Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

when does a civilian human shield stop being a human shield and become anti Gadaffi rebels ?

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Depends on if they have a choice or not.. Human shields in these days of GPS guided weaponry have to actually be in the target itself (or within blast radius) to act as a human shield. If they're there voluntarily then could you count them as civilian as they are supporting a regime..

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

not in my book (not civilian),the same could be said for the civilians who harbour the rebels ,,they become rebels .This type of conflict is very confusing imo as it's hard to tell exactly who is civilian supporting rebels or civilian supporting the government or even civilian forced into supporting either side

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Yes, I do realize that - and it perfectly illustrates my point, thank you.

Your point regarding civilian deaths as a result of GPS guided ordnance is a moot point - as many instances in recent theatres have proven.

Gadaffi is, to all intent and purposes, the regime.

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Yet he relies on his ministers, family, army, supporters and to some extent those that don;t support him but don't fight back..

He is but a man not a regime as although he specifies the conditions of the regime he does not enforce them.

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Hence "to all intent and purposes".

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

I doubt very much that if you remove Gaddafi it'll make much difference and for all intent and purposes the regime would continue unless the removal is directly by another military force with leadership that can take direct control.

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Very true ,there are a lot of people who have done well under Gadaffi and they aren't going to give up their wealth and power just because Gadaffi's gone

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

That being the case then why bother even trying - whether by military, covert or democratic means?

So he alone is not the problem.

There is no one suitably positioned to fill that space and to hand power over to a transitional Government whom nobody knows a great deal about could be throwing petrol on the flames.

His military, ministers and advisers can abandon him at will - indeed several high ranking officials and commanders have already done so, he is just a figurehead.

Saif-al-Islam is probably the man best placed / favoured to take over. He has western influence, was western educated, has been unusually quiet of late (post Moussa Koussas rather bizarre "defection") and is - for the greater part - trusted as a moderniser and potential successor to his father by the west.

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

The UN resolution is not about removing Gaddafi but instead the protection of civilians. If that means in protecting the civilians that Gaddafi's forces are attacked and the rebels helped to a point where they can overthrow the weakened regime then so be it.

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Yes, I'm aware of that, I don't believe I said it was about removing him.

Obviously that is your own opinion.

However, if, as you say, the resolution is not about the removal of Gaddafi then therein lies a glaring anomaly in your "so be it" assertion in relation to the "help" which you describe above. If such help is afforded for the aim as described by you it would be outside the scope of the resolution as it is not - as you have pointed out - a tenet of the resolution itself.

The resolution authorises member states:

"to take all necessary measures 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''.

You'll note this does not appear to be specific to the actions solely of the Libyan army / Gaddafi loyalists - a small, but none the less crucial, point of fact.

What about the civilians who are, whether by accident or design, under threat of attack from NATO forces or from the rebels? Ultimately exactly what constitutes "under threat of attack" is key to this matter.

The resolution also "demands (my emphasis) the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians".

How can this be achieved when clearly - whether you doubt the sincerity of any calls or not - the rebels have vetoed, and continue to veto, all and any calls for a ceasefire as made by the Gaddafi regime?

Who gave them the authority to override a UN demand?

It's a double edged sword and all is, regrettably, not as it seems.

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Perhaps the last ceasefire in which Gaddafi aligned forces attach rebels in Misurata hours after the ceasefire was brokered means that the rebels don't trust that a ceasefire would be adhered to??

Also perhaps the rebels understand that the attacks against the Gaddafi regime are their best chance (and maybe only chance) at removing him and the regime??

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Perhaps. That does not give them the right to ride roughshod over a UN demand though.

Indeed also perhaps. However, as you've already stated, the Resolution "isn't about" not does it advocate "regime change" ergo what the rebels might think or understand in that regard is largely irrelevant.

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Must be why the rebels aren't the ones enforcing the UN resolution then :rolleyes:

Re: [Update] Allied Forces taking Immediate military action in Libya
 

Do you think?

Funnily enough nobody has suggested that the rebels are charged with "enforcing" the resolution - have they?

The discussion, particularly the two points regarding their vetoing of ceasefire offers and the "help" afforded them to implement regime change (which isn't covered by the resolution) centres around their lack of adhereance to the terms of the resolution - not any suppositon that they are charged with enforcing it - that's something you've imagined someone to have said.