observer Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 In their attempts to assassinate Gadafi, NATO are seeking the use of buster bombs, presume these have been specially made not to kill "civilians" (as per the UN resolution) - unlike the ordanance they're dropping in Afghanistan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I think you should just say what your thinking Observer. As far as I'm aware, no civilised country produces weapons specifically designed to target and kill civilians and no civilised country would use them in that way either. If your suggesting that the recent deaths of women and children in Afghanistan were deliberate, then I think your part of a very small minority that think that way. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 As far as I'm aware, no civilised country produces weapons specifically designed to target and kill civilians Armament manufacturers produce weapons and I don't think that they are bothered how they are used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Observer wrote presume these have been specially made not to kill "civilians" unlike the ordanance they're dropping in Afghanistan! I think that's pretty clear Wolfie, at least to me it is. If the west were dropping bombs disguised as red cross food parcels then Observers comments would be justifiable. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 In any situation where high explosives are being thrown around, everyone is at risk - it's quite nonsensical to create this impression that "civilians" can somehow be sanitized in a war situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 If he weren't hiding himself and his remaining military capabilities behind civillians and children, then they'd be at significantly less risk! Since he's dug in deep we're going to have to use big bombs to get him. That means casualties. Military, civilian, children, don't really see how it matters - it's still dead and injured people. Which would be preferable? One bombing raid which kills a dictator, but also his wives, sons, and grandchildren? Or a lengthy campaign which kills hundreds and thousands of the dictators ordinary soldiers leaving their wives widowed and children orphaned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 What a load of utter tosh you come out with at times Observer. Our forces out in Afghanistan don?t ?throw munitions around? and your implication that they do is an insult to all the skilled people out there risking their lives on your country?s behalf. You choose what you want to believe but I think the majority believes that we attempt to minimize civilian casualties unlike the suicide bomber who really does have no regard for the lives of ordinary people. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Neither really Inky... surely they could get an insider to 'get rid' if they wanted to. I thought they initially said they were not there to specifically kill 'him' anyway, just to sort things out. Kill him and another idiot will rise from somewhere to dictate and you never know it may be even one from the rebels side as they are no better IMO Are they sure he is there though as look what happened with Bin Lid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 His high profile westernised son is behind a lot of what is going on. As has been said before, the rhetoric from any of these Dictator states, is to paint the West as committing all sorts of atrocities, before they have even got in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8545659/Nato-issues-apology-for-bungled-Afghan-airstrike.html nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not a nice read eh Although you said 'nuff said' I have to say something. Villagers carrying the bodies of eight children to the provincial governor?s house shouting: ?See they aren?t Taliban!? and then a statement further down saying "families will be paid compensation" made me shudder. We are all on here airing our views one way or another as we can do that but these poor people are living every day in total fear. FEAR of what the Taliban may do, FEAR of what other dictators or rebels may do and now FEAR of what the allies themselves may do. No matter what goes on they are in FEAR. I can't even start to imagine what life must be like for them and how they must feel, and here I am moaning on other topics about our country, our leaders, a wet week in a caravan in Wales or that my salad is from abroad etc. I will still moan about it all though but in a slightly grateful subliminal way (wll apart from that about our leaders of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not a nice read eh Although you said 'nuff said' I have to say something. Villagers carrying the bodies of eight children to the provincial governor?s house shouting: ?See they aren?t Taliban!? and then a statement further down saying "families will be paid compensation" made me shudder. We are all on here airing our views one way or another as we can do that but these poor people are living every day in total fear. FEAR of what the Taliban may do, FEAR of what other dictators or rebels may do and now FEAR of what the allies themselves may do. No matter what goes on they are in FEAR. I can't even start to imagine what life must be like for them and how they must feel, and here I am moaning on other topics about our country, our leaders, a wet week in a caravan in Wales or that my salad is from abroad etc. I will still moan about it all though but in a slightly grateful subliminal way (wll apart from that about our leaders of course) Nice post Dizzy. I'm sorry but I should have made it more clear that the link was in response to Bills post not anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I took yours a post in it's own right PJ and no need for explanation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 See you've fell for the myth of "precision" munitions Bill, that came with the newsreels of shock and awe on Bagdad, and has been propagated ever since on the basis that war can be clean, neat and surgical. Start dropping bombs and anyone in the area of the explosion gets wasted, whether it's a wedding party in Iraq or a captive in Afghanistan, or so-called "friendlies" in Libya or even a blue on blue. As for Gadafi: the UN resolution, which we are supposed to be following to the letter was specifically intended for the "protection of civilians" NOT for the purpose of political assassination or regime change, so perhaps we can avoid mission creep either rhetorically or in practise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 It is getting very tiresome reading the posts from the bleeding heart brigade and makes me wonder whose side some of you are on. It is sad that "innocents" get killed in any conflict but it happens, in this particular case the building was known to be occupied by insurgents who had killed a soldier........it was not known that it contained civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I'm not a bleeding heart case Eagle... I just have a heart Where there is war and conflict civilians will alway be injured and killed ... especially when the likes of the Taliban and other scumbags use them as defence shields. There is no answer, no reasoning and in my opinion no end to some of it regardelss of whether we are there trying to instill some form of peace or not. These people live in a whole different word and the radicals are a completely different breed of people to what we think we understand. They wont stop ... end of (unfortunately not) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not a case of "bleeding hearts" birdy; but of a desire for more honesty and less hypocracy. In wars, folk get killed, including our own; so there needs to be some rock solid justification for engaging in it in the first place - none imo has been supplied in our recent range of adventures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I fell for nothing Observer, especially the rubbish you spout about us using munitions specifically designed to kill civilians. I speak as I find and I find you?re incessant anti western rhetoric on this forum both tiresome and unwelcome. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Not anti-Western, merely objective and less ovine in nature! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 the UN resolution, which we are supposed to be following to the letter was specifically intended for the "protection of civilians" If a mad dog is attacking defenceless people the best way to protect those people is to shoot the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 That's NOT the intention of the UN resolution - therefore illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Not anti-Western, merely objective and less ovine in nature! Vacuous or flatulent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 That's NOT the intention of the UN resolution - therefore illegal. Actual text from the UN resolution 1973(2011). "Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi" If shooting the mad dog who's giving the orders is deemed necessary by NATO, it's authorised. Don't forget, the same resolution also says of Gaddafi's bunch of thugs. "Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions" " the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity" "Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities" So, it accuses the Libyan regime of using foreign mercenaries to commit crimes against humanity (as well as mentioning abuses of the press, aid workers, foreign resident workers and many others) and then authorises any members state to take any steps necessary to protect Gaddafi's population from him and his forces. It's as clear a resolution for regime change as you're ever likely to see from the UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 That's NOT the intention of the UN resolution - therefore illegal. Stuff! the Un resolution, we have committed ourselves so lets get in there and sort the little 'snake' out, no good throwing stones at him from a distance he needs to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and dragged out to face his consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Well that was short and to the point Algy Have to agree with you there but many people support his beliefs so when he's dragged out should he be shot or jailed. Which one (if any) is more likely to end the conflict ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.