It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Families' outrage at Libya war graves desecration

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I'm posting this thread here not only for what it contains (the title says it all) but also for the fact that youtube is censoring a lot recently with the justification that's trying to protect muslim community after what happened in France, Boko Haram gruesome killing of 2000 innocents and now the mass grave desecration of fallen british soldiers in Libya. Islamic extremists record themselves desecrating graves while shouting Allahu Akbar. Disgusting at least. The video after was taken off from youtube was uploaded on LiveLeak.


Families of British Second World War soldiers whose graves were desecrated by extremists in Libya have spoken of their outrage at the attacks. Vivid footage posted on the internet shows a crowd of men casually kicking and smashing lines of neat white headstones at the main Commonwealth War Graves in Benghazi.

Around 150 memorials were systematically overturned, many of them shattered, while a sandstone cross was smashed with sledge hammers.

Last night relatives of British serviceman buried at the cemetery told The Daily Telegraph of their shock at the "terrible" vandalism.

The cemetery outside the Libyan second city, the headquarters of anti-Gaddafi forces during last year’s revolution, is the final resting place of more than 1,200 soldiers and airmen who died serving under Montgomery in the war in the desert.

Many of them were members of the 7th Armoured Division, the Desert Rats, who helped turn the tide of the war in their struggle for control of north Africa against Rommel’s forces between 1941 and 1943.

www.telegraph.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos

Given that the men in those graves gave their lives to prevent the Nazis retaining the North Africa region, and having free reign to enact their extermination policy there, I find it absolutely abhorrent that their graves have been desecrated.

I can assure the membership, that had Rommel maintained control of the region, the peoples and the culture there would have been eradicated!



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos


…grave desecration of fallen british soldiers in Libya.

The UK helped decimate their entire country…



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Telos


…grave desecration of fallen british soldiers in Libya.

The UK helped decimate their entire country…


Sure, let's take revenge after 70 years and disturb the bones of the dead. Make sense. With what we hear from this religious nuts now days, the latest it ain't that bad. Right?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Maybe if we didnt spearhead the destruction of their entire nation they would not be so compelled to do something like this.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Indeed, but the men who were at rest in those holes in the ground had nothing to do with that effort. I entirely agree with what you say, but its relevance to the graves concerned is minimal. The men in those graves died defending the region from the most vile organisation ever assembled.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


Indeed, but the men who were at rest in those holes in the ground had nothing to do with that effort

Well they would "desecrate" the planes that bombed them but…



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I can quite see the sense of the Bundestag repatriating all the German dead from north Africa, seems some people forget the Germans also bombed Libya during that conflict, seems some people have a blind spot as regards history.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
Maybe if we didnt spearhead the destruction of their entire nation they would not be so compelled to do something like this.


Oh, give over. The West assisted them in toppling a dictator - it's they themselves that have "destroyed their country" through petty tribal bickering, not adhering to the rule of law and following crazy religious ideologies.

And, as has been stated, none of that has fudge all to do with the graves of men who died to stop one of the worlds most brutal regimes from taking over.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason




it's they themselves that have "destroyed their country" through petty tribal bickering, not adhering to the rule of law and following crazy religious ideologies.


Yes that's right. It's all their fault. Nothing to do with us. Move along.



Were graves being decimated when Gaddafi was in power? I think not.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason




The West assisted them in toppling a dictator - it's they themselves that have "destroyed their country" through petty tribal bickering, not adhering to the rule of law and following crazy religious ideologies.


I suppose the same thing can be said for Iraq too...



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kram09

They requested help and we responded. What happened afterwards is the responsibility of the people who assumed power. Western countries have tried to help - like the UK by training their Army - but even then they behaved in a manner which saw that put to an end.

The West is damned if they do and damned if they don't. We get criticised if we stay out (the start of the Yugoslav wars or Rwanda) and people get killed and we get criticised if we intervene (Libya, for example), usually by hand wringing lefties in our own nations who don't actually seem to know what they want, just that they seem to oppose everything.

Should we have just left Gaddafi and the rebels kill each other, like in Syria? How long would you sit there, with thousands dying, before you started bleeting about the poor civilians dying and how the "west does nothing so they can prop up their puppet"?

edit on 11/1/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason



Ah, you seem to be under the misguided notion that the west intervenes purely for altruistic reasons.




Should we have just left Gaddafi and the rebels kill each other, like in Syria?


And if we did the situation wouldn't be any different than it is now. It seems your ideas of help and NATO's actual help are two very different things. It was NATO that bombed civilian homes and then just shrugged their shoulders and gave the usual empty platitudes.

The West seems to be somewhat selective in who it chooses to "help." Around the same time as the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain was machine gunning protesters but nobody batted an eyelid. Funnily enough Bahrain is now apparently supporting us in our fight against IS...even though they share none of our values of democracy or free speech. You know, the free speech that we so righteously defend following the attacks in Paris?

So please, spare me your hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kram09
Ah, you seem to be under the misguided notion that the west intervenes purely for altruistic reasons.


No, I am not and don't presume to think otherwise. I don't view things in the simplistic manner in which you do.

One of the reasons the West were keen to intervene was to try and stop the slaughter of people who (quite rightly) were fed up little under a despot, but there were of course underlying geo-political and strategic reasons as well, one of them being the opportunity to get rid of someone who has, historically, been a right pain the arse.

Another reason is, like I said above, to stand by while people who wanted rid of their dictator were run down with tanks would certainly invite massive criticism - again, from the likes of you who seem to flip-flop to whatever the opposite view is - which would not have played well politically, especially for the French who had a Presidential election round the corner.

Now, one could (and I am sure you probably have or will) make the argument "it's all about Oil" but the fact is that BP and other companies were welcomed in by Gaddafi and as production has slumped since his fall, that cannot be a reason as those firms have lost a lot of money as a result.

As for Bahrain - again, geo-political concerns play into doing nothing there. A sunni minority supported by Saudi Arabia rule a Shia majority which is influenced by Iran. Bahrain is also the home to the US 5th Fleet and is a regional strategic ally.

As you can see, I'm not "misguided" in the slightest, quite the contrary - I see the world for what it is and deal with it, instead of through rose-tinted glasses wishing for some Utopia like you do


originally posted by: Kram09
So please, spare me your hypocrisy.


Oh, give over with your feigned indignation. All I see of you is criticism which is totally reliant on hindsight - you rarely, if ever, offer an alternative solution.

As I asked you above - which you failed to even address, much less answer - what would you have suggested we do?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos

In 2001 the Taliban destroyed Buddha statues in Afghanistan.




posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason




They requested help and we responded


Sorry but who requested NATO invade Libya?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: stumason




They requested help and we responded


Sorry but who requested NATO invade Libya?


I'm sorry, when did NATO invade Libya? I can't answer a question based on a false assumption.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

In 2011

2011 military intervention in Libya

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Operation Unified Protector

NATO - Libya intervention

So who asked them for help again exactly?




They requested help and we responded



Who are "they"?
edit on 11-1-2015 by Dabrazzo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Again, I'll ask - what invasion? You seem to be massively confused.

No ground forces were used, it was purely an air offensive, which was requested for a while by the Libyan rebel forces under the National Transitional Council and the UN resolution (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 which authorised Military intervention) was passed at the request of the Libyan Ambassador (who had disowned the regime in Tripoli) while at the same time, Gaddafi and elements of his regime were referred to the ICC.

So, it was entirely legal and requested by the Libyan rebels and element sof the regime who had defected.

All of this is in the links you yourself posted - thankyou



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Ground forces do not need to be used in order to qualify something as an invasion.

So who asked them for help again?

ah kk, seen that bit.
edit on 11-1-2015 by Dabrazzo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join