Interview with Ali Ahmida, Gilbert Achcar, and David Smith on Situation in Libya

To talk about "indigenous movement against authoritarian rule" -yes, they include long-time CIA asset, so I suppose they are VERY indigenous, and very against authoritarian rule and what not

And it is NOT about anything "former". NATO is very much today's imperialist power pounding not only Libya but a lot of other states.

In short, the very wording of the "tension" is not up to reality, so nothing real could come from such "discussion"

The real question would be like this

"Does CIA assets asking their imperialist masters to bomb Libya has ANYTHING to do with "indigenous movement against authoritarian rule", or do we have another edition of Sudetenland?"

To talk about "indigenous movement against authoritarian rule" -yes, they include long-time CIA asset, so I suppose they are VERY indigenous, and very against authoritarian rule and what not

And it is NOT about anything "former". NATO is very much today's imperialist power pounding not only Libya but a lot of other states.

In short, the very wording of the "tension" is not up to reality, so nothing real could come from such "discussion"

The real question would be like this

"Does CIA assets asking their imperialist masters to bomb Libya has ANYTHING to do with "indigenous movement against authoritarian rule", or do we have another edition of Sudetenland?"

lidia, I too am very critical of the different forms of international intervention that are ongoing in Libya.

Whatever you may think of such intervention, and I had always been against it, there is no doubt that a significant portion of Libyan society was in favor of the NATO intervention and supported the Transitional National Council's (TNC) call for it. They were in favor of it in the midst of their uprising against Qaddafi's regime and its authoritarian system of rule.

Yes there are former regime elements in the TNC. Yes there are CIA and other foreign intelligence agents on the ground. And yes NATO and other powers are seeking to shape the outcome of the Libyan uprising. It is because of these dynamics, and the fact that a significant number of Libyans supported the call for intervention, that there is a fundamental tension, conundrum, puzzle, question, etc.. And it is being expressed as such by many Libyans and observers alike; even those that are critical of the past and present of Western conduct in and related to Libya; even those that supported intervention. To use such language does not belittle the consequences of the intervention as you seem to imply. I think it rather highlights the fact that such consequences are part and parcel of the very real and local call to intervene that was issued by many Libyans on the ground.

hasan, to call NATO simply "former colonial powers" means do not see the much dirtier and bloodier reality, or do not want to see it. I suppose it is a sign in itself.

Every civil war has some part of population turning to outsize help. The question is - to WHICH help.

Bahrein rulers asked SA to help. NTC asked NATO to help. Lebanese falangists were happy with Israel support. And so on.

Now, to voice some "concern" about NATO role is a bit late. NATO have committed the crime, even if the crime is not through yet - and could not be for a long time.

People who support NATO intervention could voice what they fancy, the horse is out.

Now the same people are calling for the second act - in Syria. Then they will voice something...

I am sick of how NATO is running around mass-murdering while somebody is having nice and profound discussion as whether it was 100% right to support them.

hasan, to call NATO simply "former colonial powers" means do not see the much dirtier and bloodier reality, or do not want to see it. I suppose it is a sign in itself.

Every civil war has some part of population turning to outsize help. The question is - to WHICH help.

Bahrein rulers asked SA to help. NTC asked NATO to help. Lebanese falangists were happy with Israel support. And so on.

Now, to voice some "concern" about NATO role is a bit late. NATO have committed the crime, even if the crime is not through yet - and could not be for a long time.

People who support NATO intervention could voice what they fancy, the horse is out.

Now the same people are calling for the second act - in Syria. Then they will voice something...

I am sick of how NATO is running around mass-murdering while somebody is having nice and profound discussion as whether it was 100% right to support them.