UN countries breaks UN libya resolution

As we all know, the newly formed coalition of the willing (flashback anyone?) have already launched attacks against Libya. They are sent down there to enforce a no-fly zone to keep Libyan planes from, apparantly, murdering civilians and to help the rebels, right? Well. To enforce a no-fly zone, the ''good guys'' must destroy key airfields, anti air installations and the actual Libyan airforce.

No Fly Zone 6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

That is from the actual UN resolution, which can be read here

French warplanes have taken out a few tanks and other vehicles on the . 19th

They aren't allowed to do that! Even the Arab League, who supported the no-fly zone, is condemming the ongoing attacks on Libya

The original goal was to stop Gadaffi from commiting genocide and killing countless civilians. But here is the thing. The ''civilians'' are armed rebels that actually fight the government with violence. A genocide doesn't work that way. If Gadaffi wanted to kill civilians, wouldn't he already have done that in the cities he took back from the rebels?

The West needed an excuse to go in and secure some oil, that's what's going on

reply to post by VikingDude


The UN resolution that formed the no fly zone authorized UN forces to use "any means neccisary" to prvent civilian casualties, which includes attacking military hardware that is being used against rebels/civilians in the cities.

The UN authorized it, they made the distinction about atacking military units on the ground, which means they are not in violation of the UN resolution.

Links aside, I would uirge you to chekc out the UN resolution itself for this incident -

UN Resolution 1973 - Libya no Fly Zone

I cannot comment on the attacking of ground vehicles, but what did they expect? How can you enforce a no-fly zone and establish air-superiority if you don't destroy the SAMs, AAA, airfields, command and control, and radars to prevent the aircraft that are enforcing said no-fly zone from being shot down?

Who gives the UN any recognition as a legitimate body? It is a body used by powerful nations to rubber stamp their conquests of weaker nations. The idea that if a group of the most powerful agree that one, or more, can aggressively pursue war on another nation it ok is ludicrous. Ask a Palestinian how those UN resolutions are working out.

Text

4. 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, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi,

From op's source,

take all necessary measures

reply to post by Xcathdra


Your link seems to be broken, atleast I can't enter the website. But as far as I can see on the title you gave the link, that resolution is from 1973 (or resolution 1973, I don't know). As far as I could read from the current resolution, nothing there is stated about attacking ground forces with no AA capabilities.

To majesticgent:
Tanks do not take part in AA operations.

This whole "uprising" in Libya seemed suspicious from the outset. They showed these rebels with pickup trucks and basically nothing fighting off the libyan military who had tanks, and military forces. The valiant fighters was the picture portrayed. Now if the military really wanted to slaughter em it would have been over weeks ago. Much more going on in this than evil momar as the OP said. Any rare earth elements in Libya? Notice we aren't fighting for oil anymore but for stuff to keep our windmills and battery cars operating. Look at Afghan as the biggest example.

reply to post by stephinrazin


The Security council voted 10 in Favor, 5 Abstentions, 0 against. Sine Libya is a member of the UN, and since people amke this exact same argument against me with reagrds to Afghanistan and Iraq, they are subject to its rulings.

No matter what they say it was not 'Genocide'

dictionary.reference.com...
gen·o·cide

–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

n
the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group

www.ushmm.org...

THE TERM "GENOCIDE"

The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. Human rights, as laid out in the U.S. Bill of Rights or the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concern the rights of individuals.

In 1944, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) sought to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the destruction of the European Jews. He formed the word "genocide" by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe, with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. In proposing this new term, Lemkin had in mind "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." The next year, the International Military Tribunal held at Nuremberg, Germany, charged top Nazis with "crimes against humanity." The word “genocide” was included in the indictment, but as a descriptive, not legal, term.

www.historyplace.com...

The term 'Genocide' was coined by Polish writer and attorney, Raphael Lemkin, in 1941 by combining the Greek word 'genos' (race) with the Latin word 'cide' (killing). Genocide as defined by the United Nations in 1948 means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

reply to post by VikingDude


I understand that tanks do not take part in AA operations. Well actually some modified variants do:



I cannot confirm that Libya has any of these.

I understood that attacking tanks have nothing to do with a "No-Fly Zone." I was thinking that the Arab League thought that no ground attacks would be acceptable to sustain the "No-Fly Zone"

reply to post by jam321


A tank is ment for ground assault and fighting other armed forces. Civilian casualties will always happen and untill I have seen actual assaults on the civilian population, then I must say, that the French attacks were illegal

reply to post by Darth_Prime


Some medias use that word:

www.thenews.com.pk...

infidelsarecool.com...

reply to post by VikingDude


Weird.. Coming back as an end user issue..

Here is the 2011 Resolutions to date - UN Resolutions for 2011

The 1973 is the resolution number, not the year

There are armed rebels who are opposing pro-Qaddafi forces. There is no doubt that at this point, they are using violence to oppose Qaddafi's regime... but that was after hundreds of unarmed protesters were killed by sniper fire.

UN forces destroyed the tank column that was headed towards Benghazi to protect innocent lives because Qaddafi threatened 'no mercy' against that entire city. Qaddafi wanted to destroy an entire city filled with people who are politically opposed to him, and who consider themselves a part of a different nation, with a different flag. The city is not filled with armed rebel fighters, there are many civilians including women and children that could have been harmed by those tanks shelling the town with no mercy.

dictionary.reference.com...
gen·o·cide

–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

n
the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group