Libya: 'Forced to rape in Misrata'

Source: BBC

Was there a systematic campaign of rape by forces loyal to Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi during the battle for Misrata?

Two young prisoners in a detention centre in the city tell me the answer is almost certainly "yes", and that they took part in the gang-rape of four women. The men, aged 17 and 21, are sitting on a sofa - heads bowed - in the same filthy, bloodstained army fatigues they were captured in two weeks ago.

"The mother was screaming and when we pointed the gun at her, she stopped screaming. Then we tied up the mother and father and their boys by their feet and hands. Then we shot every one of them in the leg. Then the officers took the girls upstairs, and we were told to go on the roof until the officers had finished the rape and then we were told to rape the girls too."

"We felt scared, but when we refused to rape, they started to beat us. There were four girls aged between about 20 and 24. They were conscious . I raped one. The girls said nothing. They were tired and they were in bad shape because there were 20 officers before us. It happened in the morning, and lasted about an hour and a half."



Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13502715

Added On May 23, 2011

CNN's Sara Sidner in Bengazi reports on the most detailed accounting of rape victims so far in the Libyan civil war.

Rape as a Weapon of War (3:41)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#

did they run out of incubator stories?

...I'm not convinced you could do this if you didn't want to.

However, I don't think it's determined as much by biology as it is by psychology, to the degree there's a difference between the two.

...are raped.

Physiologically, under the sort of circumstances that surround gang rape, almost any male "bonded" into the group, is capable of "performing". Generally its only young "kids" still puking up their toenails after their first messy battle who can't get it up. And the treatment they get from their mates, all but guarantees they're amongst the worst the next time around.

Unfortunately, gang rape is a naturally emergent group behaviour unless it is actively discouraged. A lot of very unsavoury behaviours are "natural" under the wrong circumstances. Fraternities, football and other sporting teams also have a certain notoriety for similar behaviour and for much the same reasons.

Now THIS example is of, one of the lesser evils of war being used as a tool to commit a far greater EVIL. The least of the offenders needs to be punished. There is no question about that. The problem will be seeing that the the controling minds directing the near mindless behaviour of the mob, get what's due them.

It's easy to dismiss such abhorrent behavior as unlikely by failing to consider the group dynamics which might form the context for those actions.

Lord knows what else is going on that we don't even know about.

But it is also a frequent propaganda claim. The most lurid propaganda often has a sexual aspect. For example, in WW1, both sides accused the other of raping nuns. The same was true in Viet Nam, WW2, Bosnia, etc.

Obviously, rape occurs during war. I think the notion that armies encourage it is generally unlikely, though. Effective armies require discipline and this would not be conducive too discipline. Discipline does break down, though. Really brutal wars (e.g. Nazi Germany and Soviet Union) are probably the worst for this.

But rape was much more than just a propaganda theme in the Yugoslav Wars. It happened on a large scale in Bosnia.

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

Also, I would disagree with the notion that the millions of rapes committed by Soviet soldiers at the end of WWII represented a discipline breakdown, though I agree that the phenomenon was a direct result of the particular way war was waged in the East. Discipline remained strict in the Red Army through the end of the war. It was common knowledge among Soviet soldiers that they would not be punished for rape, so they weren't really violating discipline, but rather committing acts that weren't really considered problems in the first place. Although I certainly don't endorse what happened, I can at least understand why it happened in light of German conduct in the occupied Soviet Union and the terrible circumstances Red Army soldiers endured (high casualties, no leave, returning to combat after serious wounds, etc.).

So the Red Army was pretty brutal during the battle of Berlin, or so I have read. In that case there may have been a policy of ignoring criminal behavior, if it served the purpose of national revenge. I gather that things were bad in Bosnia the 90's too.

War is one long crime really.

It was very much tied with revenge, though not entirely. Red Army soldiers didn't just rape Germans, but also women in every country they passed through, including those that were also victims of the Nazis (though of course German women were the most frequent victims). One of the few comments from Stalin we have on this phenomenon actually came about after a Yugoslav Communist brought up the fact that Red Army soldiers had committed rapes there, despite the fact that Yugoslavia had also endured a terrible German occupation. His response was essentially 'Eh . . . what can you really do?'

Like I said, I think it was a terrible thing, but I at least understand why it happened. Those who raped Bosnian women in the 1990s deserve less slack, IMO.

But I bear no malice toward these men if they're telling the truth. People do a LOT of things when there's a gun at their heads.

I agree that if they acted under duress and the threat of personal danger, that would excuse them somewhat for their actions.