NATO war crimes
 

warning graphic footage








Instead of NATO bombing the **** out of innocent people how about this solution instead

Who are we to believe? pro or anti Gaddafi people inside Libya?

well have an election!!!! and have it be monitored by independent representatives, who have no connection to America or Europe

Then the world accepts the vote of this election

Why don't Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron call for this instead of promoting death by NATO bombs?

we get told Gaddafi is evil tyrant and oppressing his people

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life

Libya has the no1 highest HDI in all of Africa

Libya has 4th highest GDP per person in all of Africa

Who wants peace in Libya?:xyxwave:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...as_2011-en.svg

hmm wonder why the "rebels" sprung up in east libya

Yes sadly we are now in Nato War Crimes.

We should not be in Libya, now

Words need to have meaning.

'War Crime'. We call something a 'crime' when there is a deliberate intent to cause harm to innocent people.

Example:
Nato forces know there is children in a building and agree to kill the children.

Example of what is NOT a war crime:
NATO forces want to stop bombs from killing 1000s of innocent children and so they aim at what they believe is the bomb planning offices.
however,
It turns out that the would-be targets deliberately put the office next door to a school.
They did this knowing that NATO would likely strike their building and knowing NATO won't kill innocent children, they think it protects their building,
however,
IF NATO doesn't believe there are children and DO explode their office then those dead children will make great propaganda.
Maybe even pressure NATO to leave.
At which time they can make bombs and explode the 'enemy children'.

and far too many people are far too stupid to catch onto any of this.

Anyways, yes the guy should be killed because he murdered a plane full of people and bragged about how the wimp UK fools gave him back his terrorist.
What a bunch of pathetic foolish Kafirs. Proof Islam is superior to the weak little Brits haha.

I think NATO are making a real chaotic mess of the action concerning Libya, they also are guilty of any crimes too if they have by their bombimgs caused any civilian deaths and even more so to Children.

The Nations involved are not at war with Libya, Libya has not declared war on any Nation and since this is turning into a masisve farce as to the operational quality by NATO we should get out now, we had no place to be there or involved in any way in the first place.

It has been exposed as false. It turns out the children they showed in some hospitals they claimed were victims of NATO bombing, were actually just from a car crash, and the libyan government made the whole thing up. The father of the girl used in one of the hospital video's admitted she was in a car crash, and had nothing to do with NATO bombing.


This has been going on in afghanistan and Iraq too, in the arab countries they use people in normal accidents and claim it's from the war. I'm not saying there arn't civilians injured, but a lot of it is just propaganda.

I don't think it has been proven they weren't killed as a result of NATO air strikes, that may well be USA propaganda but I will wait to hear official decisions with 100% proof of that being the case. I know of no such verification given in the UK to date as to that.

I didn't mean the specific people in these video's. But i remember one of the video's put out by the libyan state media has been proven to be a fraud, hold on, i'll look for the article i read...

this is from The Guardian, which is definitely not "US propaganda" In fact the Guardian is known for being anti-american and anti-war, so why would they lie about this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ils-fool-media

"The Libyan government's attempts to show how Nato bombing is harming civilians backfired when a hospital worker revealed that a seven-month-old "air strike victim" had been injured in a car crash.

Foreign journalists in Tripoli were taken by bus to a hospital on Sunday night to see the seven-month-old girl, Nasib, who lay unconscious. Media handlers claimed she had been hurt when a bomb exploded in a field near her house on the eastern edge of the capital a few hours earlier.

But a member of the medical staff slipped a note written in English on hospital stationery to a reporter, which was seen by Reuters, that said: "This is a case of road traffic accident. This is the truth."

I take what you say on board lostalex, I also meant no offence as to saying USA propaganda, the UK is very good at using propaganda to cover its errors, actually Obama has been more cautious to be fair in involvement in Libya.

I don't want you thinking I am against the USA though.

no worries. personally i'm against all of these "world policeman" type wars in the middle east/north africa but it is important to remember that the people we are fighting are no angels eigther and there is a lot of misinformation on both sides.

this is what should happen in libya

NATO stop bombing immediately and UN try to organise a ceasefire

libyan spokespeople have said many times they want end to the violence

once ceasefire established there should be an election inside libya

this election should be monitored by neutral countries, no one from europe or america

if gaddafi loses the election he stands down, if he wins through democratic election then this shows the majority support him

west needs to **** out of libya and stop getting involved

none of this will happen though because they want regime change for their own agenda yet again

arab spring is just the excuse and means by which they achieve their goals

I agree with all that really, even though most of it as you say will never likely happen.

This is in some ways like IRAQ,we claimed a different agenda going into Iraq but we did always intend to get rid of Saddam Hussein, here although under the NATO umbrella, that is again what we really want to happen.

I believe we were 100% wrog to get militarily involved in Libya and that we should refuse to take any further part.
Give the talking a chance now as you also again said.The real reason behind all this though is a 3 letter word, oil.

britain and american governments like to make friends with people like this



on a lighter note, this video is very funny:joker:

No.
The reason is not oil.

It's amazing to me how many people love coming online (or on television) and (as if in the know) feel they just need to say the word 'Oil'.

Since I live in a region producing massive amount of oil and have family who worked in the oil business in Libya then lets try and understand a really basic thing in life:

Libya has to sell its oil. It doesn't matter who runs that place. They WILL CONTINUE selling oil.
Right now it's dictator sells massive amounts of oil at highly controlled and regulated prices.

If he is eliminated and Mohammad Mohammad King of the Rebels becomes Grand Poobah then guess what?
He will be selling that oil.

Makes no damn difference to us whatsoever.

The only possible problem could happen if some morons get in there who (somehow) try and shut down production or refuse to sell it.
Which would be STUPID for them.
Obviously.
Even a stupid Jihad moron leader easily gets the idea of having MASSIVE CASH GIVEN TO THEM.
And EVEN IF that happened you need to understand that other oil-producers just up their production.

If this was only about oil then the best case scenario is this idiot stays dictator and keeps selling massive amounts of oil.

So no. This is not about oil. Sorry that ruins a lot of peoples 'insider wink' thing,
but, if you just think of this for 1 minute you can see, quite obviously, it is not about oil.

Very sensible reply which puts the issue in perspective. All too often people bandy the words "war crimes" without having a clue as to the realities of war.

All too often people buy into propaganda and setups by the enemy......

As your reply indicates when at war attacking the enemy is always a risk to civilians but not a deliberate attempt to kill them as is the case with regimes slaughtering there own to hold on to power......

If one called the killing of civilians a war crime then no war would be able to be persued and tirents would continue to be supreme.

Of course one can alway argue the case for or against being involved that is a personal point of view from all concerned........But to accuse NATO who are using sofisticated expensive technology to minimise civilian victims of war crimes is just plain bloody ridiculous if not bordering on insanity......When you compare NATO's actons to that of the Libian regime.....

I've come to accept that the US is a rogue nation that uses humanitarianism as a pretext for doing the most unhuman acts such as seizing control of another nation's natural resources (no matter how poor the nation is). If you take what these people at the top say at face value, we're launching this operation to save civillians. I don't believe that nor should anyone else.

"But to accuse NATO who are using sofisticated expensive technology to minimise civilian victims of war crimes is just plain bloody ridiculous if not bordering on insanity."

Yes Errors
Hit Tech they claimed
It is still Death of the public.

I dont necessarily think oil is the main reason for our intervention but your argument against that claim isnt particularly strong. Yes, anyone who was in power probably would sell oil, hence why a prolonged civil war is destabilising and detrimental to our oil trade and the quickest possible outcome would be preferable. And most of the oil fields are in the East where the Rebels were in control in a lot of the places and immediately began to sell oil to the West. If you were to look at in terms of oil, you can see why the West would want to support a Rebel victory and try and assist them in that cause

Agreed Arista, i thought the whole point of this intervention was to protect the public?

Wow, read a book. You really didn't pay attention in history class if you can even entertain this idea. Compared to attrocities by other nations, the USA is a puppy dog.

You have a very warped perspective.

China commits more attrocities against it's OWN PEOPLE, than anything the US has done to anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I'm afraid you're lost, lostalex. I know more history than you'll ever know and I've spent more time reading history books than you'll ever spend. I was reading history books when you were still getting your diapers changed.

Interesting that you didn't outright challenge the points I made but rather tried to downplay them by saying other countries do worse things. That may be the case but so what? I don't get a high from feeling that we're better than Communist China. And if you were well read in history you would be far less likely to compare the US to a puppy dog. The Native Americans? The African slaves? Do those ring any bells? Our history shows that we're not really as humane as you would like to think.

The horrors against the Native American's and African American's (there were far more slaves in the carribean and south america than north america, but we don't hear much about that) were a result of EUROPEAN colonialism, nothing America did. America didn't invent slavery or colonialism, so how can you lay that on America??

Follow the money dude/dudette.

See, there you go again. It's true that there were a higher proportion of slaves in the West Indies and, going one step further, it was even technically true that the slaveowners in the states were far more humane to the slaves than the slaveowners in the carribean. But again: so what? Try to stop thinking in terms of how less bad we are to other nations and start trying to think about how much better we ought to be. If the defense for Casey Anthony tried to make the point that, yes she killed her daughter, but she's a puppy dog compared to other murderers, they'd be laughed out of the court.

Maybe you're misinterpriting what I'm saying. There are some people who think the US is a force for good and there are some people who think the US is responsible for most of the ills in the world. I don't fall into either camp and if you think I fall into the latter, well I don't.

I'm just saying, perspective is important. That's all. America is not the whole world. The world is much larger than America, and it's important to keep perspective about America's place in a much larger world.

America is about to celebrate being only 235 years old tomorrow. The world was a fvvcked up place long before America existed. Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya were 3rd world sheet holes long before us.

It's important to remember that America has made the world a better place, not a worse place.

Even if the US has made the world a better place, it's no longer making the world a better place. Our biggest export today is paper dollars and we have this tendency to treat 3rd world countries like children that are unable to rule themselves.

America is in decline. The country is bankrupt. Hyperinflation is coming.

Compared to the people from 1776, people have no backbone today. The citizens back in the 1760s and early 1770s went ballistic when Parliament tried to tax a few pennies on their tea. Contrast that to today when government tries to force people to buy health insurance and the vast majority of people go back to listening to their ipods. The founders and citizens back in 1776 would have fought this government that now occupies Washington DC to the death. I would argue that the nation that was created 235 years ago no longer exists. The "New World" has come to have most of the trappings of the old one. And the people across this "fruited plain" no longer have the zeal for economic and personal liberty that made them special.

So, I once thought the US was a force for good but no longer. We're never going to be a force for good again until we go back to our roots and rediscover what made the nation great in the first place.

You sound like the Tea Party.

America is a work in progress, like all nations, and more importantly all human beings. Every year of these past 235 years has been better than the year before.

The world is most definitely getting better every day not worse, and America has a lot to do with that progress.

If you could go back in time 50 years, 100 years, 200 years... meet the people of those time periods, i doubt you'd want to trade places with any of them.

Name any time in history that was better than now. I'd be interested in knowing which time in history you believe is better than now. Which period of history had less poverty? which period had less disease? which period had more equality? which period has less violence, less rape, less crime?

I can't think of any.

From what I've read and the general impressions I get the 1950s weren't too shabby. Back then people didn't have to work three jobs to support themselves and a family. One job usually sufficed and the wife didn't even have to work. Back then people actually saved their money instead of going into the red thousands of dollars. The education was better. Does that answer your question?

A Wife didn't "have" to work? so you think women only work now because they have to?? No, women work more because women WANT to work, women have way MORE opportunities. My mom was a working mom, and if she lived in the 50's she'd be miserable, she'd have no chance to excel in her field back then. She told me stories about how when she went to school back then, they told her she could only be a nurse, secretary, or a teacher. Women got paid literally pennies on the dollar back then.

I guess you don't watch Mad Men.

This debate we're having just criss-crosses so many broad areas. :shocked:

Before I respond to your latest post, let me ask out of idle curiousity: are a "dude or a dudette"? (I'm a dude, btw)


It's good that women want to work, I suppose, because that's what must happen if they are to support a family. However, the child will grow up to be smarter and more emotionally healthy when the mother is around. I view it as a perogative when the woman doesn't have to work and has the option of staying at home and raising the family. I'm a man and I must work. There's no way around that. And right now I'm determined and working towards getting a great job in the Actuarial field. You have to have some skills in mathematics (which I do :blush2: ) but there is a lot of money making potential. I want to get a job where the pay is so great that when I get married and have kids I want my wife to have the perogative of staying at home. Of course I would never forcefully push her to stay at home or even strongly push the idea but I trust that once she has a kid mother nature will kick in and she'll want to spend less time working and spend more time raising kids. That's how it was when my mother had me (she quit her business) and that's how it is right now with my older sister. My older sister had some very passionate feminist views when she was younger but now that she has a kid, she wants to quit her job as a lawyer (even though it is part time). She is still working, ironically enough, because her husband doesn't want her to quit.

Basically females are hard-wired to want to be close to and raise their kids. That's how it is and that's how it should be if we want to survive as a species. You can want to work and I believe you want to work but, at least my experience shows, once you have a kid, biology, hormones, whatever you call it, kick in. So I view it as a perogative when the woman has the option to stay at home and not work (which I'd love to give any wife of mine).

i can't even begin to respond to this overwhelmingly sexist post. First you assume that women arn't around if they are working mothers, and then the subtext is that it's okay for a child to grow up with a father not around as much as the mother??

Please provide us with this amazing new data you have that shows that a child needs a mother more than a father, cause you seem to be saying that it's more important for a mother to be around than a father..

I don't even know where to go with this, i feel like i'm talking to someone that's been in a coma for 50 years.

Wake up dude.

and to respond to your first question, i am a gay male. (though i'm not sure why that matters)

A child needs two happy healthy STRONG parents. of any gender, of any race, of any age.

I mentioned the Tea Party in jest earlier, but now i'm beginning to realize you actually are a neo-con.

My advise is don't. If you are not interested in other people's opinions, don't respond to their posts. And of course you're going to call what I have to say sexist. After conversing with you, I wouldn't expect something more sophisticated or less clique than the good ol' sexist label.

The mother is the most important person in the development of the child. That's explained in mainstream psychology classes and psychology books, lostalex. How do I know? Because I've been in a psychology class and that's what they teach. Having the man around is important and not to be diminished but he plays second fiddle to the mother. And that is totally consistent with reality. For whatever reason, for better or worse, nature decided to make the woman's body physically capable of feeding the child but not the man's.

I am awake. I'm more awake than you. The fact that you would call me a neocon shows me how quick you are to judge other people. Lostalex, I despised George Bush and hated his guts for years. As proof of that, I made a youtube video that trashes him (it currently has over a quarter of a million views). And I spent over a hundred dollars out of my pockets getting the video clips I needed to make that video.

sorry dude, but if you listen to old white men as your source for information about all women in the world, then NO, you are not awake.

You know they used to teach that the world is flat in school? sounds amazing right? they actually did.

If everyone just believed what they were taught in schools by old white men, then we would never have made any progress.

The whole point of progress is that you don't always believe what you've been told by old people.

Outstanding doublethink at work here. You admit he has a great amount of control over his country's oil prices yet you think corporations and NATO's member states have nothing to gain from this. Arab oil states could hold us to ransom if they so wanted. The OAPEC oil crisis of early 70's perfectly illusrates how much power you have when you control the supply of oil. We are now experiencing yet another supply shock in the wake of the Arab Spring. The Libyan intervention is cynical opportunism writ large. NATO are not doing this out any humanitarian concern. It is an act of damage limitation due to our current ciircumstance. If we don't intervene, rising oil prices will continue to affect our national interests together with the inevitable surge of North African refugees in Europe.

In both Yugoslavia and Libya, NATO took sides on a civil war which didn't concern them. The side they is the one which represents the interests of Western imperialism.

You're half-right. Neither scenario is possible. As soon as the conflict in the Middle East simmers down and some normality returns to oil trading in the region, oil supply will in a state of terminal decline. Mark my words.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...our-government

So then what is it about? What made Libya an urgent case for humanitarian intervention when people have gone on dying in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Burma for years? What was so much more horrible about Gaddafi's war with local rebels than recent government crackdowns in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria? What other possible reason could we be there for?