Sunday, June 19, 2011

On NATO's 'humanitarian' military intervention in Libya


The BBC reports:

At least five people have died in a Nato air strike that hit a house in the Libyan capital Tripoli, Libyan government officials say.


A three-storey house was badly damaged at the scene of the alleged air raid in the city's Souk al-Juma residential district.


Correspondents were later shown five bodies at a Tripoli hospital.


Nato is investigating the incident. It has admitted hitting mistaken targets in the past.

The BBC’s Jeremy Bowen writes:

Nato's mandate is to protect civilians. More questions now seem likely about what Nato is doing in Libya and what it is achieving - not least by Nato members who never agreed with the operation.


Afterwards, we were taken to Tripoli central hospital. The dead bodies of a husband and wife and a baby were in the mortuary, along with another dead man. Medical staff said they were all killed in the attack.


Another dead baby was brought in. Doctors were working on a man with a bad wound in his arm.







11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Media lies are noted here

http://lefti.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html#6801030842824119438

Brian

Douglas said...

Two prominent legal authorities in the Obama administration have counseled President Obama that the War Powers Act applies to Libya. President Obama has decided to ignore their counsel.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that only 26% of Americans are in favor of continued military action in Libya. This poll was taken a week ago. I grasp from this that President Obama has not made the case for war in Libya.

Given that he had to ignore not only two top advisors, but polling data as well, I hereby confess bewilderment as to why President Obama is so committed to this war. Earlier, I commented that it was strictly for the business of getting President Obama re-elected, but it doesn't seem to be helping that cause.

I hope it gives you some consolation that not all Americans are war-mongering neocons.

Rory Gallivan said...

Does anyone have info on the rebels' use of child soldiers? In the Daily Record a few weeks ago there was a picture of a "rebel soldier" who looked about 12 wielding an AK-47, but I have not been able to find out whether it is true.

Anonymous said...

TERRIBLE PICTURES OF How NATO "protect civilians" in Libya: THEY ARE CRIMINALS!

Así es como la OTAN "protege civiles"

http://www.youtube.com/user/Rayyisse#p/u/4/_0GoMgh8v9U

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/video_fotos/2011/06/110619_galeria_libia_tripoli_otan_ataque_aereo_mt.shtml

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25221

neil craig said...

We gave seen the same media lies here that were used to let our government commit wear crimes, ethnic cleansing, child rape, genocide and the dissection of living people against the Yugoslavs.

Compare and contrast with civilised people:

"During
Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the
rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of
warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its
military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

...The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same
extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the
international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are
in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians
notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over
100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military
capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict,
the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid
virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally
quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

...More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas's
way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop
Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians
in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Col. Richard Kemp"

Can anybody suggest that there4 is a single prominent politician in the Conservative/Labour/LibDem conglomerate who is not an obscene genocidal Nazi animal? Can anybody suggest that a single one of these murdering filth has 1/1,000th the humanity of virtually every Israeli soldier?

Nazi war criminals guilty of genocide should be given a fair trial and then hung from Big Ben. I'm sure it could take the weight.

neil craig said...

We are seeing the same media lies strung out that these obscenities used to promote their war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide, child rape and dissection of living people against the population of Yugoslavia.

By comparison "During
Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the
rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of
warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its
military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

...The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same
extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the
international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are
in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians
notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over
100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military
capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict,
the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid
virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally
quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

...More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas's
way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop
Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians
in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Col. Richard Kemp"

Can anybody dispute that the racist Nai animals who make up almost all members of the Con/Lib/Dem conglomerate are personally unfit to lick the boots of any member of the Israeli armed forces and deserve, after a short and fair war crimes trial, to be hyng by the neck from Big Ben? I am confident it is well enough built to take all the weight.

olching said...

But...Neil...! They meant well! And the dead died for their own good! And there will be a full and open investigation (read: a press release expressing regret without saying say) into the matter. We are all humanitarians now.

Anonymous said...

What right does NATO have to even be in Libyan airspace? let alone violate the very res 1973 they say justifies their killing people??!

also: this on twitter:
OPEN LETTER TO TWITTER: STOP NATO FROM USING YOUR DOMAIN FOR THEIR KILLINGS IN LIBYA
etc

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/b7ea7l
======
Brian

FaridaSamatha said...

It doesn't matter what the studid Israeli "Defense" Forces do. IN all wars bad things happen and innocent people die anyway. Everything is destroyed and it doesn't matter because it is both Soldiers and civilians. The Libyan War is much worse than any war in history. This is because of the fact that most of the American People are against this foolish and senseless war. It is not only just Pat Buchanan and Michael Moore. But now it is David Horowitz as well.

FaridaSamatha said...

Also we all have to mention that David Horowitz who is the editor of Frontpage Magazine.com is very pro-Israeli. He even called both Hamas and Hezbollah Nazi Parties. Even though we both strongly disagree with him on these things, we belive that he is right on the fact that the Obama administration is very wreckless and he is angry with the neocons for chering Obama's attack on Libya. Horowitz called for the neoconservatives to return to the drawing board and give up the "neo" and become conservatives again. The column on Frontpage Magazine.com is called "Why I am Not a Neoconservative". It is a very interesting and exciting column.

Neil Clark said...

thanks everyone for v.interesting comments on this thread up to now.