Libya Update Thread - 48 hours for Libyan Freedom ??

[quid21]

how do you know the mission profiles?? nobody outside the operation knows anything about the attacks and why they happened. so what your saying here is purely opinionated speculation

I think this thought above by Peter should be heeded, we know nothing of what is planned, some may think they have an insight, but really it is indeed speculation, I think the UN resolution includes much more than just a 'no fly' zone so I guess we should watch this space.

A forum is an area for discussion, be it opinionated speculation or bold facts. The facts as far as we know them are in the UN resolution:

The UN resolution is for a No Fly Zone to be enforced, including the use of force to prevent Libyan government forces attacking civilians ie not prevent them attacking rebels.

Have you read this:

“Protection of civilians
“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

“5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

“No-fly zone
“6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;



“7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;



“8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,



“9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;



“10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;



“11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;



“12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;

[Blue Diamond]

So how are we justifying last nights raids That was not enforcing a no fly zone, that was softeming up Gaddafi forces for a Rebel attack.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with it, but the air strikes are now well beyond anything in the UN resolution.

how do you know the mission profiles?? nobody outside the operation knows anything about the attacks and why they happened. so what your saying here is purely opinionated speculation

Ask yourself this, If a Group of Gadhaffi supporters were cornered by armed Rebels in tanks etc etc..... do you think the coalition would take them(Rebels) out?

I don't think they would.

As much as I want to see the back of Gadhaffi(they should've done it properly in 86) they need to tread very carefully as they are opening themselves up for a massive backlash.

If the rebels start massacring civilians irrespective of who those civilians support then I believe firmly that they would suffer the same fate as Gadaffi's murderous thugs.

[quid21]

Another interestingly speculative point is that from the air, the Libyan tanks stand out like sore thumbs, however the rebels from the news reports look mostly like civilians and have civilian pick-up trucks - it would seem that from the air it would be hard to tell whether the Libyan forces are attacking civilians or rebels!!

Wouldn't want to be the pilot trying to make as best a decision as he/she can.

[Blue Diamond]

So how are we justifying last nights raids That was not enforcing a no fly zone, that was softeming up Gaddafi forces for a Rebel attack.
Dont get me wrong, I dont have a problem with it, but the air strikes are now well beyond anything in the UN resolution.

Totally agree with you... I've posted exactly the same over on the Air supremacy thread. The Coalition is treading on very dangerous ground now and as you say the original UN mandate was the protection of CIVILIANS and not to back the REBELS. From the very beginning it has gone wrong, the Coalition are there to police a "No Fly Zone" to protect the civilian population, yet for the last week they have been systematically destroying the Libyan Military forces. Even the taking out of Air defenses imo was over the top as they hadn't targeted any coalition a/c, until the moment they did they should've been left alone. However the Libyan a/c that was destroyed the other day was a just target as it clearly breached the UN mandate of a "No Fly Zone".

If the Coalition want to go down the road they seem to be taking then declare all out war on Libya and be done with it.

How do you know that coalition aircraft haven't been targeted? Part of establishing a no fly zone is to make sure the other guy cannot have a go back. If coalition aircraft were simply swanning around Libyan airspace without having suppressed air defences they would be putting themselves at great risk as to wait until they were fired upon could well have been too late.

[page_verify]

Confusion seems to be coming from some people trusting the words of the UN and the actions of governments too much.

The UN has given a mandate to enforce a no-fly zone AND protect innocent civilians, virtually the only thing they can't do right now is deploy ground forces in a way that looks like an occupying force. For a country taking part who would do anything they could to get a regime change in Libya then bombing a barracks full of troops loyal to Gaddafi will happily fit within their understanding of the UN mandate. The very fact you're wearing a uniform means you're not an innocent civilian so open to attack.

You thought all those war machines would just fly around making the Libyan pilots too scared to take off while they parachuted in tea, biscuits and crumpets for the locals? Nope, a bunch of countries who could do without Gaddafi being around have now been given permission to attack anyone not enjoying tea, biscuits and crumpets.

[T_J]

Thunder wrote,

Even the taking out of Air defenses imo was over the top as they hadn't targeted any coalition a/c, until the moment they did they should've been left alone.

Sorry, Thunder but I strongly disagree with that one. Go into a crew room in Italy and put forward that same statement. Of course the Libyans were going to challenge Coalition aircraft in their airspace. Why give them that propaganda coup of downing aircraft with the loss or capture of Aircrew? The same situation goes with the establishment of the naval embargo set up by the Coalition. Would you wait until a Coalition vessel was targeted by a shore based anti-ship missile before going after them? The air defences and shore based anti-ship missiles were targeted for that very reason to keep Gadaffi from gaining any advantage. The Aircrew have enough to contend with without being used as target practice from an intact air defence system with some very large and long ranged SAMs. The Air Planners got that one entirely correct.

Even with the main SAM network degraded they still have some nasty surprises for Coalition Aircrew. Libya has apparently invested well in the latest man portable air defence systems? This is a recent image of a Libyan soldier manning an SA-24 Grinch (Igla-S) system.

Link to image of SA-24 in Libya.

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/2964/800xn.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[Pune]

Thanks Quid21, I have seen this document before and it makes interesting reading.

[21zebra]

This conflict is already getting confusing,
not sure who's side we should be on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... links.html

[jon93]

This is just getting stupid now, so the friend has a friend who is our enemy oh well, if we just killed gaddafi back in the 80s we wouldn't be in this situation, as mentioned a few posts above.

[quid21]

Civilised countries simply do not go around knocking off other countries Heads of State simply because we don't like them. We didn't do it in the 80's and we certainly shouldn't do it now!. If the Freedom Fighters succeed in overthrowing Gaddaifi, then it is up to them whether or not to take that action, and nobody else. This is what happened in Iraq, and the same may well happen in Libya, but it must not be our decision.

If the US is a civilised country 'in your opinion', you might want to read up about how the US CIA tried to assasinate Fidel Castro in the 60's. They also attempted to assasinate Saddam Hussein http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-US.html.

Indeed some sources even claim that CIA driven coups in Iraq brought Saddam Husseins party to power as the US sought regime change there to suit politcal interests in the 1960's. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

These 'civilised' countries are not as civil as you think.

[Quixoticish]

Civilised countries simply do not go around knocking off other countries Heads of State simply because we don't like them. We didn't do it in the 80's and we certainly shouldn't do it now!. If the Freedom Fighters succeed in overthrowing Gaddaifi, then it is up to them whether or not to take that action, and nobody else. This is what happened in Iraq, and the same may well happen in Libya, but it must not be our decision.

If the US is a civilised country 'in your opinion', you might want to read up about how the US CIA tried to assasinate Fidel Castro in the 60's. They also attempted to assasinate Saddam Hussein http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-US.html.

Indeed some sources even claim that CIA driven coups in Iraq brought Saddam Husseins party to power as the US sought regime change there to suit politcal interests in the 1960's. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

These 'civilised' countries are not as civil as you think.

Handy tip for the future; don't cite the Daily Mail as a reputable source of information. We all know it's trash read by people with IQ's below 80, you're just inviting ridicule.

[quid21]

Handy tip for the future; don't cite the Daily Mail as a reputable source of information. We all know it's trash read by people with IQ's below 80, you're just inviting ridicule.

Granted the daily mail isn't a particularly great source, however CNN ran with this article:

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-20/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

the youtube footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra2PhNwW7Kw

If you cannot remember that far back then you have a remarkably short memory!!

[T_J]

Tornado GR4 taking out rocket launchers. Note the fastest man in Libya!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEIkG6WJ6nU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[NAM Updater]

Handy tip for the future; don't cite the Daily Mail as a reputable source of information. We all know it's trash read by people with IQ's below 80, you're just inviting ridicule.

Sorry but whilst you’re entitled to express such stereotypical views; they cannot go unchallenged!

I read the Daily Mail, my IQ is well above 80 and quite frankly rants like this make you sound like the ridiculous one!

[garyscott]

Tornado GR4 taking out rocket launchers. Note the fastest man in Libya!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEIkG6WJ6nU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

Nice!
"Er....sorry mates, gotta go....left the gas on and that..." RRUUUNNNNNN!!!!

[T_J]

Notwithstanding the vague nature of the report, it is the admitted policy of civilised countries that assasination of heads of state of other countries is a big no-no. I suspect IF that was their intention in the early stages of the Iraq war that the US were rather pleased that it didn't happen at their hands. The rest of the Middle East would have been extremely unhappy!.
Slightly tongue in cheek, I did say 'civilised' countries.

The details of those missions to target Saddam were revealed shortly after taking place. The US regarded Saddam, as Commander in Chief of the Iraqi forces, as a legitimate target.

See details including interviews with named F-117 and B-1 aircrew tasked with the missions.

Pentagon briefing with B-1 aircrew.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199 ... art-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Details of F-117 and B-1 missions.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... rikes.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[quid21]

Handy tip for the future; don't cite the Daily Mail as a reputable source of information. We all know it's trash read by people with IQ's below 80, you're just inviting ridicule.

Sorry but whilst you’re entitled to express such stereotypical views; they cannot go unchallenged!

I read the Daily Mail, my IQ is well above 80 and quite frankly rants like this make you sound like the ridiculous one!

Here here!!!

[Rainbow 6]

I think we are acting complete wrong here, the UN is messing with the internal workings of a country and what right to do they have to do that how would we feel if some came here and said that, some people support the government some people dont.

I am no lover of Gaddafi but he is a leader of a country, and we dont like him so lets go and over throw him. There are a lot of other leaders around the world who treat there people badly, and do far worse to them and we dont do anything to them. What is the difference here? We dont agree with him so lets go and remove him that makes us no better than bin Laden you dont agree with me and you dont have my values therefore you must die.

Has anybody thought of what happens if and when Gaddafi goes, do we have a free and fair election? and what happens if we dont like the result do we go and change the government again? Or what happens if have another Iran and death to the west? This could end very badly and we will only have our selves to blame for it.

rainbow

[SteveS]

I think we are acting complete wrong here, the UN is messing with the internal workings of a country and what right to do they have to do that how would we feel if some came here and said that, some people support the government some people dont.

To be honest if the Tories were bombing civilians in this country, I'd feel pretty darn appreciative of someone stopping GR4s from targetting me.

I am no lover of Gaddafi but he is a leader of a country, and we dont like him so lets go and over throw him. There are a lot of other leaders around the world who treat there people badly, and do far worse to them and we dont do anything to them. What is the difference here? We dont agree with him so lets go and remove him that makes us no better than bin Laden you dont agree with me and you dont have my values therefore you must die.

We are not in there to remove Gaddafi, we are there to police a no fly zone to stop his air forces from bombing civilians, as per the UN mandate.

Steve

[Rainbow 6]

If we are here to protect human rights here is a list complied by the US state department of the top 10 worst offenders:

1.North Korea
2.Myanmar
3.Iran
4.Syria
5.Zimbabwe
6.Cuba
7.Belarus
8.Uzbekistan
9.Eritrea
10.Sudan

Report doesn't list were Libya is ranked in the world but it says there are 53 countries in AFRICA and Libya is ranked as the 7th best for human rights scoring higher than Egypt, so again please explain to me why we are there when there are far worse leaderships?

You may not like my views but think we should look at the worst offenders before we start here.

The rebels are still fighting I don't see any sign of us bombing them, if we are completely neutral in this then shouldn't we also be stopping the rebels attacking Gaddafi's forces aswell, or can we pick and choice?
rainbow