are unwittingly mimicking the pro-apartheid people.

They know diddly-squat about people who have been brutalized. or Africa for that matter.

[joshcryer]

53. They're indistinguishable from the pro-apartheid people.

Simply indistinguishable. Same fucking arguments. Seriously, look at the trash about racism. Yes, it probably is partially fueled by racism. So was South Africa. Doesn't change the fact that chaos after a time of unrest is inevitable and the goals are admirable and worth fighting for.

[Bonobo]

58. OMG. You have not only jumped the shark.

You have jumped it, slaughtered it, fucked it and mounted it on the wall.

[tabatha]

6. Militias from Benghazi and Zintan are trying to protect a refugee camp of 1,500 people

Residents say some of the fighters have sought to preserve law and order in the midst of government helplessness. Militias from Benghazi and Zintan are trying to protect a refugee camp of 1,500 people driven from their homes in Tawergha by fighters from Misurata, who bitterly blamed them for aiding Colonel Qaddafi’s assault on their town. Since the Tawerghans arrived in the camp, which once housed Turkish construction workers in Tripoli, Misurata militiamen have staged raids five or six times there despite the presence of the other militias, detaining dozens, many of them still in custody.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/world/africa/libyas-new-government-unable-to-control-militias.html?_r=2

SO from that excerpt I can say, according to the logic here, that ALL militias from Misurata are BAD, BAD, BAD, and all militias from Benghazi and Zintan are GOOD, GOOD, GOOD.

And how about this article:
Libyan prison warden pleads for government help
Quasim prison, located south of the Libyan capital of Tripoli, currently holds 400 inmates – some are prisoners of war and some are illegal immigrants.

But according to prison chief Ayad Sager, who manages a staff of 60 former revolutionary militias, Libya’s Justice Ministry never called or visited, and he awaits a response from someone in the government to help alleviate the situation.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/09/193651.html


If there is one thing I have learned in life, is TO JUDGE THE INDIVIDUAL, otherwise everyone in the US can be accused of being torturers because of what Bush, Cheney and the US military did in Iraq. Yes, we would all be bad guys.

[Bonobo]

10. Actually more judging of American people for the actions of their government would be a good thing.

Ultimately the blame for the rise of the nazi party and their actions were rightly layer at the feet of the Germans.

Do you not see any lines of responsibility between a government and its people? Especially a new government which should be very responsive and easily influenced.

[tabatha]

23. Yes, if the truth is known.

How many people who voted for Bush knew that torture would happen in Iraq.

And as for the Germans, I believe you are not familiar with the book written by a German about how the change to Nazism was like boiling a frog instead of throwing the frog into hot water. This author, don't remember his name was interviewed more than once on Air America.

I do not blame Germans who had no part in the decisions made by Hitler.

[Bonobo]

37. "I do not blame Germans who had no part in the decisions made by Hitler. "

I would like to know what book you read that absolves the German people from the responsibility of electing Hitler.

Furthermore, the "change" to Nazism being like the slow boiling of a frog instead of into already boiling water means what? That it was such a slow movement toward nazism that it couldn't be noticed?

Well, the Jews that moved out sure noticed it. The fact that the non-taregt german citizens didn't speaks to my point. People only tend to "notice" when it is their own ass on the line and it becomes convenient to notice.

The fact that Americans have not yet noticed that their country is a military brute that bullies the rest of the world and bleeds its citizens to do so is sad.

The fact that even those on the left continue to support such behavior is sadder still.

[tabatha]

60. You really stretech the meaning of what I say.

If person A in Germany makes a decision to kill person B, and person C does not know about it, I will not blame person C.
That is what I was saying.

Anyway, Tom Hartmann interviewed this person on his show - a German Jew, about why Nazism happened (he joined) and why it was important for others to know, especially under the Bush administration, so that it did not happen again.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133b/133bproj/09proj/essays/Mayer1966Snider093.htm

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

And please, when you argue, do NOT assign thoughts and opinions to me that I never expressed.

[Bonobo]

62. I did not assign anything to you.

Your A doesn't know what B is doing to C argument is a little bit facile if you are talking about the germans treatment of Jews, wouldn't you say?

It was not exactly a secret, you know.

[Bonobo]

65. Still waiting for your reply to the anti-semitic issue re the Libyan rebels. n

That, plus their racism against blacks was a good indication that we were not backing the "good guys".

[tabatha]

70. It is simply not worth the effort.

The situations in Germany and South Africa were not the same - there were huge differences, and many similarities. But to simplify it as Germany one thing and South Africa another, is nowhere close to what I am saying, which you would have discovered if you had simply asked for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.

Here is one example:

"Not one of the ten Nazis had ever known a Jewish person intimately." according to Mayer.

In South Africa, the opposite was true. Every family had intimate relations with Black people, where often the Black nanny was more of a mother to the children than their real mothers.

I do not know the finer details about German society during those years other than what Mayer wrote, and hence I have come to the conclusion that a lot went on in Germany that was not reported. Unlike South Africa, where it was reported.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for the anti-comprehension, anti-civil-conversing, jumping to conclusions judgement.

[Bonobo]

71. I am referring to the anti-semitism of the Libyan rebels.

You asked for proof of my claims and I supplied it, but you have not yet responded.

Neither Germany in WW2 or South Africa are the subjects of this OP, so any discussion of them is really off point and neither can be a proper comparison. Agreed?

[joshcryer]

74. I've seen this before.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/anti-semites_with_signs.html

Fucking indistinguishable, I swear!

[Bonobo]

78. I think you need sleep.

You are becoming increasingly hard to follow.

You continue to try to equate a peaceful movement for a little more economic justice in the US with the Libyan resistance against Gaddafi.

Furthermore, you continue to miss the point that US military intervention is the main criticism I have and instead try to paint my position as primarily one against the rebels themselves.

The rebels, no doubt, have their good guys and bad guys. But it was the ME expert Richard Engel who noted that "1 in 5" of them want Gaddafi out because they think he is Jewish.

If you think you know more about the ME than Richard Engel, then just say so.

But 20% of the rebels being motivated by extreme hatred of Jews is not a characteristic that one wants to see or look for in people that you are hoping will set up a just and peaceful democratic state.

Or are they?

Please stop trying to impugn my motives especially by comparing me to anti-semites and pro-apartheid people, As a Jew, I find it very offensive.

My main criticism is against Americans who help to promote the idea that US military intervention and nation building is the way to a better world. It is not --especially when the motives of the US are in such doubt as you have agreed to.

[joshcryer]

80. Yes, I looked up that quote, you conveniently left out the whole quote.

I would say 1 in 5 of the rebels told me today that they’re fighting because they think Gadhafi is Jewish.

http://themoderatevoice.com/104550/libya-obama-and-rachel-maddow/

It's a broad brush smear, it has no basis in any reality, and even if it was true, has little relevance toward Libyan self-determination.

This islamaphobia is one thing that goes deep within Libyan critiques, and it really burns.

[Bonobo]

83. The rest of the quote did nothing to change the meaning.

You call it a broad brush smear.

So what are you saying about Richard Engel's motives now? About mine?

You really do think you know more about the situation than Richard Engel, I guess. And how can you really argue against someone with that degree of confidence in their own rightness?

You can't.

[sabrina 1]

97. The book in question, if I am not wrong, does not absolve the German people either.

The author, airc, was a journalist who returned to Germany in the fifties to try to answer the question of why the German people essentially did nothing to stop the holocaust.

He interviewed people and got some very interesting answers including from, I believe, a professor, who described how 'incremental' the march towards what eventually happened was. It is absolutely chilling to read that particular account as it could apply to what is happening here today. How people blinded themselves to certain 'signs' and how things kept escalating with each new law and each new activity etc. And how soon, people rather than discussing as they used to do, what was going on, eventually just remained silent.

If you have not read it, it is worth reading. Don't have time now to search for a link, but google 'They Thought They were Free'. There are many lessons to be learned from just that one interview, but clearly we have not learned them.

[David__77]

16. "Judge the individual": did that apply to the pro-Gaddafi forces?

And in another country, Syria, there are many who are at least tactically "pro-Assad" because they believe they will be targeted by the state or by gangs if the existing state dissolves or is destroyed. Should they all be judged collectively, or individually? I know it's a different situation, of course, but the same concept nonetheless.

[tabatha]

24. Yes, any pro-Gaddafi force that took part in atrocities of their own free will are guilty.

That is why many tried to flee, and were shot.

[David__77]

29. And those that did not, are not guilty.

Agree with that.

[nanabugg]

11. Correction to the OP. They didn't "turn" into anything. They always were.

They were and are anti-African (black). These people had worked in Libya and were loyal to Gaddafi because he gave them employment and used a lot of Libya's wealth to aid sub-Sahara Africans. The US was warned up front that many of the so-called rebels were killing and looting and had put out the story that Gaddafi had hired militia from his African neighbors and were paying them to fight for him. The truth is, the 98% of the Africans being labeled as such were really migrant workers, many trapped inside Libya with no way out. The consequences of the west's shameful acts toward Libya will bear much bitter fruit in the future...we are just beginning to see or maybe admit to it.

[tabatha]

20. Wow, what a judge you are.

"They were and are anti-African (black)."

Not true.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. Well, we did probably pay them to sit back and whack Ghadafi and his family. Not sure why. n/t

[Swede]

17. Or at least 3 random thugs.

[Odin2005]

34. Yes, because these 3 assholes represent all the rebels! *SARCASM*

The rebels are not an homogenous group, nobody is stupid enough to think that all of them are above retributive violence.

[David__77]

42. The people of Tawergha have not been allowed to go home.

They are internal refugees, and it's not because of three errant rebels. Well before the rebels seized that town, many announcements were made that it would be wiped from the map and depopulated. This is not random. That said, the actions do not characterize all of the militias exercising power in various parts of the country.

[Odin2005]

90. See post 89.

[EFerrari]

45. Systematic abuse of detainees has been reported at a number of facilities, unfortunately.

The reports have been steady and HRW, Amnesty have been trying to exert pressure on the situation with very little success. This is not a case of three bad apples.

[Odin2005]

89. I am not defending those commiting abuses.

What I am saying is that the rebels are not a unified movement, their only unifying thing was wanting to get rid of Gaddafi. It is a mix of both good and bad people.

[JoePhilly]

51. And the French were evil for helping us in the American Revolution??

Maybe they should have stayed out of it ... as it was none of their business.

[Bonobo]

54. Have the Libyan rebels produced any great works of political philosophy?

Do they have their own Thomas Payne that I don't know about?

[tabatha]

61. Is that how you judge a people.

By their superiority?

If you want the answer, google is there. It may be educational. Under both the Italians and Gaddafi, they were muzzled for the most part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_literature

[Bonobo]

64. It is how I judge how prepared they are to set up a good, mature political system.

Their failure to show any evidence of being further developed than the group they want to take over power from is a pretty good indication that you will be trading one bad thing for another.

Also, I do not see the relevance of your link.

[joshcryer]

69. Heh, it took 5 years for the US to vote after the Revolutionary War.

Please give these people a bit of fucking time.

The fact that public protest is allowed, the fact that parties can form, the fact that political speech litters the streets from the east of Libya to the west shows that they are already far more equipped than anyone in the western world gives them credit for.

Of course, I predicted this trashing of the Libyan people far ahead of this, and when things normalize in a year or two, everyone who showed their true colors will be quieted.

Until some kid shoots someone or someone gets raped or something, then an entire society of peoples will be bashed on that incident, of course.

[Bonobo]

72. Again, it is not a trashing of the Libyan people.

I am trashing arrogant Westerners who think they can throw jet fighters and bombs at any issue to get what they want --and as you have already said, you KNOW that it was for the most selfish of motives.

Imperialism. Using resources in one country for one's own gain. THAT is the inevitable result and true aim of any intervention that the US does and I thought you smart enough to know that.

The reasons we supported Sadaam Hussein for so long, the reason we support Gaddaffi so long is that it was in our own best interests. The same can be said for Pinochet and dozens of other examples.

What makes you think that the US has any interest in this other than supporting another strong man that will do our bidding. THAT will be the inevitable result and if it is not, it will not be supported by the US. A true people7s movement would not be aligned with the interests of the US and that is precisely why your calls for military intervention will (almost) always be wrong.

[joshcryer]

73. "it is not a trashing of the Libyan people" "a true people's movement"

If you're going to pretend that's not what it is, please don't contradict yourself in 5 short paragraphs.

[Bonobo]

76. Huh? You totally missed my point.

You want to believe that the "true Libyans" are the rebels and that the ones that were in power were not true Libyans.

THEN you want to believe that the ones among the rebels that commit atrocious violence are not "true rebels" and just "bad apples".

You want to believe that the US was correct in intervening for the "good and just people's movement" but then you admit that the US was only doing what was in their best interests. And just what were those interests and how will that affect what happens from this point on?

You could get dizzy trying to follow you.

But the point I am making is that force was used by the US and allies to get what they wanted and they have zero interest in whether it is a movement for the good. I also have no idea whether or not the rebels will institute a good, fair democratic state but I doubt it based on their behavior both before and after this.

One thing I am sure of is that if the US sees something to be gained by putting another group in power, it is worrisome. Once Western powers intervene, they will get their lump of flesh one way or another and you should know that.

It has been seen so many, many times that only a hopeful fool could believe otherwise.

[joshcryer]

79. 1) a peoples are not represented by their fighters 2) fighters do not represent the sole source...

...of resistance 3) political and cultural resistance plays a pivotal role in revolution.

Most of the fighters were islamists, does that mean that they represent the Libyan people? No, of course it doesn't.

The International Community was correct in intervening in a popular peoples movement, the UK was pushed into doing it by France which was pushed into doing it by BHL who'd visited Misrata and gauged that the popular protest was real. The US was a reluctant follower, and provided a logistics role for the most part (the non-intelligence gathering drone use was immoral and wrong and I stated as much).

It doesn't fucking matter what the US wants, what the UK wants, what France wants, what any partner in the intervention wanted.

What matters is what the Libyan people wanted.

Popular protest in 21 cities! Representing more than 2/3rds of Libya's population (this, btw, is much higher than Egypt, Tunisia, and even OWS, combined, as a proportion of protesters to population)! Tripli, the largest city, a city of 2 million, fell to 2000 noncombatants!

You keep deflecting, insulting the Libyan people, completely glossing over what they did and how it is they who are moving forward. I continue to be amazed at how "US imperialism" is being chastised here, who cares? The Libyan people are very distrustful, they've ousted quite a few US-backed puppets along with old Gaddafi-regime officials (recently they tortured one of his ministers to death). I don't see it having an appreciable effect. Meanwhile Gaddafi was pumping the oil and opening up very favorable western contracts. So what if the Libyan's eventually give even more favorable contracts?

This, in the end, is about a desire to see the US fail, to lose, or whatever.

For me that doesn't come into the picture.

I want to see the Libyan people succeed.

And given the political situation on the ground in Libyan I'm not convinced the US or the west in general has much imperialist play.

No occupation, western diplomats are distrusted, westerners trying to gain political power are ousted.

[Bonobo]

81. Look how well it is going.

Because the "International community" intervened to get rid of someone they wanted to get rid of and they don't give a fuck's all about the "people of Libya"

and THAT is where you are so fucking blind that it is frustrating.

Take a look at this. What the hell does this tell you? I will start an OP on it so others can see the CHAOS that comes when you push for military intervention from western powers that have no real interest in what YOU claim to be interested in.

http://rt.com/news/libya-war-crimes-racism-827/

[joshcryer]

82. Continue trashing.

I'm done engaging the outright disinformation, to be frank. Others will have to kick your threads for you. I'm too busy compiling links of all the good things going on in Libya, along with the bad, of course.

Indistinguishable from pro-apartheid activists or anti-OWS people.

Indistinguishable!

[Bonobo]

84. Yes,I will keep on resisting US military intervention and killing. Thanks. nt

[Odin2005]

91. So you were against us interviening in Bosnia?

[Bonobo]

92. No, I wasn't. But like I said, the US is batting .100 or below.

That's not a very good average when shooting missiles and things.

[sabrina 1]

98. You're not alone, fortunately. And now it seems the rest of the world is resisting it also.

I wish they had done so before the Iraq war, but sadly they did not.

[Taverner]

100. And we're surprised?