Monday, June 13, 2011

Trapped in Terror

Gaddafi seems to be hiding underground fearing NATO air strikes against him. For someone who has amassed $120 billion of assets for him and his family, its not tough to build an underground bunker and have his own loyalists for cover.

He remains carefree, playing chess in an undisclosed location. The NATO coalition seem to be losing its momentum. To the rebels and the NATO coalition, Gaddafi's dictatorship is in decline, but for Gaddafi, it seems the coalition isnt going to be any game changer. The NATO allies have been calling other countries to join strike missions. They are close to military exhaustion; with costs running up to $1 billion by the end of this year.

He appears to be hiding in hospitals to avoid NATO air strikes and seems to be under pressure. He appears to be paranoid, believing in his own idea of dying a martyr than surrender. His military forces has not crumbled as quickly as the strategists had expected under NATO's superior military power. However, NATO strikes have crippled his power this deepening his anxiety.

But amidst all this, what is it for the citizens ravaged and torn?

NATO and its allies believe they are the moral authority to save the world and thus they can inflict their judgement on others and thereby police the world. They believe that the people would be grateful for liberating them from the clutches of a monster. Are we seeing another Taliban in the making here? The civilians need protection from the so called military strikes from NATO and pro-Gaddafi group. Does a no-fly zone help the civilians? So many of them are dead through the bombings on universities and hospitals. Many are injured, maimed for their life.What are NATO's ambitions? Clean sweep Gaddafi and liberate Libya - would people feel liberated at all? How can civilians be saved with bombs?

Its insanity in Libya - what is right, what is wrong? Millions displaced, broken societies, corruption, deaths, degraded infrastructure. Do we see an Iraq and Afghanistan in the making?


  1. I feel bad for Libyans. Libya needs to be liberated from Gaddafi first. But merely killing or bringing Gaddafi down is not the solution. Libya needs political stability. Only political stability can prevent Libya from becoming Afghanistan or Iraq. The stability would take a lot of time, but I guess it would help the Libyans in the long run.

  2. bosss..crisp and sharp analysis..very well written:)n i totally agree...

  3. Like many, I am no fan of dictatorship! I have read so many different stories of him some good some bad!

    You made a point loud and clear here! hiding in hospitals is such a mean thing to do!

  4. B, I guess this is the first post of yours on the subject of international affairs or politics. right?

    Interesting that you picked the subject.
    Who is the bigger threat to democracy7 and world peace and order the NATO or the Ghadaffis? Can you tell?

    if one goes into the history books it is always seen that there have been tyrants in the world be it a Ghadaffi a Saddam or an Iddi Amin. Even a bigoted obscurantist clan like the house of "saud' in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. But a pack of rulers camouflaged in democratic order like the NATO , or a ruler in the mold of the American Presidents - a George Bush , well no, you will never find!

  5. I feel very bad for the people of Libya. I hope they will be set free from this dictator soon.
    America (NATO) bashing is very fashionable nowadays. You wrote:

    “NATO and its allies believe they are the moral authority to save the world and thus they can inflict their judgment on others and thereby police the world”.

    It is not moral authority. It is doing something when a fellow human being is suffering from a tyrant. Have you read the news that Gadaffi ordered troops to rape women in his own country and supplied them with Viagra? Here is a link:

    Do you still want the world community including NATO to mind their own business?

    After all, we (Indians) are the people who turn the other way and do nothing when someone is hurt in an accident because we don’t want “trouble”.

    America (NATO) bashing comes out of inferiority complex because we (Indians) have no guts to do an operation like taking out Osama Bin Laden.

    Yes, the same people will be waiting outside the American Consulates for a 10 year tourist visa.

  6. Agree. Common junta always suffer because of politicians and dictators and wars. No one cares about a layman.

    PS:- May be you can change Irag to Iraq and counties to countries.

  7. Any interest taken by the West in Arabia and Gulf region can be linked to only one thing - oil. They have no other grandiose objectives of saving the people of Libya.

    Gaddafi of Libya, like most other Islamic nations, is a despot. One wonders why, in NO Islamic nation can we find democracy. How does Islam view democracy, human rights, equality and all other qualities that we usually assign under the nearest ideals for human society?

    To me, the political situation in Libya, in Egypt, Yemen and a host of other countries to follow, has cultural and religious roots. Unless the orthodox, extremist Islam learns to accept and tolerate other beliefs and cultures, peace will remain an dream for their people.

  8. Who cares about the citizen .Saw a video of him playing chess just few hours back.

  9. alwyas the common who suffer..
    everyone has selfish agends the nato backed uk-usa - france all have selfish reasons ..

    we have seen what happened in iraq,afghanistan and other places .. soon ti will be othr ocuntries wait andwatch :)


  10. The society in the world is divided into more than two sections. I know of at least. Those who suffer and those who dont. It is the common man who has suffered at the hands of the rulers,be it a democracy, Monarchy or Anarchy.History is only repeating itself.
    And, dont be surprised in time to come,some one may write about the wealth of some indian politicians running into Billions.
    Time will tell

  11. G3,

    Yes, they need to be liberated but how? Who really is the savior? Thats the dilemma.


    These comments coming from an editor - thank you sir :)


    Yes, Gaddafi is a dictator; amassed wealth and brought suffering to his people. Some say good things about him. But what is NATO doing now? What is right? What is wrong?

    Ultimately people suffer.


    Yeah I guess this is the first time I am writing directly relating to international politics. I just felt that I had to share my views, was sleepy last night; yet posted this.

    Its difficult to pin point who is a bigger threat. If the leader was plundering the country, the allies are trying nothing newer. Is it the oil? Seems so..We will never know the truth.

    We know who are all the crooks, dont we?


    Do they have to be set free from the dictator? Is that all the motive behind those cluster bombs and apaches?

    Why do you think I am bashing America? Is NATO ONLY America? Seems said it.

    Well, there are fellow human beings suffering elsewhere in the hands of tyrant.

    We can make a huge list of it. Gadaffi is never an angel. But my only question - how can you liberate people while bombing them?

    What happened with Iraq, Afghanistan?

    The passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 called for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians.

    Protect civilians by bombing them?

    Why are you bringing in Indians here for no reason? I dont think we Indians turn our way and do nothing! We deal with problems in a more sensible way.

    America (NATO) bashing comes out of inferiority complex because we (Indians) have no guts to do an operation like taking out Osama Bin Laden.

    NATO is just not America,it has 28 countries as its members. so no one is bashing America here. We have no guts to do an operation like taking out Osama? It was a hush-hush operation, whatever it was, at the end of the day; breaking the sovereignty of a democratic country? Preach about democracy and dont follow it??

    They did not even care what would have happened if Pakistan took some steps thinking it as an Indian attack? What if they had responded with bombing on Indian cities? Would America have owned it up?

    That was wrong! very wrong!

    Dont any American wait for an India visa?

    You may want to watch this -


    Yes. Thank you for pointing them out. I was dead sleepy while typing this post.


    Yes - the gold dinar for oil thing might be one reason. Though we really wont know.

    Its sad that their religious intolerance is taken for a ride and people suffer.


    Yes, who cares!


    Yes, thats sad.

    Chowla sir,

    :-) I dont know whether to smile or feel sad about what you said. Hope it doesnt become a reality.

  12. Well I have a question here.

    how many of people ( blogger & commentor) think that if some one is trying to save national interests of one's country. thats wrong?

    Indian Politician are worse then any thing in history i guess that way and in turn when if my shirt (being an Indian Citizen) is spotless ( of invasion of other countries in any form, for whatsoever the reason are), I show concern...Ohh how bad are they who are doing so (aka NATO)?

  13. You said "we deal with problems in a more sensible way". Oh ya! Talk is cheap and writing also. Thousands of innocent Tamils died in Sri Lanka. The world has seen how you dealt with that problem in a "sensible way". Translation: Do Nothing.

  14. Insignia,

    Refer your responses. In one way, NATO is America because it supplies most equipment and forces.

    Part of the reasons Americans fight against a country or a regime is for American interest. Humanitarian reasons may be another reason but American interest are utmost important too. But that is probably true for any country.

  15. NATO should strike the culprit

  16. Well, Libyans are suffering any which way. When the NATO forces had not interfered, Gaddafi had turned on his own people and was killing them brutally. I don't know what is the right thing to do here, but a mad man is let loose, and he is determined not to let go of his power.

  17. Makk,

    Please clarify who is trying to save and what national interest?

    Indian politicians - they are not to be called humans.

    Invasion??? Why should you even think of countries invading one another? Do you want that? Thats bad!


    I tried addressing your each point whereas you nudged all my points and caught just one of them and nuged away everything else! Clever!

    Talking about war crime in SL; what did your America do about it?


    I agree with you A. But I cant accept SG's views here blaming me for lashing out at America alone. NATA = America? No! Maybe it influences a lot, yet there are other countries in picture isnt it?

    American interests are the ones we are talking here. Saving civilians? Who cares!


    You dont seem to see the other picture. Sorry


    Yes, the civilians are suffering just because a large group is trying to eliminate a mad man.

  18. Just FYI. Here it is since you asked.

    Mike Owens, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, warned Sri Lanka in May 2009 and I quote:

    "About consequences if the government of Sri Lanka does attack the safe zone and large numbers of civilians are killed: Certainly, there would be consequences, and we've made it very clear to the leadership of the government of Sri Lanka there would be strong consequences if that occurred. I would not want to sort of tie our hands in terms of specifying exactly what those consequences would be, but we would certainly hold the government of Sri Lanka responsible for the death of a lot of civilians, and we've made that very clear to the leadership.”

    Robert Blake, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia told a media briefing in Colombo on May 4, 2011 and I quote:

    “The United States has continually expressed to the Government of Sri Lanka the importance of implementing a credible and independent process to ensure accountability. Domestic authorities have responsibility to ensure that those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law are held accountable. International mechanisms can become appropriate in cases where states are either unable or unwilling to meet their obligations.”

    It took the mighty America 10 years to bring Osama Bin Laden to Justice. So, wait and see what is going to happen to Mahinda Rajapaksa and his fellow culprits.

  19. I am terribly sorry Insignia. I know you have tolerated me for many years. Here is the last one on this post.

    On April 27, 2011, at the United Nations, India said that it is “willing” to “engage” Sri Lanka on the contents of the (UN War Crimes) report.

  20. mahendra,

    thanks and welcome to B Log.


    Lof of effort :) Thanks for sharing the quotations. Lets see when 'they' would actually act on their statements.

    TN is seeking economic sanctions on Lanka. Lets wait and watch

  21. All are equal...some are MORE equal

  22. Insignia,

    I don't really know how your discussion shifted to Sri Lanka. I don't believe the USA or India or the UN is pushing for any kind of sanctions against Sri Lanka. No action is planned by any country or any organization.

    Again keep in mind, countries engage in this kind of situation if there is personal interest. If SL was an oil rich country...the equation could have been different.

  23. A,

    SG started it. You may want to read his comments?

    Yes, neither the US nor anyone else is planning on any sanctions against SL.

    The state of Tamil Nadu - the ruling party ie. has requested the central government to impose sanctions on SL last week. Thats that. Nothing's gonna happen.

    Of course! I dont deny the 'selfish' motive. SG has to realize it :)

  24. In my comment:

    USA trying to save its own national interests.

    or how do you think they are going to afford energy crisis in future ( as far as there is no new miracle aka invention/discovery)

    IRAQ : oil source
    Afghanistan: Strategic Position in Asia
    Pakistan ( will follow the suit in future) : Check on INDIA & CHINA

    LIBYA etc: Oil source again

    and as far I read in comments about so called concerns of US for human rights of anyone who is not US citizen

    that all just total diplomacy.

    because US has always shown a behave which says as far as its own vested interests are not in danger.
    No Problem what ever any one do.

    P.S, : I am not supporting Gaddafi anyway.

  25. Makk,

    Yes, sorry I didnt understand what you are trying to say.

    Yes, US is trying to save its national interests.

    Anyway its not about US alone, its more about what civilians affected here.


I'd love to know what you thought :-) Please shoot!