Libyan Govt Rejects Rebels' Ceasefire Offer

Libyan Govt Rejects Rebels' Ceasefire Offer

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime has rejected a conditional ceasefire offer made by the rebels and insisted its troops would not leave cities.

A Libyan government spokesman also accused the international coalition of "crimes against humanity," claiming it has bombarded civilians.

Spokesman Mussa Ibrahim said: "They (rebel leaders) are asking us to withdraw from our own cities.

"If this is not mad then I don't know what this is. We will not leave our cities."

Mr Ibrahim said pulling Col Gaddafi's troops out would open the door to al Qaeda, who the regime accuses of being pa

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is this just bravado from the Gadaffi regime? Or are they still in a strong position despite the aerial attacks from the coalition?

Is there any possibility that a cease fire will be agreed?

It appears the rebels are weaker than first thought, maybe the will is even weaker. If the coalition is to achieve the aim of ousting Gaddafi and his cronies, can this now only be achieved by sending in ground troops?

Earlier there was hope that a cease fire could be agreed and that there could be room for negotiating some kind of power share. This is looking more and more less likely as Gadaffi's regime moves forward and expels rebels from Towns that they had liberated earlier in the week.


(visit the link for the full news article)

I think time is Gadaffi's friend in this equation. If he can keep on lingering and hold on to power with his finger tips he might be able to wait NATO out. Plus the onger and longer this goes NATO's mission becomes foggier.

reply to post by American-philosopher


I agree with you totally. NATO's role was foggy from the outset and I truly believe this has been driven by France and the U.K. The only way they are going to get the situation under control would be to send ground troops imo, and that is the one thing I truly believe shouldn't happen. Peace

I've got a solution for NATO.

Kill everything and anything with Libyan nationalist colors - Gaddafi's colors.

Time to pick sides NATO, so put on your big girl panties and do it.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


Okay lets say NATO does that and the Libyan army throws their uniforms away and dress like rebels? JUst like the Iraqi army did what then??

Originally posted by American-philosopher
Plus the onger and longer this goes NATO's mission becomes foggier.

It was pretty foggy from the start.

Over the weeks its become quite clear that these so called rebels are poorly equipped, poorly trained and probably dont have much of a command structure. Unless large parts of the Libyan military turn rebel, things are going to ugly.

Nato has put itself in a real pickle of a problem. In order to complete the basic objective - protect civilians - they cant stop bombing goverment units. If they do, they will advance and we all know Gaddafi will NOT be kind to rebel cities - his brain is obviously fried and he is completely insane. Nato has to bomb even more, which makes everyone cry and Nato has to calm down again. Rebels advance a little, but get pushed back. Goverment forces advance in turn and it all repeats. Its a tug of war, literally.

Originally posted by merka


Over the weeks its become quite clear that these so called rebels are poorly equipped, poorly trained and probably dont have much of a command structure. Unless large parts of the Libyan military turn rebel, things are going to ugly.

That would seem to contradict the claims that these rebels are "Al Queda", as is being claimed in many places n ATS.

Here's a wacky idea.
Maybe Obama ain't so stupid (this time).

1. Wait three weeks to make a decision on where he stands on Libya.
2. Support the rebels eventually, 'cause we all hate Moomar.
3. Make our support weak and lame but blow 600 million so it looks like we're doing something.
4. Have the Al Qaeda rebels lose, because they are also weak and lame
5. Quadaffi stays in power, less Al Qaeda to kill in Afghanistan, Obama looks cool and tough, and Obama can blame the French for keeping Quadaffi in power.

Brilliant!

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by merka


Over the weeks its become quite clear that these so called rebels are poorly equipped, poorly trained and probably dont have much of a command structure. Unless large parts of the Libyan military turn rebel, things are going to ugly.

That would seem to contradict the claims that these rebels are "Al Queda", as is being claimed in many places n ATS.

I would suggest that there are elements of 'Al Queda' within the rebel ranks, but I don't think they are all 'Al Queda'.

Thre is though chaos within the ranks of the rebels as the aerial attacks are not sufficient. I always thought it was going to be difficult without ground troops to be honest and that could well lead to a prolonged war, especially if Russia or China oppose.

Originally posted by beezzer
Here's a wacky idea.
Maybe Obama ain't so stupid (this time).

1. Wait three weeks to make a decision on where he stands on Libya.


2. Support the rebels eventually, 'cause we all hate Moomar.

I thought the complain was he acted 'too fast'?

3. Make our support weak and lame but blow 600 million so it looks like we're doing something.

So now the complaint is that the use of hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry and blowing up significant targets 'real good'was 'weak'? Doesn't that imply you think we should be doing even more there?Wha would you approve of? Boots on teh ground?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Skippy, since I WEAR the boots, um, no.

Obama has been all over the map, support the rebels, er I mean, protect the civilians, er I mean, regime change, er (can I go on vacation again?)

You mean our 120 cruise missiles and subsequent air strikes have left their government still intact?

Well let me be the first to say we ought to begin seeing talk of an exit strategy now before it's too late... And the thought of boots on the ground there angers me... Why, so we can spend the next 10 years clearing roads of IEDs with American blood, spend millions of dollars giving US weaponry to untrained, unorganized "rebels"? Oh, and then training them up into some form of Army like we did in Iraq... No, just no.

My post ends here, else I go on ranting endlessly about this... Have a nice day all. ;-D

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Skippy, since I WEAR the boots, um, no.

Obama has been all over the map, support the rebels, er I mean, protect the civilians, er I mean, regime change, er (can I go on vacation again?)

Regime change? When did he say that?

I think you are grasping at straws. All over the map.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

President Obama demanded regime change in Libya more than three weeks ago, but now acts as if that's not his policy.

www.blackagendareport.com...

And for every article that says he's for i, he is also against it. Again, all over the map.

Unless large parts of the Libyan military turn rebel, things are going to ugly.

reply to post by merka


I could have sworn this mouring I saw the news and they were reporting ( I forget which cable network it was) But they were reporting top officals were defecting from Gadaffi's administration.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Regime change? When did he say that?

He has said and he hasn't said it. Using what we like to call double speak. When he says Gadaffi has lost legitimacy with his people. meaning he needs to go.

reply to post by American-philosopher


In other words, he didn't say it, and has been quite explicit about saying quite the opposite. Not that that serious discrepancy will stop the bash obama regardless of the facts crowd.

reply to post by beezzer


LOL> So a blog post making the same baseless accusation as you is your source? How about a quote from the guy himself saying 'regime change', as you so clearly implied above?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


what was unclear about what he said when another world leader has called your leadership illegitimate what does that mean.