Jump to content

Worse than the Mafia -


Recommended Posts

Even the Mafia didn't take out women and children, as they were treated as "civilians" - but it seems the 3 main oil hungry Mafia families (UK,France and Italy) are determined to take out Gadafi, which is clearly "regime change", contrary to the UN mandate of "protecting civilians". And killing Gadafi's grand-kids, aside from blowing up their own rebel allies, seems remarkably like "killing civilians". So with Hague calling for Gadafi to go, and sounding off about Syria, whilst remaining mute over Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and with the Italians inviting Mugabe over for the Pope's bash, one could be forgiven for being confused about the ethics of the situation. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And can you think of a better way Obs of protecting civillians than going directly after the individuals who are ordering their slaughter? If those individuals, knowing that they are legitimate military targets, choose to hide behind their women and children then the responsibility for the outcome rests directly on their own shoulders.

 

BTW, get your facts straight.

 

The Italians didn't invite Mugabe. The Vatican did.

 

Vatican City is within Italy, but is not part of Italy - nor is it part of the EU.

 

Long standing treaties guarantee free transit from Italian airports to Vatican City for anyone heading there, regardless of whether or not they are entitled to enter Italy itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we can expect (on the basis of your logic) that we'll be assassinating Mugabe, the Saudi and Bahrain Royals, the Syrian President and any other tin pot dictator that compromises our oil supplies or represses their own people then?! :wink: Crusader arrogance and hypocracy imo. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obs, you need a holiday. :oops: I forgot, it's just one long holiday for you.

I thought that NATO where in charge now. I would also suggest that you make up your mind which side of the fence you are sitting on.

 

Since when did these despots play by any rules bar their own, and since when did they report the truth. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we can expect (on the basis of your logic) that we'll be assassinating Mugabe, the Saudi and Bahrain Royals, the Syrian President and any other tin pot dictator that compromises our oil supplies or represses their own people then?! :wink: Crusader arrogance and hypocracy imo. :roll:

 

Last time I checked the UN, which has authorised the current actions being taken by NATO - and others - over Libya wasn't being chaired by anyone who could even vaguely be described as a "Crusader".

 

Given a UN mandate, what's wrong with assassination as a method of preventing a dictator from further harming the people in his country? Better than slugging it out on the ground and having to kill half his ordinary soldiers just to get him to the Hague and give him a podium from which to spout more hatred!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "crusaders" (Cameron and Sarkosy) went, frothing at the mouth, to the UN for a "mandate" - even the Yanks have taken a back seat now precisely to avoid such an appearance. The UN "mandate" was for the "PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS" NOT to legitimise them being killed in the name of "regime change". Since then NATO has blown up several (allied) rebel groups, including children, and now Gafafi's grand-CHILDREN - so not much "protecting going on there then, is there? I'll agree - assassination provides a cheap and efficient option, and has been used by the CIA for some time now in Pakistan against Taliban Leaders. However, it wasn't part of the UN mandate and it carries some disadvantages - it loses the moral high ground, it legitimises reciprocal action by one's enemies (so Dave's security detail will need boosting!), and high explosive ordanance tends to kill others than the intended target. Think it was Wellington who said, when Napoleon rode within range of his artillery at Waterloo, "Commanders of Armies have much better things to do than fire at each other". :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only have their word for this. Allegedly it was a communications post. We haven't seen any bodies yet. This is normal rhetoric in situations like this to 1, get the sympathy of the (on the fence) countries, and 2, to wind up the brain-washed natives.

 

I thought that you didn't believe everything you saw on TV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you do not think that there will not be civilian deaths ?

 

Aerial bombing?

 

There will always be civilian deaths, on both sides.

 

A lot has to do with media. As in that the rebels go in shooting , ah romantic freedom fighters, but when the rebels get killed they become all of a sudden " civilians "

 

How many civilian deaths does it take to get rid of a dictator ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...