Libya crisis: Gaddafi using schoolboy conscripts on front line

[al bupp]

Source: The Telegraph (UK)

The teenagers are told they are going on training exercises until they reach the front lines, when they are given rifles and told by officers they will be shot if they retreat or desert.

Two badly-wounded teenage fighters shown to The Daily Telegraph said they were told Misurata had been overrun by drug addicts, Islamic militants and Egyptian invaders.

One said his own side had opened fire on his own teenage detachment when they later fled from the rebels.

In the past week, the conscripts have been thrust into fighting along the strategic "heavy road" connecting the Benghazi to Tripoli highway with the commercial port ten miles away at Ghasr Ahmad.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8453737/Libya-crisis-Gaddafi-using-schoolboy-conscripts-on-front-line.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Is he turfing babies out of incubators too ?.

.

[tabatha]

3. These organizations have absolutely no credibility.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=894185&mesg_id=896378

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

26. no, some of them don't. notably washington times, that's the moonie paper.

upi is also owned by moon & has severely cut its news-gathering organization:

United Press International (UPI) is a news agency that has roots dating back to 1907, and that now consists of a headquarters office in Washington D.C. in the United States, office locations in five other countries, and a website. The company also uses the services of freelance journalists in several of the world's major cities.

UPI was once mainstay in the newswire business along with the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters; at its peak, it had more than 6,000 media subscribers, 2,000 full time employees, and 200 news bureaus in 92 countries....

In 2000, UPI was purchased by News World Communications, a company which is owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and which published The Washington Times until 2010.<1><2> Shortly after this sale, UPI was greatly downsized, eliminating many of its departments. UPI's daily coverage today consists of a traditional service called "NewsTrack" which includes domestic and international top news, business, entertainment, sports, science, health and "Quirks in the News"; and a "premium" service which has coverage and analysis of emerging threats, the security industry and energy resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Press_International

[Turborama]

35. Those are the news agencies carrying the stories, not the organizations. Plus, WashTimes was sold

Last year, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Press_International">the citation from Wikipedia you gave: "Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and which published The Washington Times until 2010" <1><2>

2 ^ News World Communications no longer owns the Washington Times.CJR staff (December 22, 2010). "http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newsworld">Who owns what - News World Communications, Inc". Columbia Journalism Review. "GolfStyles Magazine, Middle Eastern Times, The Segye Ilbo (South Korea), The Sekai Nippo (Tokyo), Tiempos del Mundo (Online Only), The World and I. Wire Service: United Press International


Regardless, none of that reply has any relevance to the credibility of the Genocide Intervention Network/Save Darfur Coalition, Thomas P. Melady - the last U.S. ambassador accredited to Idi Amin’s Uganda, The ICC, The International Crisis Group and/or Arif Pervez.

[Hannah Bell]

39. Yes, now it's owned by Moon's son.

In August 2010, a deal was made to sell the Times to a group more closely related to the church. On November 2, 2010, Moon and a group of former Washington Times editors purchased the paper from Moon's son, Preston Moon, for $1. This ended a stalemate that had been threatening to shut down the paper completely.<43> In March 2011 the Times announced that some former staffers would be rehired and that the paper would bring back its sports, metro and life sections.<44>

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

[Turborama]

51. I repeat, none of that reply has any relevance to the credibility of the organizations & individuals

...mentioned in tabatha's http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=894185&mesg_id=896378">link in post #3.

Namely, the Genocide Intervention Network/Save Darfur Coalition, Thomas P. Melady - the last U.S. ambassador accredited to Idi Amin’s Uganda, The ICC, The International Crisis Group and/or Arif Pervez.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Exactly!

[tabatha]

2. Another transgression to add to the growing lists

being compiled by the ICC at the Hague, Amnesty International, Genocide Intervention Network, International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch amongst others.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=894185&mesg_id=896378

[Rage for Order]

5. Children on the front lines???

I figured they would be manning the rape rooms and torture chambers!1!!!1! Oh noes!!!11! This is series!!!!!!1!

[al bupp]

6. How much evidence and what sources need it come...

before you consider rethinking your ideas about the nature of this conflict? Any reports of atrocities by Gaddafi's forces posted here, no matter the source, seem get met w/ a number of snarky references to ham-handed Bush-era propaganda efforts, as if it were all the same.

[EFerrari]

7. Why do you think that is?

[al bupp]

9. I daresay, ma'am, since you asked...

that it may have something to do w/ people preferring to hold onto their preconceived beliefs rather than rethink the basis for those beliefs. In this case, many find it easier to simply "shoot the messenger".

[EFerrari]

10. So, you assume that people who disagree with this one sided reporting

have a bias?

I'm thinking that NATO's intervention has been entirely inadequate to their purposes, either of protecting civilians or to regime change.

Therefore, there has been little or nothing blocking Gaddafi from that genocide we were supposed to be hysterical over. And yet, it has not happened?

What do you think of that?

[al bupp]

15. I think that NATO intervention cleared averted a disaster in Benghazi...

I also think that halting the advance clearly came not a day too soon and that the situation justifiably caused a lot of anxiety among the opposition there. Those people know what Gaddafi's forces are capable of doing.

On the bigger question of how NATO's action help to bring about Gaddafi's downfall, that's the nub of the problem the coalition faces. No military man would claim that coalition actions to date would directly have that effect. The idea has simply been to give the rebellion a fighting chance.

The conflict in Libya will take some time to play out. To say the intervention has been "entirely inadequate" underplays the role it has had, and seems to indicate that you think NATO ought to be doing more. This can't really be your position. Rather, I think it's a convenient debating tactic.

As for disagreeing with "one-sided" reports, while not necessarily a bias, it does appear to me to come dangerously close to a head-in-the-sand attitude. Is anything you don't agree w/ one-sided? Should every report include some balancing reference alleged excesses on the other side?

[EFerrari]

40. It's not at all clear that anything but the taking of Benghazi was halted.

And, the opposition itself has said the NATO effort has been inadequate.

As far as the coverage, it has been disproportionately hyped anti-Gaddafi atrocity porn to pave the way for whatever the end game is. Yesterday we were told the goal is regime change after the corporate media ran two high profile atrocity stories, for example.

As someone whose earliest political memory is the Cuban revolution and the endless missteps our government embarked upon to destroy that challenge to its hemispheric hegemony, I'm sorry but this latest chapter is a stale rehash of old outdated material. I know there are people here at DU that are very invested in the Libyan rebellion. Hopefully, they will not be too badly disappointed.

[joshcryer]

19. Actually, it did stop the invasion of Benghazi.

It has had no effect on Misrata, however, but Misrata will be liberated in the coming weeks (possibly a month or two but no longer than that).

[PurityOfEssence]

43. "no effect on Misrata"?

Since you clearly see the future, as always, tell me: will Misrata be be "liberated" after Qaddafi's forces re-take it, or will they hold out until relieved?

You were very triumphal when we supposedly passed the baton to NATO, showing this a proof that our President's predictions were dead-on. Somehow, in this little exercise that was to be numbered in days instead of weeks, we are now passing FOUR WEEKS.

Let's just keep track of your pronouncements of "Future Facts" and see how they bear out, since the whole justification for the intervention was based on a pronouncement of the "Future Facts" of a Benghazi "massacre" of innocents.

We know for a fact that Misrata would have had to endure more destructive power had we not intervened: artillery and armor has been destroyed and the roads interdicted. By definition, they have been spared all sorts of ordinance. Their morale has also been bolstered by seeing Benghazi saved.

"No effect" is pure poppycock, and like most generalizations, doesn't stand to any scrutiny.

Here's a prediction: if Misrata falls, many of those who claim that it never would will not modify their other predictions in light of their then-shown fallibility, but will continue to make proclamations out of thin air and expect them, too, to be treated as fact.

UK Foreign Secretary Hague also contends that it's probably because of NATO that Misrata hasn't fallen.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has stressed the need for Nato to act swiftly to prevent a "massacre" in the city, saying on Friday that Nato had been constrained by the need to avoid civilian casualties but had probably prevented the city from being overrun by Col Gaddafi's forces.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13107131

[joshcryer]

45. You need to read up on the Siege of Sarajevo.

And yes, I cannot wait for the silence from those who are anti-Misrata and whom think that NATO is really having an effect, even going so far as to quote that bastard Hague to that effect. Hague is posturing and if it continues the way it is it'll require troops on the ground (probably British or French as the Ivory Coast). He'll be trying to dig the shoe out of his mouth for weeks.

[FiveGoodMen]

14. Those who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

"as if it were all the same"

What if it is?

Shouldn't we even consider that?

[al bupp]

25. As a student of history, sir, I highly recommend taking...

historical lessons into consideration. In these circumstances, though, I think the obvious comparison w/ the "justifications" for the invasion of Iraq makes for a very poor parallel indeed. Many reputable sources have denounced abuses, atrocities and war crimes by Gaddafi's forces. They have been listed up thread if you care to review them.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. It goes both ways: any questioning of even the shrillest fantasy proclamation is met with the same

To many of the interventionists, there's ABSOLUTE PROOF that TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent babies and grandmothers would have been brutally killed had the French not attacked the battlegroup in front of Benghazi. No amount of mitigation seems apparent in many, and any questioning of these hypothetical bodies is met with personal shout-downs.

There's plenty of guilt to go around, but what always ruins humanity is the point at which people feel wronged to the degree that they no longer are bound by any standards of human comportment. The nobility of the cause does not justify some of the means, and for interventionists to bewail the ill treatment they've received is the height of self-absorption. It has gone both ways in a major way.

As for the righteous defense of our President in all cases, regardless of illegality or death-dealing, that's just to be taken in stride around here. It's understandable: this board is a refuge from a strident world, but sadly, far too many commissars of acceptable truth and beauty DEMAND to hold sway and drag what could otherwise be informative airings of differences down into the mud of selfish recrimination.

Interventionists, whether they've bought the ginned-up pretext of piles of dead babies or not, need to take some responsibility: they're siding with making modern war on a sovereign nation, interceding in a civil war without enough knowledge, defending a President who has taken the country to war illegally, given cover to imperialist resource conquest and brought forth a REAL--not hypothetical--bloodletting with no feeling of responsibility to actually get the the hell done with. Yet, while we hold up a finger to point out what might not be consistent here, the pro-war zealots demand to be the ones considered on the moral highground. The "belief" in these alleged future deaths is no more rational or shakeable than religion, and similarly demands to be treated as a superior viewpoint.

Goes both ways, no?

[al bupp]

27. Everything goes both ways, sir

As a fellow student of Mr. Wilson, I am familiar w/ Bell's hypothesis, the mathematical implications for a multiplicity of universes, and the uncertainty inherent in any quantum interaction. I acknowledge stridency having gone in all directions, though, I think I have (hopefully) for the most part avoided it.

But, back to the point, what evidence have for your allegation that this conflict has had ginned-up pretexts? Assuming for a moment that the reports are accurate and unembellished. (They do come from many reputable international organizations, listed up-thread.) Does not the world have a responsibility to act?

One need not believe in alleged future deaths, they are happening now, and largely the result of pro-government Libyan thugs disappearing people from their homes, or sniping at them in the street from roof-tops, or lobbing cluster bombs indiscriminately into cities.

I think calling it an "imperialist resource conquest" hugely over-simplifies the situation and displays a reflexive approach to events. If resources were the main motivation, then they would all be on Gaddafi's side, because the current situation is clearly bad for those doing business in Libya (OK, unless it's the arms business).

I am hardly a pro-war zealot, yet I think, in this case, what NATO and members of the Arab League are doing is justifiable and necessary (and perhaps too little). If Gaddafi beats back the rebellion and manages to hold onto power it will provide an object lesson to tyrants world-wide. I happily take responsibility for this stance. Will you take responsibility for your support of what appears from many accounts to be a brutal regime simply because they seem to be fighting "imperialists"?

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Here's what I mean by ginned-up pretexts:

The protests were not large in the early phases, and there was violence in all of the video I've seen. Shots were fired at the protesters in Tripoli, but they also burned government buildings. The oft-touted footage of the horrible massacre in Zawiyah is of a crowd that's chanting and marching, accompanied by a few armed rebels in the front of the procession as they approached a military roadblock. Guns are seen in the crowd, and when they're fired upon, they run and we see automatic weapons fire coming from a truck in the crowd and a three-man team retreating with a tripod-mounted, belt-fed heavy machine gun that is set for action. The reporter is a Murdoch employee and goes on to tell of one of these innocent young civilian males getting instructions for an RPG and going off with it while yelling "God is Great".

The bloodshed is reported to be 24 in a Tripoli incident (where there was violence) 24 in a Benghazi incident and 10 in another Benghazi incident, where reports also show that it was started by the protester throwing rocks at police. The other incidents have less than 10 deaths. There were no incidents of attacking innocent, singing civilians. The 1200 people killed at Abu Salim in 1996 were largely Islamist Revolutionaries who had been on a months-long killing spree of police and soldiers, including an assassination of Qaddafi himself. By all accounts, they rioted, took at least 2 guards hostage--one of whom was killed or died--and the security forces over-reacted. This is not an example of innocent victims, yet their being murderous fundamentalist revolutionaries in a riot is never said; it's just an example of how he killed 1200 of his own people.

Qaddafi did NOT threaten to kill civilians, he threatened to hunt down armed revolutionaries door to door; most governments would do something similar in an analogous situation. This threat does not constitute guaranteed proof that he'd go bayoneting babies.

In 2009, he forced the French "Total" company to renegotiate their deal under threat of nationalization, reducing the amount of OIL they could take for their efforts from 50% to 27%. He did this to others, too, not making many friends. In October of 2010, Chevron decided to leave Libya due to its inability to find new fields where allowed to explore, and because of the onerous fees and restrictions to be allowed to do business. Somewhere around that time he put a freeze on new foreign deals, although I need to corroborate that story, so let's put that on ice 'til I do my homework.

The Provisional Government threatened Western Governments when beseeching them for recognition, saying that they would remember those who helped and those who DIDN'T in their future business dealings. When it looked like the rebellion was working, and the propagandists started to believe their own propaganda, the French formally recognized them as the legitimate government. Suddenly, Qaddafi struck back, doing very well. The French KNEW that they'd be cut out of ANY oil once they'd done that, and the die was cast.

All outcry that there was an oil component to the hunger for war was systematically shouted down by people saying that it had no basis in fact because Qaddafi had been no problem in providing access to the oil. Not only is this not true, it's REALLY not true.

The French and British made a military pact on November 2, 2010, with plans for a joint wargame called "Southern Mistral" to be played on March 21, 2011: the game had the two militaries staging in France to overfly a neutral country ("Navarre") in order to mount an offensive operation against a southern dictatorship that had interfered with their economic interests.

It looks very much as if a pretext was being awaited, and a handy revolution popped up to fit the bill.

The reason why Benghazi and Derna are such hotbeds for revolt is that they are the home areas for the Islamist Revolutionaries who went on a rampage in 1995-6, and many of the prisoners who died were their friends and family.

In short: there's a big oil component that is scrupulously ignored, no real threat of the guaranteed atrocities that are held as "PROOF" of the need to intervene and no acknowledgment of the ongoing civil strife and theocratic undercurrents.

Going to war on "proof" of something we presume is going to happen is ridiculously flimsy, but here it doesn't even bear scrutiny. Where are the mass executions in Ras Lanuf or Ajdabiya? Where WERE they at the time: he had already retaken these cities before the march on Benghazi?

We went to war for soothsayers claiming to know the future, and specifically ignoring any facts that didn't support their claim. Whether driven by sincere emotion or not, they were distorting the reality at hand and deliberately playing upon people's emotions.

Our President said that journalists were captured, sexually assaulted and killed. At the point when he said that, two journalists had been killed: one in an unmarked car that sped through a public street during fighting, and one who was shot videotaping another street fight; the former was not obviously a journalist, and the other was in a battle. The only journalist who had been sexually assaulted had been groped, had every inch of her body touched, had her hair stroked as someone said that she'd die in the morning, but she specifically says that no hands EVER went under her clothes. Not nice, certainly "sexual assault" to some degree, but these incidents do not fit what the President was trying to convey to the listeners. He makes it sounds like many journalists (it was one group of 5) had been captured, raped and killed afterward in captivity. The ones who died had nothing to do with this group; they were in incidents of literal gunfire. There was no systematic and repeated "sexual assault" of numerous people, and the level of assault here is not what one would expect from the emotionally charged condemnation of our President.

Personally, I feel it's an outrage to have our sympathies played upon with grotesque omissions, suppositions and exaggerations to justify a war that sets the precedent for violating national sovereignty whenever we damned well please. Many people have been killed since then. Children have been killed. Had we not intervened, chances are rather good it would be over by now, but now, the killing goes on. The innocent rebels are also conveniently holing up in areas with civilians, so the outrage of Qaddafi using human shields reeks of hypocrisy.

Those who declare themselves "right" and exempt themselves from fair depiction of the facts or reasonable civil comportment are assholes, both on the anti-interventionist and interventionist side.

I hope this answers the questions, and it is done in accord to someone having actually taken the time to compose a message to convey a point. You'll note that none of this is cut-and-paste; the time was taken specifically for you due to the overall conducive tone of your post.

[al bupp]

47. PoE, I do very much appreciate your detailed response

as well as its thougtful tone, and the time that it obviously took to compose.

[joshcryer]

20. The truth will bore out, and people will remain silent on this issue.

When the UN and other human rights organizations are allowed to survey the damage that Gaddafi has done, people will see, and they won't say a word. (They may pawn it off as "typical civil war atrocities," but I highly suspect the disproportionate force that Gaddafi is using will make such efforts pathetic at best.)

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Because you say so.

As usual.

[joshcryer]

44. I think I wrote that before having knowledge of the cluster munitions...

...every time I make a prediction in this situation I am finding myself more and more correct. Just wait and see. Wait and fucking see.

[Baclava]

8. ...and they're still kicking the asses of the "rebels" - what's that tell you?

The Stalemate drags on.

[al bupp]

11. Which is it, sir, an ass-kicking or a stalemate?

I fail to see how it can be characterized as both.

What the situation tells me is that Gaddafi enjoys many advantages in terms of materiel and logistics over the rebellion, much like the British did over our revolutionaries. That simple fact hardly invalidates the efforts to dislodge him from his tyranny, does it?

[Baclava]

12. None of that fancy pants talk with me, sir........Who's winning?

Do you believe "The Telegraph" - "eh, we loved them V-2 Nazi bombs, they only made us stronger."


I feel like I'm reading TEPCO press releases. What is the truth?

[al bupp]

28. The truth, sir, is that the conflict is barely 2 months old...

and calling it a "stalemate" seems a bit premature to me.

[Baclava]

13. To answer your question..."ass-kicking or a stalemate"

I'd say without our A-10's and C-130 gunships it's a stalemate for sure.





Evidently they are the only thing that can make Moe's troops bust and run. Death From Above.


NATO looks weak without them, Brits and France not wanting to get their hands bloody with the close-in wet work, and all that...

[al bupp]

29. You, sir, betray a perhaps unfounded opinion the British and French

It was the French who 1st sent jets to attack the armored assault on Benghazi. If that wasn't "close-in wet work" then what is? Also, the British have Tornados in action in Libya which have struck at armored and mobile ground targets.

I do not, though, deny that adding American gunships to the mix might also be of help to the rebellion.

[joshcryer]

18. No, you don't understand, they're conscripting kids because their side is falling apart.

You don't resort to kids unless you have serious problems.

[dipsydoodle]

21. They're teenagers : not kids

and both sides are using them.

[joshcryer]

22. The opposition has made efforts to keep the kids from going to the frontlines and taking up arms.

Gaddafi is sending them to their death to fight for him.

[Turborama]

30. 13 to 18 year olds are teenagers and still kids

It's debatable whether 18 and 19 year olds aren't really kids, as well.

[Bosonic]

31. ahem

... Rebels control the eastern and northern areas of the city, which is dotted with checkpoints manned by teenage gunmen in chequered scarves, according to an AFP correspondent who was briefly able to enter last week ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10717186

But I'm sure this is different and/or an isolated case!

[Turborama]

32. And?

How does that refute what I said?

[Bosonic]

33. It doesn't.

It was actually meant as a reply to the post above yours. Apologies you're just collateral damage.

[al bupp]

34. Maybe I missed when scanning the linked article...

...but I can't find a reference to teenage gunman manning rebel checkpoints in it. If so, there is, in any event, a difference between guarding a checkpoint and being sent in the into an assault on the front line.

[Bosonic]

36. This quote is from the beginning of the article

Much easier to find!

TEENAGE fighter Jumah Adia Sunday, fingering the large-calibre machine-gun bullet that hung on a string from his neck, said: "I want to stick this into Gaddafi's heart."

Gangs of rebel fighters, young and old, sped west playing catch-up as Colonel Gaddafi's forces retreated. After further reported bombing by Nato forces on Saturday night, the loyalists fled from eastern Libya.

http://news.scotsman.com/world/Jubilant-fighters-take-back-town.6741551.jp

[al bupp]

37. Point taken, but it's still a very different report than the OP

The one you cite mentions a single vengeful youth, not groups systematically isolated in military camps and then sent en masse into urban combat, though that may be due to better propaganda, it's true we ought be wary.

[Odin2005]

53. I find it insulting and infantilizing to teens to call them kids.

I NEVER call them kids, I always call them young adults, which is what they are.

And you think 18 and 19 year olds are "kids"? Good lord.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

56. Exactly, when I see the young people on BOTH sides of it I feel really shitty.

They ARE just KIDS. 33% of the entire country of Libya is 14 years old or younger. Think about that for a fucking minute there, people!

[joshcryer]

55. It's not meant to be insulting, I'm in my mid 30s, and a young adult between 14-18 is a kid to me.

[Baclava]

48. ...or maybe they feel that's all they need for a stalemate.

The real troops are back home on R&R getting some home cooking now that the rebel advances have stopped.


This isn't Berlin...Tripoli has never been threatened.

[joshcryer]

49. Huh? Rebel advances have stopped?

They'll have Brega this week. A week per city? That's Tripoli in two months.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fool Count]

23. Geez, what else were they gonna say, that they loved

Qaddafi so much that they lied about their age to get on the front lines?

[joshcryer]

24. It's the same story every time, it's not like you're going to coach each and every one...

...unless there's some coaching going on on the other side.

FYI they did not appear to denounce Gaddafi in the report.

[WatsonT]

38. Most failing, beseiged dictators do this at some point

This was inevitable.

Either Gaddafi won or he caused a huge amount of destruction on his way out.

[Nossida]

46. oh pleaeeze

This same old Propaganda drivel is used every time
the West attacks and or Invades another Oil Rich
Arab Nation. Yesterday the NATO Beast claimed he
is using Cluster Bombs, today its Child Conscripts.
Whats next? the Tooth Fairy? Now I wonder just
who exactly sold him the Cluster Bombs.

The Libyan Rebels have Al Qaeda in their ranks.

NATO says they aren't out to get Qaddafi, but the
Intervention will continue until Qaddafi leaves.
This intervention in a Civil War is illegal under
International Law.

[Odin2005]

52. Don't ALL tinpot 3rd World dictators do that when desperate?

:shrug: