coma Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcatcher Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Perhaps it's only a matter of time before these guys get their come-uppance. Going after Khaddafi opens the door to more games. Edited March 21, 2011 by ratcatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zydeco Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Want to know the end result of all this? No, no authoritarian or semi-authoritarian, leader anywhere will ever be able to be convinced to negotiate the removal of WMDs. Way to go, France, Italy, Britain, and the USA. You have virtually assured a world armed to the teeth with nukes and high octane bug spray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So what implies his post? Perhaps that you jump to take the side of anyone if they are opposing the west or Israel regardless of whether or not they are terrorists, antisemites or mass murderers. :jap: What? What has all this to do with the prayer phrase Allahu Akbar ? It is more commonly known as the war cry of Islamic radicals - but I am sure that you knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the coalition bombardment. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa. Sounds like the coalition is losing favour with the Arab league. Maybe they should have let them sort it out in the first place. This is a no win situation for the UN. BBC It's old news. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa spoke in Cairo today, together with Ban Ki Moon, that the Arab league is fully supporting the resolution. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? It's not a NATO mission. It's a mission supported by a few members of NATO. The Gaddafi* compound is acting as a command center and the Libyan army is making a big deal out of it. The same as the number of 8,000 (dead) casualties amongst the protesters. The so called "destroyed" building, showed on television immediately after it was "destroyed", showed no signs whatsoever of signs of burning or flames. Strange if a building is just hit by a missile, wouldn't you say? * Next to that, does anyone really believe it still IS the Gaddafi compound? I'm sure they want everybody to believe so. We know the chap is crazy but not that crazy to stay and sleep/live there. LaoPo Edited March 21, 2011 by LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So what implies his post? Perhaps that you jump to take the side of anyone if they are opposing the west or Israel regardless of whether or not they are terrorists, antisemites or mass murderers. :jap: What? What has all this to do with the prayer phrase Allahu Akbar ? It is more commonly known as the war cry of Islamic radicals - but I am sure that you knew that. I tried to give him credit for not being so obtuse but he refused it and still moved to get an explanation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Want to know the end result of all this? No, no authoritarian or semi-authoritarian, leader anywhere will ever be able to be convinced to negotiate the removal of WMDs. Way to go, France, Italy, Britain, and the USA. You have virtually assured a world armed to the teeth with nukes and high octane bug spray. Your scope's a bit narrow there lets give every one credit where credit is due, it includes most of the middle east Arab nations and other Euro's too like Denmark as well.. Edited March 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Battle cry "Allahu Akbar" (the Takbir) meaning "God is great" in Arabic — was common in Muslim armies or commonly used by Muslim warriors such as Cheemas in battle, and is still heard today by soldiers throughout the Muslim world, especially by insurgents... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_cry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 One insulting post removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokeddy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Battle cry "Allahu Akbar" (the Takbir) meaning "God is great" in Arabic — was common in Muslim armies or commonly used by Muslim warriors such as Cheemas in battle, and is still heard today by soldiers throughout the Muslim world, especially by insurgents... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_cry Its isn't exclusive cry of Islamic radicals or terrorists. So Muslims armies using it as well. Something wrong with Muslim soldiers? And it isn't only a battle cry. This phrase is recited by Muslims in many different situations. For example, when they are very happy, to express approval, to praise a speaker, or as a battle cry, during times of extreme stress. In the Islamic world, instead of applause, often someone will shout takbir and the crowd will respond "Allahu Akbar" in chorus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahu_Akbar You clap hands or say God bless america for approval, they chant Allahu Akbar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? I don't think there are many limits apart from sending ground troops into Libya which is not allowed according to the resolution # 1973*. The rest is "protecting" the population/protesters/rebels of Libya. UN Resolution # 1973: http://www.un.org/Ne...sc10200.doc.htm and, maybe better readable: UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya – full text http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution LaoPo Edited March 21, 2011 by LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estrada Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 how do i support the troops of my home country if they are involved in military actions abroad? by keeping my fingers crossed? by touching wood? by praising the bravery of those who launch a cruise missile by pressing a button? by calling those who killed or maimed "scumbags" even if they are innocent civilians? Weren't the original cruise missiles the V2 which were used to terrorize the people of London? V1, V2 was a rocket. Thank you for the correction. I think they were called buzz bombs by the Brits. You are thinking of the "doodle bug", the first German flying bomb V1. The didn't have steering, and were launched via a ramp from the otherside of the Britsih Channel and the rocket engines were controlled by a clockwork timer to cut the fuel after a precalculated flying time i.e. distance, there was no guidance system. Londoners generally were not worried about the "drone" of the doodle bugs but you ran like hell for the shelters when the sound cut out, which meant the bomb was falling near you. The cruise missles fly themselves being computer controlled, close to the ground and home in on a target with great accuracy (usually), the technology has coem a long way since WWII. The US will have postioned a Military Satellite over Libya by now and the cameras on board have a much greater zoom than on Google Earth. This enables them to read a car number plate and identify targets with great accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? I don't think there are many limits apart from sending ground troops into Libya which is not allowed according to the resolution # 1973*. The rest is "protecting" the population/protesters/rebels of Libya. UN Resolution # 1973: http://www.un.org/Ne...sc10200.doc.htm and, maybe better readable: UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya – full text http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution LaoPo Cheers Lao I was hoping for those who claim to know so much about it to provide that answer since they seem to know so well the "limits" in the resolution and claim it being violated on the "edge" of it's limits. Though "edge" is admittedly still within the purview of the resolution... Edited March 21, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Talking about U.S. Navy fires missiles at Libyan air defenses is on-topic to this thread, while discussion of Islamophobia has nothing to do with this thread but is another topic altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokeddy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 God bless Libya. In the name of peace. Allahu akbar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokrick Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the coalition bombardment. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa. Sounds like the coalition is losing favour with the Arab league. Maybe they should have let them sort it out in the first place. This is a no win situation for the UN. BBC It's old news. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa spoke in Cairo today, together with Ban Ki Moon, that the Arab league is fully supporting the resolution. LaoPo It was not old news when I posted it, Do you wear a watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaoPo Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the coalition bombardment. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa. Sounds like the coalition is losing favour with the Arab league. Maybe they should have let them sort it out in the first place. This is a no win situation for the UN. BBC It's old news. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa spoke in Cairo today, together with Ban Ki Moon, that the Arab league is fully supporting the resolution. LaoPo It was not old news when I posted it, Do you wear a watch? Not at the time you posted; I'm in bed, sleeping.. I didn't notice the time. LaoPo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coma Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? There obviously seems to be no limits with this mandate. It is quite easy for any military to find loop holes or back doors to mandates and rules of engagement in order to do as they please, e.g Calling Gaddafi's compound a control centre so they can bomb it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawaiian Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? There obviously seems to be no limits with this mandate. It is quite easy for any military to find loop holes or back doors to mandates and rules of engagement in order to do as they please, e.g Calling Gaddafi's compound a control centre so they can bomb it. That mandate was purposely worded that way. If you are going to play hardball you can't be taking a pause in action when conditions on the ground change from hour to hour. The main restriction was no ground troops. Other than that the coalition will do what ever is necessary to stop Gaddafi forces. I say, if you are going to do the job, do it right. And it is impossible to do this without some collateral damage. Edited March 22, 2011 by metisdead Fixed mis-quoted content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? There obviously seems to be no limits with this mandate. It is quite easy for any military to find loop holes or back doors to mandates and rules of engagement in order to do as they please, e.g Calling Gaddafi's compound a control centre so they can bomb it. Now you're finally catching on... That was my point, the mandate is very broad so I was wondering if the posters claiming the mandate had been "violated", "exceeded its purview or on the "edge" actually knew what those limits were. Clearly they didn't and are clueless posting tripe with 0 credibility. Some complaining about Gadhaffi's compound being bombed but clearly in this case that was to be suspected of being command and control since he himself commands directly so it stands to reason that it would need to be targeted to deter his capabilities to control his forces. Same goes for the airports in bombing the runways it's not beyond the mandate it is part of what is necessary to properly enforce the mandate of a no fly zone.. Edited March 22, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? There obviously seems to be no limits with this mandate. It is quite easy for any military to find loop holes or back doors to mandates and rules of engagement in order to do as they please, e.g Calling Gaddafi's compound a control centre so they can bomb it. That mandate was purposely worded that way. If you are going to play hardball you can't be taking a pause in action when conditions on the ground change from hour to hour. The main restriction was no ground troops. Other than that the coalition will do what ever is necessary to stop Gaddafi forces. I say, if you are going to do the job, do it right. And it is impossible to do this without some collateral damage. Exactly, it always amazes me how naive people are about politics and the political wording that is required to enforce such mandates it's never black and white they always intentionally word in grey areas purposely to leave room for contingency because there are always people like the various members here who want to argue semantics about every single little variation of such mandates.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokeddy Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? There obviously seems to be no limits with this mandate. It is quite easy for any military to find loop holes or back doors to mandates and rules of engagement in order to do as they please, e.g Calling Gaddafi's compound a control centre so they can bomb it. That mandate was purposely worded that way. If you are going to play hardball you can't be taking a pause in action when conditions on the ground change from hour to hour. The main restriction was no ground troops. Other than that the coalition will do what ever is necessary to stop Gaddafi forces. I say, if you are going to do the job, do it right. And it is impossible to do this without some collateral damage. If you follow the news you will know that the question what allows the mandate and what not and what should we do is not that clear for all and quite controversial. And here are voices that object the whole action. If you have collateral damage - you killed civilians. Don't be surprised if there are some protests against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonobo Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I am not comfortable at all with the US taking part in this. As a military man, I understand the doctrine of taking out Libya's ability to wage air warfare. But it is the policy itself in which I have a problem. The US and allies are waging a war in Afghanistan, and while I would say that war is "just," and while the NATO forces are doing everything they can to limit civilian casualties, the fact of the matter is that by using air power, some civilians are going to be killed. But because Gadaffi's forces were also using air power to attack, and because civilians were being killed, now it is "wrong." Well, of course any civilian death is wrong, and any military death regrettable. But to "punish" Gadaffi for doing the same thing as we are doing in Afghanistan sets a very bad precedent. To me, it destroys any argument that NATO forces have for using their superiority in the air in Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong. I am not drinking Gadaffi's kool aid, nor do I think that air power should be eschewed in Afghanistan. But to use that excuse so as to put Gadaffi's air force out of commission is specious and can turn around and bite the NATO powers in the butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmsally Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I am not comfortable at all with the US taking part in this. As a military man, I understand the doctrine of taking out Libya's ability to wage air warfare. But it is the policy itself in which I have a problem. The US and allies are waging a war in Afghanistan, and while I would say that war is "just," and while the NATO forces are doing everything they can to limit civilian casualties, the fact of the matter is that by using air power, some civilians are going to be killed. But because Gadaffi's forces were also using air power to attack, and because civilians were being killed, now it is "wrong." Well, of course any civilian death is wrong, and any military death regrettable. But to "punish" Gadaffi for doing the same thing as we are doing in Afghanistan sets a very bad precedent. To me, it destroys any argument that NATO forces have for using their superiority in the air in Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong. I am not drinking Gadaffi's kool aid, nor do I think that air power should be eschewed in Afghanistan. But to use that excuse so as to put Gadaffi's air force out of commission is specious and can turn around and bite the NATO powers in the butt. Would certainly agree with the above and of course after this, if we are set a precedent, where do we go next Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Ivory Coast, Myanmar. There's a whole list. The west seemed to fall in love with Gadhafi over the past 3-4 years and something seems to have gone sour. Either he stopped handouts in various forms or he didn't give what was expected. Either way the whole thing smells rather nasty. France made some big weapons sales to Libya over the past few years, are they really that keen to see them used or destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coma Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 God bless Libya. In the name of peace. Allahu akbar. You crack me up dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coma Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well it definately seems as though the Nato is pushing the UN mandate to the very limits and in some cases beyond. They are blatantly targeting Gaddafi as an individual, which was not part of the UN sanctioned charter, by attacking his compound and other sites where he maybe under the guise that they are 'control centres'. How is this protecting the people in Bengazai? What will the UN mission in Libya do when the rebels start to attack Gaddafi loyalist which a majority are civilians also? This is a civil war. Where was Nato during the Sudanese civil war? I ask again since no one I've asked so far that has mentioned the limits of the UN sanction in spite of numerous posts mentioning it being either to the edge or over the top what is the limits of the mandate? There obviously seems to be no limits with this mandate. It is quite easy for any military to find loop holes or back doors to mandates and rules of engagement in order to do as they please, e.g Calling Gaddafi's compound a control centre so they can bomb it. Now you're finally catching on... That was my point, the mandate is very broad so I was wondering if the posters claiming the mandate had been "violated", "exceeded its purview or on the "edge" actually knew what those limits were. Clearly they didn't and are clueless posting tripe with 0 credibility. Some complaining about Gadhaffi's compound being bombed but clearly in this case that was to be suspected of being command and control since he himself commands directly so it stands to reason that it would need to be targeted to deter his capabilities to control his forces. Same goes for the airports in bombing the runways it's not beyond the mandate it is part of what is necessary to properly enforce the mandate of a no fly zone.. That is what I was getting at. I mean, any 'coaltion' war planes or ships can literally target and destroy any farmhouse. chook house and out house in Libya and can use the old miitary throw away line that "it was a target of strategic value to the mission that needed to be destroyed". Without having to answer to anybody but themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm just thinking out loud here so don't flame me mercilessly but I wonder what would happen if Gadhafi were to secede power to his son who is western educated and was moving Libya in a different direction and then leave the country entirely if they could then come to some amenable agreement on both parties involved as to the countries direction and under whose leadership.. I think there might be some opportunity for resolution in such a proposal were it to be made by the UN.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokrick Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Libya: US fighter jet crash lands in field near Benghazi A US warplane has crash landed in a Libyan field in the area around Benghazi, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. Full story here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now