PDA

View Full Version : NATO kills over 1,100 civilians in Libya


Lin Lin
Jul 14th, 2011, 09:28 AM
Is this real?:unsure:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1140884/1/.html

NEAR ASABAH, Libya: Muammar Gaddafi's regime accused NATO of killing more than 1,100 civilians as rebels repulsed an attack by forces loyal to the strongman on a key gateway to the Libyan capital.

Russia's special envoy to Libya, Mikhail Margelov, said in a newspaper report meanwhile that he believes Gaddafi has a "suicide plan" to blow up Tripoli if it falls to the insurgents.

The report came a day after the rebels recaptured Gualish, their launchpad for a planned assault on Tripoli, and an insurgent commander downplayed talk of a political solution, saying Gaddafi refuses to quit.

His regime said Wednesday it was seeking to prosecute NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Libyan courts for "war crimes" over the alliance's air strikes.

"As NATO secretary general, Rasmussen is responsible for the actions of this organisation which has attacked an unarmed people, killing 1,108 civilians and wounding 4,537 others in bombardment of Tripoli and other cities and villages," prosecutor general Mohamed Zekri Mahjubi told foreign journalists in Tripoli.

Apart from war crimes, Mahjubi accused Rasmussen of trying to kill Gaddafi, "deliberate aggression against innocent civilians" and of "the murder of children."

Also, the NATO chief stood accused of "trying to overthrow the Libyan regime" and replace it with a rebel movement under its control to "take over the wealth" of oil-rich Libya.

Gaddafi is wanted by The Hague-based International Criminal Court for atrocities committed in a crackdown by his forces on pro-democracy protests that erupted in mid-February.

Earlier on Wednesday, pro-Gaddafi forces had caught rebels off guard and attacked Gualish, which the insurgents captured a week earlier, seizing nearly all of it.

But rebels poured in from surrounding villages and besieged the hamlet, driving the loyalists out and chasing them up the road toward Asabah, some 17 kilometres (11 miles) away.

Above the town on the highway to Tripoli, the rebels fired heavy and small arms and loyalist troops responded with Grad rockets, said an AFP correspondent embedded with the rebels.

As the fighting raged in the Nafusa Mountains, a rebel commander in the area said a peace deal was "impossible" because Gaddafi refuses to step down.

"Up to now it is impossible to get a political solution. Gaddafi wants to stay; the rebels don't want," said Colonel Juma Brahim, head of the rebels' operational command for the region.

"To the last moment Gaddafi is looking for a peace solution because he is weak, all the soldiers and equipment are coming to our side one by one," Brahim told AFP.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, said at a joint news conference in Washington with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Gaddafi's "days are numbered" after signs of advances on the field by rebels.

Lavrov played down differences with Clinton over Libya, saying: "We have less misunderstanding with the United States than with some European countries."

However, his ministry said earlier that Moscow would not take part in upcoming discussions on Libya to take place later this week in Turkey.

On Tuesday, French and Libyan officials talked up the chances of negotiating Gaddafi's withdrawal from power and an end to the conflict still wracking the country after months of military stalemate.

Kremlin envoy Margelov said in an interview published Thursday in the Russian daily Izvestia that he believes Gaddafi has a plan to blow up Tripoli if it is taken by the rebels.

"The Libyan premier told me: if the rebels seize the city, we will cover it with missiles and blow it up," Margelov was quoted as saying in reference to a meeting last month with Libya's Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmudi.

"I imagine that the Gaddafi regime does have such a suicidal plan," he added, saying that Gaddafi still had plentiful supplies of missiles and ammunition.

Margelov met the Libyan prime minister on June 16 in Tripoli after holding talks in Benghazi earlier the same month. He has not met Gaddafi himself.

Russia abstained from a vote on a March UN Security Council resolution that opened the way for foreign involvement and has since criticized the campaign -- particularly arms drops by France.

- AFP

Lin Lin
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:56 PM
Why people are so silent on this?

Soliloque
Jul 15th, 2011, 12:46 AM
Because people don't know anything about this. Where is the truth ? Nato is likely to lie, so is Gaddafi's regime. Medias were talking about Libya all day long at the beginning of the war and now there's a weird silence since. The truth is most probably horrible anyway.

Milito22
Jul 15th, 2011, 02:00 AM
bravo :rolleyes:

Why people are so silent on this?

the media hide the truth

"war for freedom", "Muslims are terrorist"....:spit:

Lin Lin
Jul 15th, 2011, 02:11 AM
bravo :rolleyes:



the media hide the truth

"war for freedom", "Muslims are terrorist"....:spit:

too sad really:sad:

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 03:14 AM
I find U of Michigan prof. Juan Cole is a pretty good source of info on the Middle East and Islamic world.

He uses Arab world sources like Al-Jazeera to track stories. Here are a few stories about Ghadaffi:

He bombs his own people with cluster bombs:
http://www.juancole.com/2011/04/qaddafi-using-cluster-bombs-on-civilian-areas.html

Gov't troops using rape as a weapon:
http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/qaddafi-accused-of-systematic-rape-war-crimes-by-icc-un.html

The facts don't bear out Ghadaffi's claims about the death of his son:
http://www.juancole.com/2011/05/nato-strike-on-command-center-kills-qaddafi-son.html

Any claims from official sources should be treated with skepticism, but Ghadaffi is the one who is trying to rally what little support he has left. My guess would be he is greatly exaggerating casualties to try and turn popular sentiment against NATO and the TNC.

NATO and the TNC are probably minimizing them, but my guess is their claims are closer to the truth. Ghadaffi has killed thousands of his own people.

LeonHart
Jul 15th, 2011, 03:37 AM
Shame on NATO, shame on US. This world is fucked up forreals.

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 12:10 PM
Ghadafi has arranged tours for journalist of damaged areas in civilian areas, blaming them on NATO air strikes when the damage looks more likely to have been caused by ground fire (i.e. Libyan troops). He is accused of staging fake funerals, and has kept hospitals off limits, perhaps because there are NOT hundreds of casualties from NATO airstrikes.

The TNC, despite some unfortunate incidents when civilians or TNC troops have been killed, continues to express its support and gratitude to NATO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/25/libya-middle-east-gaddafi-yemen-syria-bahrain-nato

Again, skepticism is always warranted, but Ghadafi is the one who claimed his opponents were all out of their minds on drugs. He's a crazy dictator.

miffedmax
Jul 15th, 2011, 01:33 PM
Gaddafi brought in mercenaries to fight his own people. Convenient to forget Gaddafi was shooting and arresting hundreds of protesters a day before NATO intervened.

bulava
Jul 15th, 2011, 01:48 PM
I don't wish to deliberate on this dubious war but the negative effects are being felt in this country in form of steep hike in prices of Petroleum products (Petrol, Diesel, Domestic Gas etc). This is not at all good for its people, and to its growing economy. I know price rise is a global event, but still I'm utterly dismayed with their dumb decisions! There is no justification in whatsoever in attacking a small nation which isn't posing a global threat, isn't it? :o

Cashif
Jul 15th, 2011, 02:04 PM
I dont know enough to actually post in this thread but it is sad to see small nations being attacked by the SUPERPOWERS to give them so-called freedom. What has happened at Afghanistan, Iraq etc should have been a lesson for these superpowers but they are manipulating the media for their own means and destroying these helpless nations.

Afghan attack could have been justified because of Taliban cruelty but now that US is again in negotiation to bring Taliban back to power, what has been achieved here except destroy lives of millions of people. Saddam was the reason for destroying Iraq but wheren't Iraqis better off then?? IMO all of these are being done for political gains. History has shown that superpowers have always tried to dominate and US is now showing off its powers.

Yes, removing Gaddafi will be good for Libyan citizen freedom but at what cost?? By having media in their hands, these superpowers/politicians are fooling people:sad:

Lin Lin
Jul 16th, 2011, 01:27 AM
Poor libyans:hug:

ptkten
Jul 16th, 2011, 03:52 AM
I don't think anybody actually knows what is going down in Libya but what we do know is that Ghadaffi was a terrible leader who killed many of his citizens and was going to kill many more. Whether it was worth going to war to get rid of him is another question but I think both sides have merit on this issue.

To blindly follow information coming from a brutal dictator like Ghadaffi is just as shortsighted as only listening to official NATO statistics. I am almost certain that he is inflating casualties to rally people to his side.

pov
Jul 16th, 2011, 03:36 PM
Gaddafi brought in mercenaries to fight his own people. Convenient to forget Gaddafi was shooting and arresting hundreds of protesters a day before NATO intervened.
Apparently you have convinced yourself that choosing to believe anti-Gaddafi sources simply because "that sounds about right" is providing you with facts. It isn't.

As many have said, no one posting here really knows the facts. Even if there is an unbiased source with the real info, we don't know enough to identify it.

PhilePhile
Jul 16th, 2011, 10:46 PM
“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"

- Henry Kissinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger)


From the Press TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_TV) ('Iranian'):

YtA8EiUxWpc

MaBaker
Jul 17th, 2011, 09:41 AM
"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"
Sad but true.

It's disgusting how they really don't care for people's lives while they pretend they do.

bulava
Jul 18th, 2011, 09:55 AM
“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"

- Henry Kissinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger)


That sounds more like Bush to me :rolleyes: I thought Carrot and Stick policy sounds somewhat better. Nevertheless, having lived in the States for over 15 years, honestly I don't think such a Kissinger style policy would last for long enough in our "Changing World" because its nemesis is already there. Almost! So, I reckon the US has a few years left in terms of 'Unipolar' world :eek:

miffedmax
Jul 18th, 2011, 02:07 PM
I don't think anybody actually knows what is going down in Libya but what we do know is that Ghadaffi was a terrible leader who killed many of his citizens and was going to kill many more. Whether it was worth going to war to get rid of him is another question but I think both sides have merit on this issue.

To blindly follow information coming from a brutal dictator like Ghadaffi is just as shortsighted as only listening to official NATO statistics. I am almost certain that he is inflating casualties to rally people to his side.

Ghadaffi wasn't just bad for Libya. He played a major role in the tragedy in Darfur.
http://www.africanews.com/site/Gaddafis_seeds_of_hatred_in_Darfur/list_messages/23381

And the list of dictators he's bankrolled includes such luminaries as Charles Taylor and Robert Mugabe.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1878339,00.html


http://www.africanews.com/site/Gaddafis_seeds_of_hatred_in_Darfur/list_messages/23381

So yes, I will take anything NATO says officially with a grain of salt, but anything the Col. says with an mine of the same.

WowWow
Jul 18th, 2011, 02:13 PM
“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"

- Henry Kissinger (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger)


From the Press TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_TV) ('Iranian'):

YtA8EiUxWpc

To think that any country has "friends" is naive, really.

bulava
Jul 18th, 2011, 02:52 PM
So yes, I will take anything NATO says officially with a grain of salt, but anything the Col. says with an mine of the same.
I remember how NATO got embarrassed, by getting involved in a kinda political objective in case of infamous Georgian war. Initially, as usual, US & British media/NATO/others tried very hard to make the world believe that it's the Russia which invaded Georgia but all their efforts have utterly failed, and eventually everything got boomeranged! Bwahaha :lol:

I don't believe print/digital media of any country so easily :angel:

miffedmax
Jul 19th, 2011, 12:21 AM
Nor do I. I didn't trust them on Georgia, and I categorically rejected all the build-up to the Iran war. However, when given the choice between them and a demagog who's also claimed that his enemies are somehow both members of al-Quaeda and forcing mass conversions to Christianity in occupied areas, I will tend to cautiously start somewhere closer to NATO's numbers in this instance.

One of the reason's I was skeptical of NATO's claims about Georgia was that their record was pretty iffy on coming clean about previous issues in the past.

I try--and don't always succeed I admit--to not be completely knee-jerk either way. I was trained as a historian (even though I ended up in another profession) and I do try to check sources on things when I can.

So while I'm certain NATO is killing more people than they're admitting, I sure it's far, far less than Ghadafi is claiming.

Solitaire
Jul 19th, 2011, 01:12 AM
Sad but true.

It's disgusting how they really don't care for people's lives while they pretend they do.

Way to generalize. :yeah:


To think that any country has "friends" is naive, really.

Exactly


Nor do I. I didn't trust them on Georgia, and I categorically rejected all the build-up to the Iran war. However, when given the choice between them and a demagog who's also claimed that his enemies are somehow both members of al-Quaeda and forcing mass conversions to Christianity in occupied areas, I will tend to cautiously start somewhere closer to NATO's numbers in this instance.

Don't forget the psychodelics the rebels were given. lol.

Ryusuke Tenma
Jul 19th, 2011, 01:14 AM
Typical USA :shrug:

Lin Lin
Jul 19th, 2011, 01:58 AM
Wow,good reading:yeah:

ptkten
Jul 19th, 2011, 04:12 AM
It's always funny to read comments from people who claim that Americans always see things in black and white and generalize about other cultures who then go and make the same black and white statements and generalizations about the United States and Americans.

There are over 300 million people in this country with vastly different viewpoints on every issue in the world. As hard as it is for some to believe, we're not all pompous, arrogant assholes who think we should own the world.

In addition, how did this turn into an American bashing thread? I don't think the U.S. would have ever gone into Libya if France wasn't pushing them heavily on this. This is as much a European war as an American one.

Solitaire
Jul 19th, 2011, 05:20 AM
It's always funny to read comments from people who claim that Americans always see things in black and white and generalize about other cultures who then go and make the same black and white statements and generalizations about the United States and Americans.

There are over 300 million people in this country with vastly different viewpoints on every issue in the world. As hard as it is for some to believe, we're not all pompous, arrogant assholes who think we should own the world.

In addition, how did this turn into an American bashing thread? I don't think the U.S. would have ever gone into Libya if France wasn't pushing them heavily on this. This is as much a European war as an American one.

I think it's easier for people to take Americans as one homogeneous block. It fits in to their preconceived notions of what Americans are. You've been registered long enough to know how quickly a thread like this can turn into America bashing. :p

MaBaker
Jul 19th, 2011, 07:22 AM
Way to generalize. :yeah:
I think it's easier for people to take Americans as one homogeneous block.
My post wasn't about American citizens.