Russia slams NATO targeting of Gaddafi

[News_Editor]

Russia slams NATO targeting of Gaddafi

2011-05-12 07:31:00 GMT+7 (ICT)

MOSCOW (BNO NEWS) -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that declaring Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi and his relatives a legitimate target of NATO attacks is "going overboard," RIA Novosti reported.

"The coalition is, in effect, openly declaring that its task is regime change [in Libya]. That Gaddafi and his relatives...are a legitimate target. This is over the top," he said in an interview with the Moskovksie Novosti daily to be published on Thursday.

"There is only one way out. An immediate ceasefire, as Russia has already proposed at the Security Council. Then a search for a solution through mediation," he added.

On April 30, a NATO airstrike in a residential area of Tripoli killed the youngest son of Gaddafi and three of his grandchildren. The NATO-led airstrike destroyed a building where Gaddafi was staying along with relatives and friends.

The North African country has been marred with violence since February after protests emerged against the long-standing regime of Muammar Gadaffi. NATO took control of foreign military operations in Libya on March 31 under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorizes member states to take 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians in the country.

NATO forces from several countries have carried out a series of air strikes against government forces and installations since the launch of Operation Unified Protector, the codename for NATO's operation in Libya. But fighting has continued despite the military action.

The ongoing civil war between rebels and forces loyal to Gaddafi has so far claimed at least 2,000 lives since unrest began in mid-February. Other estimates put the death toll from all sides, including civilians, at up to 10,000.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-05-12

[bangkokeddy]

NATO declaring Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target???

Did i miss some news?

[koheesti]

This is none of Russia's business. They get zero oil from Libya. Not a single refugee will go to Russia. They don't want to contrinbute anything to the situation other than taking cheap shots at NATO. They would even shoot their own people if they protested against Putin. Russia should keep their opinions to themselves and butt out.

[bangkokeddy]

This is none of Russia's business. They get zero oil from Libya.

This is about business and who gets the oil?

[bonobo]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

[dananderson]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

It is hipocritical beyond imagination. Currently, it is much more dangerous to be a jourmalist in Russia than to be a genocidal despot in Libya.

[luckizuchinni]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

It is hipocritical beyond imagination. Currently, it is much more dangerous to be a jourmalist in Russia than to be a genocidal despot in Libya.

+1

[geriatrickid]

Not to worry. Canada will respond in the hockey game coming up. The Russian comments are an attack on Canadian aircrews and naval personnel serving in the Libyan humanitarian mission. (The Americans can't respond since the Czechs disposed of them. )

[bangkokeddy]

Not to worry. Canada will respond in the hockey game coming up. The Russian comments are an attack on Canadian aircrews and naval personnel serving in the Libyan humanitarian mission. (The Americans can't respond since the Czechs disposed of them. )

What kind of business has Canada in Libya?

Btw. Aren't you on of the guys who declared Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target?

Edited May 12, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[geriatrickid]

Not to worry. Canada will respond in the hockey game coming up. The Russian comments are an attack on Canadian aircrews and naval personnel serving in the Libyan humanitarian mission. (The Americans can't respond since the Czechs disposed of them. )

What kind of business has Canada in Libya?

Btw. Aren't you on of the guys who declared Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target?

The business Canada has? Well, as a condition of providing military forces, Canada required a UN mandate, which was given. HMCS Charlottetown is enforcing the UN mandated arms embargo by checking ships heading into Libya. It is also is removing mines from the port in Misrata, allowing other NATO ships to safely patrol the waters around Libya. The frigate is also assisting ships carrying refugees out of Libya, The Charlottetown has already saved passengers on board one of the refugee ships. Apparently, such humanitarian efforts offend the Russians.

The CAF has flown approximately 15% of all combat air sorties in Libya and these missions have helped prevent Gaddaffi from using tanks and APCs to slaughter his people. Again, this does not seem to sit well with Russia.

And to upset you even more, Lt. General Charles Bouchard is the commanding officer of the Nato mission. Bouchard, a native of Chicoutimi, Que., had been deputy commander of NATO's joint forces command, based in Naples, Italy. A member of the Canadian Forces since 1974, he graduated as a helicopter pilot in 1976. You will most likely be upset to know that Bouchard has held key positions within Norad operations and has served at U.S. military bases on a several occasions. He was awarded the United States Legion of Merit in 2004. The Canadian presence came at the request of the UK, USA and France. As you may already know, Canada was the country tasked with pacifying Khandahar in Afghanistan and it developed a close working relationship with the UK, and USA as they rebuilt schools and hospitals.

In respect to Gaddaffi and his two sons, they are indeed legitimate targets if they are directing hostile military activities. I believe one of the sons is commander in chief of the elite unit that has killed most of the civilians.

Canada does not purchase Libyan oil. It is however, the USA's largest energy supplier. Canadian forces are protecting the oil supplies of the EU though.

Edited May 12, 2011 by geriatrickid

[bangkokeddy]

Not to worry. Canada will respond in the hockey game coming up. The Russian comments are an attack on Canadian aircrews and naval personnel serving in the Libyan humanitarian mission. (The Americans can't respond since the Czechs disposed of them. )

What kind of business has Canada in Libya?

Btw. Aren't you on of the guys who declared Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target?

The business Canada has? Well, as a condition of providing military forces, Canada required a UN mandate, which was given. HMCS Charlottetown is enforcing the UN mandated arms embargo by checking ships heading into Libya. It is also is removing mines from the port in Misrata, allowing other NATO ships to safely patrol the waters around Libya. The frigate is also assisting ships carrying refugees out of Libya, The Charlottetown has already saved passengers on board one of the refugee ships. Apparently, such humanitarian efforts offend the Russians.

The CAF has flown approximately 15% of all combat air sorties in Libya and these missions have helped prevent Gaddaffi from using tanks and APCs to slaughter his people. Again, this does not seem to sit well with Russia.

And to upset you even more, Lt. General Charles Bouchard is the commanding officer of the Nato mission. Bouchard, a native of Chicoutimi, Que., had been deputy commander of NATO's joint forces command, based in Naples, Italy. A member of the Canadian Forces since 1974, he graduated as a helicopter pilot in 1976. You will most likely be upset to know that Bouchard has held key positions within Norad operations and has served at U.S. military bases on a several occasions. He was awarded the United States Legion of Merit in 2004. The Canadian presence came at the request of the UK, USA and France. As you may already know, Canada was the country tasked with pacifying Khandahar in Afghanistan and it developed a close working relationship with the UK, and USA as they rebuilt schools and hospitals.

In respect to Gaddaffi and his two sons, they are indeed legitimate targets if they are directing hostile military activities. I believe one of the sons is commander in chief of the elite unit that has killed most of the civilians.

Canada does not purchase Libyan oil. It is however, the USA's largest energy supplier. Canadian forces are protecting the oil supplies of the EU though.

Why should that upset me?

You said the Russian comment is an attack on Canadian aircrews and naval personnel. Looks like that you got upset.

The oil and business connection was raised by someone else, not me.

And as for Gadaffi, his sons and the legitimate target issue.

Your praised Canadian Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard said that individuals are NOT targets in this NATO mission. He made a statement that was similar to Bonobos explanation above.

You got that wrong.

Btw. Are you a Canadian soldier?

[dananderson]

NATO declaring Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target???

Did i miss some news?

If you garnish your information from Russia then yes, you are missing alot of news.

[bangkokeddy]

NATO declaring Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target???

Did i miss some news?

If you garnish your information from Russia then yes, you are missing alot of news.

Well, i doubt that the NATO declared Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target.

And i don't think that Gadaffi and his relatives are legitimate targets.

If you have other news and information, please share them with me.

Edited May 12, 2011 by bangkokeddy

[bulmercke]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

I just wish the US - UK - France - would get the hell out of Libya. Libya is a sovereign country and this is an unlawful and illegal assault on its people and government.

How come no military intervention in Saudia Arabia - Syria - Yemen - Zimbawbe - Bahrain and a host of other dictatorial - despotic nations?

[Wallaby]

No Gadhaffi and his family are NOT legitimate targets. nudge nudge wink wink.

[bonobo]

Not to worry. Canada will respond in the hockey game coming up. The Russian comments are an attack on Canadian aircrews and naval personnel serving in the Libyan humanitarian mission. (The Americans can't respond since the Czechs disposed of them. )

What kind of business has Canada in Libya?

Btw. Aren't you on of the guys who declared Gadaffi and his relatives to a legitimate target?

The business Canada has? Well, as a condition of providing military forces, Canada required a UN mandate, which was given. HMCS Charlottetown is enforcing the UN mandated arms embargo by checking ships heading into Libya. It is also is removing mines from the port in Misrata, allowing other NATO ships to safely patrol the waters around Libya. The frigate is also assisting ships carrying refugees out of Libya, The Charlottetown has already saved passengers on board one of the refugee ships. Apparently, such humanitarian efforts offend the Russians.

The CAF has flown approximately 15% of all combat air sorties in Libya and these missions have helped prevent Gaddaffi from using tanks and APCs to slaughter his people. Again, this does not seem to sit well with Russia.

And to upset you even more, Lt. General Charles Bouchard is the commanding officer of the Nato mission. Bouchard, a native of Chicoutimi, Que., had been deputy commander of NATO's joint forces command, based in Naples, Italy. A member of the Canadian Forces since 1974, he graduated as a helicopter pilot in 1976. You will most likely be upset to know that Bouchard has held key positions within Norad operations and has served at U.S. military bases on a several occasions. He was awarded the United States Legion of Merit in 2004. The Canadian presence came at the request of the UK, USA and France. As you may already know, Canada was the country tasked with pacifying Khandahar in Afghanistan and it developed a close working relationship with the UK, and USA as they rebuilt schools and hospitals.

In respect to Gaddaffi and his two sons, they are indeed legitimate targets if they are directing hostile military activities. I believe one of the sons is commander in chief of the elite unit that has killed most of the civilians.

Canada does not purchase Libyan oil. It is however, the USA's largest energy supplier. Canadian forces are protecting the oil supplies of the EU though.

Maybe off-topic, but as a retired US Marine, I have nothing but respect for the Canadian armed forces, historically and present.

[bonobo]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

I just wish the US - UK - France - would get the hell out of Libya. Libya is a sovereign country and this is an unlawful and illegal assault on its people and government.

How come no military intervention in Saudia Arabia - Syria - Yemen - Zimbawbe - Bahrain and a host of other dictatorial - despotic nations?

To be honest, I feel the same way. I am very uncomfortable in what we are doing there. I think NATO did well in Bosnia, and I can understand the mandate in Afghanistan, but I am really not sold on the reasoning on why we are in Libya. Why not Syria, Yemen, etc? And as long as we are talking "genocide," why did we ignore Rwanda and Burundi? And why haven't we really done anything in Darfur?

[bangkokeddy]

Maybe off-topic, but as a retired US Marine, I have nothing but respect for the Canadian armed forces, historically and present.

This thread is about having no respect for Russia and its hockey team.

[bangkokeddy]

I just wish the US - UK - France - would get the hell out of Libya. Libya is a sovereign country and this is an unlawful and illegal assault on its people and government.

How come no military intervention in Saudia Arabia - Syria - Yemen - Zimbawbe - Bahrain and a host of other dictatorial - despotic nations?

That are "friends" in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

[bulmercke]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

I just wish the US - UK - France - would get the hell out of Libya. Libya is a sovereign country and this is an unlawful and illegal assault on its people and government.

How come no military intervention in Saudia Arabia - Syria - Yemen - Zimbawbe - Bahrain and a host of other dictatorial - despotic nations?

To be honest, I feel the same way. I am very uncomfortable in what we are doing there. I think NATO did well in Bosnia, and I can understand the mandate in Afghanistan, but I am really not sold on the reasoning on why we are in Libya. Why not Syria, Yemen, etc? And as long as we are talking "genocide," why did we ignore Rwanda and Burundi? And why haven't we really done anything in Darfur?

I think we're talking about gross hypocrisy and double-standards here. If the US was really concerned about humaitarian issues then we would surely have seen military interventions in the aforementioned countries.

But then again they don't possess oil and gas and aren't of that much interest - concerning geo-political interests - to the states and Israel.

[bonobo]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

I just wish the US - UK - France - would get the hell out of Libya. Libya is a sovereign country and this is an unlawful and illegal assault on its people and government.

How come no military intervention in Saudia Arabia - Syria - Yemen - Zimbawbe - Bahrain and a host of other dictatorial - despotic nations?

To be honest, I feel the same way. I am very uncomfortable in what we are doing there. I think NATO did well in Bosnia, and I can understand the mandate in Afghanistan, but I am really not sold on the reasoning on why we are in Libya. Why not Syria, Yemen, etc? And as long as we are talking "genocide," why did we ignore Rwanda and Burundi? And why haven't we really done anything in Darfur?

I think we're talking about gross hypocrisy and double-standards here. If the US was really concerned about humaitarian issues then we would surely have seen military interventions in the aforementioned countries.

But then again they don't possess oil and gas and aren't of that much interest - concerning geo-political interests - to the states and Israel.

Ah, but you can't just blame the US. In my "we," I was speaking of the West plus Japan, China, and a few others. Except for maybe France, very few nations step up for "causes" anymore.

But yes, I think it is hypocrisy for all of us, and I am not proud of that.

[Ulysses G.]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

I just wish the US - UK - France - would get the hell out of Libya. Libya is a sovereign country and this is an unlawful and illegal assault on its people and government.

How come no military intervention in Saudia Arabia - Syria - Yemen - Zimbawbe - Bahrain and a host of other dictatorial - despotic nations?

To be honest, I feel the same way. I am very uncomfortable in what we are doing there. I think NATO did well in Bosnia, and I can understand the mandate in Afghanistan, but I am really not sold on the reasoning on why we are in Libya. Why not Syria, Yemen, etc? And as long as we are talking "genocide," why did we ignore Rwanda and Burundi? And why haven't we really done anything in Darfur?

I agree. Being in Libya just seems stupid to me.

My guess is that we are doing it for Britain as they back us up most of the time.

[bangkokeddy]

I agree. Being in Libya just seems stupid to me.

My guess is that we are doing it for Britain as they back us up most of the time.

Pssst. 'You' are doing it for Saudi-Arabia, to reconfirm the friendship there.

[chuckd]

I agree. Being in Libya just seems stupid to me.

My guess is that we are doing it for Britain as they back us up most of the time.

Pssst. 'You' are doing it for Saudi-Arabia, to reconfirm the friendship there.

Pssst. Where's the link to back up this assertion?

[dananderson]

Maybe it's just ne but i thought the Topic was Russia and it's hypocritical critisisim of Nato's use of force in Libya, Russia,like china hold veto power on the UN security council. They choose to abstain. Now they are merely pandering in typical disengenous fashion to thier BRIC counterparts. Of course you will not find critic's saying this in Russian media, as investagative journalists pay with thier lives when they critisise the powers that be there..

Edited May 12, 2011 by dananderson

[geriatrickid]

The Gaddaffi family are not being specifically targeted. However, if they are sitting in a bunker directing attacks on civilians, and NATO launches an air strike to prevent the death of civilians, then they are a legitimate target, My statement is consistent with the statements made by all Nato participants and complies with the UN mandate provisions. The Gaddaffis are not being specifically sought as targets. You or I would also be a legitimate target if we sat in a bunker directing that Libyan civilians be executed.

The slaughter of Libyan civilians presented a security crisis for Mediteranean Europe, particularly France and Italy. Tens of thousands of refugees would have attempted to flee to Europe. The EU was neither able to cope with such a humanitarian crisis nor deal with the security risk this would have brought. There was extensive pressure brought by arab countries and humanitarian groups for the EU to respond. The EU was rightly condemned for its slow response in Bosnia and the EU learnt from that mistake. The USA and Canada do not want to be in Libya, but have responded to the pressure brought by key European and Arab allies to help. The US has been very low key in Libya and it is the EU's Italy, France and UK that are driving the mission. Unfortunately, North American participation in Libya is the cost of having European security and close ties to the participants. At this time, hundreds of people are now drowning in the sea as they attempt to flea. Had Nato not acted to protect parts of Libya from Gadaffi attacks, thousands more would be drowning.

Perhaps Russia is jealous of the ability of the west to respond in unison when there is a crisis. Russia doesn't have the same strong friendships or support, although I don't doubt that the dictator of Belarus is a good friend. I think the more logical explanation is that Russia just wants to rattle the cage a bit and really doesn't care what happens to anyone in Libya. As long as the Germans are on their knees begging for Russian gas, the Russians are ok.

[bangkokeddy]

I agree. Being in Libya just seems stupid to me.

My guess is that we are doing it for Britain as they back us up most of the time.

Pssst. 'You' are doing it for Saudi-Arabia, to reconfirm the friendship there.

Pssst. Where's the link to back up this assertion?

The monarchs in the Gulf states and their Sunni clerics wanna get rid of Gadaffi because his peoples revolution style is not only un-islamic to them but also a threat to their own ruler position as monarchs.

After the Arab league gave the okay for the no-fly zone Clinton was all excited and ready to fight. Before the Arab league call was a lot of hesitation in the white house.

Its about oil and a navy base and making King Abdullah and his clerics happy.

To to reconfirm the friendship was specially necessary after King Abdullah got upset how Obama had handled the issue in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah: Barack Obama's most important friend

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100045321/saudi-arabias-king-abdullah-barack-obamas-most-important-friend/

Saudi King Abdullah to Obama: Don’t ‘Humiliate’ Mubarak

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/saudi_king_abdullah_to_obama_d.html

Top Sunni cleric says army should kill Gaddafi

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_637548.html

Clinton Says Arab League Vote for No-Fly Zone Changed Minds

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/clinton-says-arab-league-vote-for-no-fly-zone-changed-minds-1-.html

Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637

[bangkokeddy]

Maybe it's just ne but i thought the Topic was Russia and it's hypocritical critisisim of Nato's use of force in Libya, Russia,like china hold veto power on the UN security council. They choose to abstain. Now they are merely pandering in typical disengenous fashion to thier BRIC counterparts. Of course you will not find critic's saying this in Russian media, as investagative journalists pay with thier lives when they critisise the powers that be there..

VETO power was in the last couple of years mostly used in case of Israel and South Africa.

Veto is like to take the football home with you if the other kids don't let you win. Russia and China didn't veto but choose to abstain.

[bulmercke]

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

And no, NATO has not declared Gaddafi a target What they stated was that Gadaffi's compounds are legitimate targets as they function as command and control centers.

(I am not writing that I agree with it, just what has been reported.)

I just wish the US - UK - France - would get the hell out of Libya. Libya is a sovereign country and this is an unlawful and illegal assault on its people and government.

How come no military intervention in Saudia Arabia - Syria - Yemen - Zimbawbe - Bahrain and a host of other dictatorial - despotic nations?

To be honest, I feel the same way. I am very uncomfortable in what we are doing there. I think NATO did well in Bosnia, and I can understand the mandate in Afghanistan, but I am really not sold on the reasoning on why we are in Libya. Why not Syria, Yemen, etc? And as long as we are talking "genocide," why did we ignore Rwanda and Burundi? And why haven't we really done anything in Darfur?

I agree. Being in Libya just seems stupid to me.

My guess is that we are doing it for Britain as they back us up most of the time.

BP have major investments in Libya.

[johna]

We should get out of Libya immediately, its non of our business.

David Cameron et al should face a public inquiry into this fiasco.