The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

Back to Libya.

Below is a good 19 minute video that sheds light on the ICCs attempt to detail their case against Gadaffi. Tis worth a gander.

http://www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english

Another of Walter E.'s pals!

Ed you ever ask yourself why all these stories are coming from a cabal of perhaps six or seven people?

shadowninty

jackiebaron wrote: »

10s of thousands have been butchered at the hands of the Anti-government terrorists.

:pac:

jackiebaron

shadowninty wrote: »

:pac:

Well now, isn't that just special. Do you have anything better to add than an emoticon, laughing boy?

How about this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebel-leaders-put-libya-death-toll-at-50000-2346590.html

How about this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011419114217768868.html

or this:

NATO Attacks kill at least 20 EVERY day! Now given the fact that NATO and their cretinous tactics can manage to drop a fcuking bomb in the wrong country during the bombardment of Serbia, I think it's safe to assume that these morons aren't quite certain that the 20 they whack each and every day are pro-Ghadaffi government forces. ... Imagine that....bombing and killing the defense forces of a country that hasn't threatened you. So much for the Nuremberg Charter.

So! Leaving aggressive war and illegal action aside and accepting the fact that the NATO twits are "offing" at least 20 Libyans a day, that would amount to close to 6000 over the course of 9 months. And that's a conservative estimate. Forget the poor black bastards from Chad that your beloved liberators are beheading. So yeah, stick with some sappy feel-good number of deaths if it helps you. You probably still think that only 50,000 Iraqis were killed, even though 40,000 were massacred in the siege of Fallujah alone.

Give us another smiley face there, sparky.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Forget the poor black bastards from Chad

classy...

shadowninty

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well now, isn't that just special. Do you have anything better to add than an emoticon, laughing boy?

How about this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebel-leaders-put-libya-death-toll-at-50000-2346590.html

How about this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011419114217768868.html

or this:

NATO Attacks kill at least 20 EVERY day! Now given the fact that NATO and their cretinous tactics can manage to drop a fcuking bomb in the wrong country during the bombardment of Serbia, I think it's safe to assume that these morons aren't quite certain that the 20 they whack each and every day are pro-Ghadaffi government forces. ... Imagine that....bombing and killing the defense forces of a country that hasn't threatened you. So much for the Nuremberg Charter.

So! Leaving aggressive war and illegal action aside and accepting the fact that the NATO twits are "offing" at least 20 Libyans a day, that would amount to close to 6000 over the course of 9 months. And that's a conservative estimate. Forget the poor black bastards from Chad that your beloved liberators are beheading. So yeah, stick with some sappy feel-good number of deaths if it helps you. You probably still think that only 50,000 Iraqis were killed, even though 40,000 were massacred in the siege of Fallujah alone.

Give us another smiley face there, sparky.

Well when a countries defence forces threaten - and harm their own people on masse, and are encouraged and/or forced to by their own government, then yes, its ACTUALLY RIGHT to help the innocent people getting killed.
I would like to see where you got your 20 a day figure, however either way, only a few hundred genuinely innocent people were likely killed by airstrikes.
Don't get me wrong, NTC forces have committed war crimes too - but this was not leadership sanctioned, and the leadership took action. Also way less in scale then Gadaffis war crimes
A lot more then 50,000 Iraqis were killed.
As for the your 40,000 massacred claim - from what I know most if the casualkties were inflicted by the militant groups and not Coalition forces.

Jeboa Safari

jackiebaron wrote: »

So! Leaving aggressive war and illegal action aside

What makes war legal or illegal in your book?

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What makes war legal or illegal in your book?

internationally agreed upon laws ...

Jonny7

shadowninty wrote: »

I would like to see where you got your 20 a day figure, however either way, only a few hundred genuinely innocent people were likely killed by airstrikes.

Innocent civilian casualties from NATO have been relatively low.

Around 50 civilian fatalities confirmed (apart from the attack on Majer which no one can seem to verify) up until fall of Tripoli

Joshua Jones

Jonny7 wrote: »

Innocent civilian casualties from NATO have been relatively low.

Around 50 civilian fatalities confirmed (apart from the attack on Majer which no one can seem to verify) up until fall of Tripoli

Sorry, but are you trying to rationalise and justify the killing of 50 innocent people????.

Jonny7

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Sorry, but are you trying to rationalise and justify the killing of 50 innocent people????.

I am giving the actual figure. You quoted a few hundred, and some other poster put up a figure of 20-a-day.

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

internationally agreed upon laws ...

So what makes the humanitarian intervention in Libya illegal?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am giving the actual figure. You quoted a few hundred, and some other poster put up a figure of 20-a-day.

Actual figures my arse.

You were overcome with joy when NATO declared the no-fly-zone. Plus, NATO are directly responsible for these hordes of Al Qaeda cutthroats and other death squads they have buddied up with that are lynching and killing blacks and exterminating their other rivals. Sickening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9ZYup4Qwc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7STWxRtFsc

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

humanitarian intervention

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Brown Bomber

The day the coalition bombed the residence of Khouildi Hamidi to Sorman, killing thirteen civilians including a pregnant woman, four children and a baby, NATO issued a press release in which it justified its action. Investig'Action scanned this news release and accompanying photo.

1 - PRESS RELEASE - June 20, 2011: NATO strikes a central command and control military

FALSE: We went there. There is no indication that this was a military target. In addition, the day before the bombing, the family had gathered to celebrate a birthday. Who, in war, would the idea of meeting in a military command center?

2 - NAPLES - NATO is aware of allegations that one of its air strikes had targeted a residential building close to Sorman, west of Tripoli, early Monday morning. Following careful control, NATO is able to confirm you have actually conducted an airstrike in the area at this time: it was a precision strike to a legitimate military target, in namely a central command and control directly involved in the coordination of systematic attacks against the Libyan people.

TRUE: It was indeed a "precision strike" eight rockets were completely destroyed several buildings on the property while sparing the surrounding houses and the mosque.

3 - While NATO is not able to confirm that there were victims, she deplores loss of civilian life and does everything possible to avoid such losses. This approach is diametrically opposed to the Gaddafi regime, which continues its policy of systematic and sustained violence against the Libyan people.

BAD FAITH : The day after the bombing, the press went there and found the death of fifteen people, including several children. From 12 o'clock, several newspapers have revealed this information on their websites.

4 - It is following a rigorous analysis, based on a permanent mission of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and conducted over a long period that the facility's air raid items have been identified as a command center and control. NATO does not target specific individuals.

TRUE and FALSE : The accuracy of the bombing suggests that NATO had an accomplice on hand to provide information or place tags. However, the accomplice must have known that a party was to take place the day before the attack. Also, by choosing to bomb at that time, NATO deliberately targeted "people specific"

5 - "This will strike a major blow to the ability of the Gaddafi regime forces to continue their barbaric attacks against the Libyan people "Said General Charles Bouchard, Commander of Operation Unified Protector.

NONSENSE : The target was not military, its destruction does not lessen the forces of Gaddafi. Moreover, since the attack, hundreds of Libyans gather each day on site to express their support for the family Hamidi. Could this be the case if the target was actually a military center involved in repression "barbaric"?

6 - NATO will continue its mission of protecting the Libyan people, in full compliance with Resolution 1973 of the Security Council of the UN.

FALSE : Resolution 1973 authorizing a UN intervention to "protect civilian populations and areas at risk of attack ". The bombing of the residence to Sorman Hamidi does not meet this goal.

---

---

Evidence from the image?
NATO claims to have bombed a military command center. As the sole proof of the legitimacy of the target, it has provided this photo of the site, saying that the white dots were satellite dishes.





Here is another view of the village of Sorman, taken with Google Earth. This is not a luxurious residence like Hamidi but simple homes. However, their roofs are covered with satellite dishes. Is it provided military command centers?




Before proceeding to act, NATO said they conducted a "rigorous analysis, based on a permanent mission of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and conducted over a long period." She knew what she was doing by bombing the residence of Hamidi when the whole family was reunited. Thus, it is deliberately that the Alliance attacked civilians.

According to the Libyans we met, it is unfortunately common practice of the organization. Seeing it again mired in a conflict, it looks likely to pay to the Libyan people the price of its resistance to divide or turn against Gaddafi. Anyway, we do not see how, as she claims, her "Approach is diametrically opposed to the Gaddafi regime."
See the press release on the site of the NATO

Source: michelcollon.info

shadowninty

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Sorry, but are you trying to rationalise and justify the killing of 50 innocent people????.

It is very sad, yes. No one innocent should ever die. However Gadaffis forces killed and intended to kill exponentially more innocent civilians then that - Just for disagreeing with him, or being near some people who disagreed with him. The NATO air strikes destroyed much of his killing capability, mind you much of it should never have been sold to him in the first place.

Joshua Jones

shadowninty wrote: »

It is very sad, yes. No one innocent should ever die. However Gadaffis forces killed and intended to kill exponentially more innocent civilians then that - Just for disagreeing with him, or being near some people who disagreed with him. The NATO air strikes destroyed much of his killing capability, mind you much of it should never have been sold to him in the first place.

So to save innocent lives you have to kill people?.

Man, sometimes I feel like I live in bizaro world.

shadowninty

Joshua Jones wrote: »

So to save innocent lives you have to kill people?.

Yeah, indeed the world is quite bizzare.
I'm pretty sure that the NATO intervention Afghanistan and WWII are perfect examples from differnet times

Brown Bomber

shadowninty wrote: »

Yeah, indeed the world is quite bizzare.
I'm pretty sure that the NATO intervention Afghanistan and WWII are perfect examples from differnet times

Yeah I know what you mean

Libya

Dresden

And let's not get started on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Joshua Jones

shadowninty wrote: »

Yeah, indeed the world is quite bizzare.
I'm pretty sure that the NATO intervention Afghanistan and WWII are perfect examples from differnet times

WW2 maybe, but I have my reservations when I realised how both sides of the war were funded. The other 2 (Afgan, Libya) are resourse grabs. Totally different. But I'm getting the feeling you believe it was for humanitarian reasons.

Brown Bomber

shadowninty wrote: »

It is very sad, yes. No one innocent should ever die. However...

There is nothing you could've said after "however" which could have justified murder IMO. That said and by the same token how many civilians can be justifiably killed by NATO in Bahrain so far? How many Israelis could NATO justifiably kill in protection of the Palestinian civilians? And what's the difference?

shadowninty wrote: »

Gadaffis forces

Out of interest, and your certainly not alone, I find myself doing it sub-consciously also, why do you refer to the Libyan Army as "Gadaffi's forces"? I suspect it is a propoganda trick repeated ad-nauseum by the media to give the impression that the Libyan army are/were illegitimate and are some kind of mercenary crew financed by the evil James Bond villain Gadaffi.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

Another of Walter E.'s pals!

Ed you ever ask yourself why all these stories are coming from a cabal of perhaps six or seven people?

What? Who? Haven't the foggiest who Walter E is tbh.

Brown Bomber

What? Who? Haven't the foggiest who Walter E is tbh.

The filmmaker was in the Rixos with (Walter E) Fauntroy . Apparently being in Tripoli during the NATO invasion deligitimises you somehow.

I'd like to see studiorat watch the video and honestly comment on the facts within.

ed2hands

Joshua Jones wrote: »

WW2 maybe, but I have my reservations when I realised how both sides of the war were funded. The other 2 (Afgan, Libya) are resourse grabs. Totally different. But I'm getting the feeling you believe it was for humanitarian reasons.

Yes, i'm getting that feeling too JJ. He's just trotted out the old " but he intended to kill countless innocent civilians" bull**** already. Which is completely false of course.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The filmmaker was in the Rixos with (Walter E) Fauntroy . Apparently being in Tripoli during the NATO invasion deligitimises you somehow.

Here's our pals after "escaping" from Tripoli. The article you have copied already said he was there with the Voltaire "team", of which the film maker was a part of too. Though I suspect you knew that, yet have the neck to ask me to comment honestly.

I watched the video. Biased as usual. That's why I ask ed does he not question the same stories coming continually from the same source?

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Here's our pals after "escaping" from Tripoli.

What's your point?

studiorat wrote: »

The article you have copied already said he was there with the Voltaire "team", of which the film maker was a part of too. Though I suspect you knew that, yet have the neck to ask me to comment honestly.

1- WTF has what some article I supposedly posted got to do with you commenting honestly?
2. WTF does a photo with 3 people in it prove? It's Lizzie Phelan, from PressTV, Teil from the Voltaire Network and Fauntroy from neither.

Are you claiming that Fauntroy is a member of Voltaire Network? If not, what is your point?

studiorat wrote: »

I watched the video.

Lovely. I look forward to your counter-arguments

studiorat wrote: »

Biased as usual.

Oh, three words. Not exactly a damning critique is it? The man goes to Tripoli, get's trapped in a hotel makes a 20 minute film and rebuttal is three little words?

studiorat wrote: »

That's why I ask ed does he not question the same stories coming continually from the same source?

Well it'd be 3 sources wouldn't it? PressTV, Voltaire and Fauntroy's interview with The Afro. Before you edited your post you referred to a cabal which counts Teil and Fauntroy amongst it's members. Could you expand?

jackiebaron

shadowninty wrote: »

It is very sad, yes. No one innocent should ever die. However Gadaffis forces killed and intended to kill exponentially more innocent civilians then that - Just for disagreeing with him, or being near some people who disagreed with him. The NATO air strikes destroyed much of his killing capability, mind you much of it should never have been sold to him in the first place.

And how exactly do you know this? It's akin to me barging into your house, slitting the throats of your kids, raping your wife and then coming out and stating "if it wasn't for me, things would have been so much worse".
I'd like to try to appeal to what smidgen of intellect you might have...and it is this: YOU DON'T ATTACK SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU THINK OR ****ING FEEL LIKE THEY LOOK LIKE THEY MIGHT BE DREAMING ABOUT BUYING A ****ING GUN!! "If I didn't kill that guy he would have done XYZ".....Get the FCUK OFF!!!


So now, if I come out and state that Joe X who runs country Y is about to whack thousands are you just going to blithely say...."dunno where or who these people are, but dammit, launch the napalm"? Cretinous gibberish like that makes people like you the darlings of the fistagon. You'd love this little clip:


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So what makes the humanitarian intervention in Libya illegal?

it was not humanitarian intervention, it was regime change.
simples.

secondly it was a sovereign state running internal affairs ...

so why do you think it was legal? what laws make it legal? cite a few for my benefit ...

Jonny7

Joshua Jones wrote: »

So to save innocent lives you have to kill people?.

Man, sometimes I feel like I live in bizaro world.

Sometimes yes, its a part of life. Yugoslavia, Ivory coast.

Whereas something like Iraq was much more of a resource war, which most of the world was against, and showed it.

Some people pay attention to the horror of war only when it involves the US/Israel, but ignore the other conflicts and wars around the globe. Selective outrage if you will.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Whereas something like Iraq was much more of a resource war, which most of the world was against, and showed it.

good thing nato jumped in to stop that .. oh wait it did not? guess those lives were not worth the effort ...

Di0genes

This thread doesn't seem to be a conspiracy theory anymore merely a soapbox for political discussion on libya