NATO attacks Sirte ( to protect civilians )

It's become a hollow joke, hasn't it. There are civilians dead all over the place, hospitals abandoned for fear of attack to allow hundreds of wounded to die, pro-Gaddafi civilians mown down by rebels and Gaddafi blamed for executions, assassination by the rebels commonplace , France importing weapons by the tonne and NATO denying the Libyan government any opportunity to defend itself and those loyal to it. Plainly, its an abuse of the terms of Resolution 1973 and an abuse of power. It's become yet another illegal US attack upon a sovereign Middle-East state .

 

Congratulations, NATO, on creating another humanitarian disaster.

Please, let's have ' terrorism ' instead of NATO. It's less destructive.

 

...

You are full of it, Moon.

(1) this so-called illegal attack isn't illegal to begin with -- since it is supported by the UNSC -- and it isn't even an attack to begin with since NATO is only trying to eliminate the military capability of Qadaffi so he wouldn't use againt the civilian population.

(2) Hardly a "US attack" either -- since Muslim countries like Turkey are joining the peoples of the world to protect the Libyan population from a madman called Qadaffi and his crew of loyalists. Supported by the Arab League too.

(3) Libya isn't in the Middle East -- not by long shot.

Also, incredibly funny how you always wave with UNSC Resolution when it comes down to Israel, but bluntly refuse the ones that are not "so positive" for the people you seem to support. Sorry, but that is pretty pathetic on your part if you ask me -- since it raises the question if anyone should actually take you seriously?

 

Algeria next

 

If only Qadaffi had taken the United Nations, the Security Council and the will of the peoples of this entire world -- contained in the UNSC Resolutions -- more seriously.

If only he had gave away his power.

Then nothing of this would have happened.

 

The BBC recently showed a report on how hospital staff had fled one of the major hospitals in Tripoli, how the wounded were left to die in pools of their own blood, how the stench was almost unbearable, how terrible it was.

Yet this is a result of the Al-qaeda Rebels and NATO bombs and forced regime change, regime change was NOT in the UN security council resolution, regime change is NOT protecting the civilians, bombing cities is NOT protecting the civilians, destabilizing a country which would most likely result in many years of murder is NOT protecting civilians, yet the great BBC, who I used to respect and admire for their journalism has not reported such facts. I've awoken to the bias of the BBC and mainstream corporate media and I'm appalled.

Oh how we have not learned anything from the last world wars, where bombing of cities was heavily condemned by the international community, yet we have continued to do so or support such actions ever since.

 

NATO isn't carpetbombing.

 

Times change, technology changes, there is less death, but death is the result all the same, one life killed is in my view the same as many killed, not in volume but by principle, and if my government is committing such activities, then (*)(*)(*)(*)ed be them.

 

Just some random "fighters against bloody regime" pics.

 

No comment.






And these people were supposed to defeat Gaddafi's forces

Of course NATO won this war for them. And of course it breaks UN resolution.
NATO showed it's face, as usual.

Just some results of "fighting for freedom".
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/5408/800xpw.jpg
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/1539/800xfn.jpg
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/6469/800xkk.jpg

 

Its called civil war, Moon....

 

Moon is absolutely correct in stating that NATO (or rather certain members of NATO) always had the intention of regime change in Libya and that civilian protection took a back seat to this objective. Anyone who has been paying any attention whatsoever to the Libyan situation should be able to agree with this statement.

Where Moon is absolutely wrong is in implying that the goal of getting rid of Qadaffi is a bad thing or that civilian suffering would somehow have been less if NATO had not got involved. It is pretty obvious that, contrary to Russian media reports, the bulk of Libyans are overjoyed at the idea of getting rid of Qadaffi, who squandered his opportunity to properly develop his nation with all the oil revenues at his disposal and who has lived in a cloud of self-delusion in recent years.

Libya probably has in excess of $200 billion invested in various places overseas but it was still suffering from high unemployment and an abysmal education system under the Qadaffi regime. For that matter, infrastructure improvement over the past 25 years or so for anything not connected to the oil industry has been practically non-existent. As for Qadaffi himself, simply read about his behavior when he travelled abroad to understand just how out of whack he had become.

As for civilian casualties, I agree that the residents of Tripoli are now suffering from privation (but not much death) brought on by the prolongation of the civil war, but this is a result of not letting Qadaffi's forces rape the rebel city of Benghazi and carry out a purge of at least tens of thousands of people and quite possibly quite a few more. The streets of Benghazi would have metaphorically run red and NATO intervention stopped that from happening.

 

You do post some ripe dung. How many hundreds of Libyans were being killed before Western agitation fomented the civil war ? So Gaddafi was a hard bastard of a tyrant. So are the regimes in Saudi and Bahrain.

 

So you are blaming the West for the Arab spring????

That's fascinating... and Saudi Arabia's leadership IS NOTHING like Khadafi.. Their 70 year track record proves it.

 

No, we're not blaming the west for the so called "Arab Spring", we're disappointed with yet again more lies and violations of international law committed by our governments.

Our nations are meant to be an example of justice, equality, freedom and at the forefront of social freedoms in the world but alls we show the international community is how well we can break our own laws, and lie and manipulate our public for either passive or direct support of such operations.

 

I'm saying the West opposes the Arab Spring when it suits it and supports civil war when it suits it. The usual hypocrisy and double standards.

It's still tyrannical.

 

Disappointed? What did you want the US and Europeans to do?

Civil war is difficult.. it comes with death tolls and shortages.

 

So its YOUR conviction that Tunisia is just like Egypt is just like Libya is just like Afghanistan and just like Arabia and just like Bahrain?

What nationality are you, moon? What is YOUR country?

 

No. The West oppresses those who do not conform to its policies and subverts their societies. This isn't news to anybody, it's just coated with ' democracy ' syrup and served up as judeo-christian philanthropy.

It's not relevant, Margot. Nationalism stinks.

 

Well, I find it curious that you want all the Arab nations to crash into anarchy and civil war... as if they were all alike.

 

I'm vehemently opposed to dynastic leadership, whether it be Mubaraks, Gaddafis, Sauds or Bushes.

 

What do you know about the track record of the Al Saud over the past 70 years?

Did you know that in 1950 there were no roads, schools, clean water, telephones, hospitals or power plants.

Did you know that 98% of children had malaria and most didn't live to see their second birthday?

 

This is as a result of evolving civilization, not an achievement attributable to Saudi dynastic tyranny.

 

LOLOL.. Nope.. Its because they planned and invested in both social and economic progress for their people.

Is your country a failed country?

 

As a result of evolving social civilisation, not something attributable to Saudi dynastic tyranny.

I'm voluntarily Stateless.