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.

 

NATO air-strike killed 12 Libyan rebels again in friendly fire!

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

NATO air-strike killed 12 Libyan rebels again in friendly fire!


www.nytimes.com

At least one NATO warplane attacked a rebel position on the front lines of this besieged city on Wednesday, a rebel commander said, killing 12 fighters and wounding five others in what he called an accident that could have been avoided. The rebels were at first reluctant to admit the killings had occurred, saying they did not want to discourage further air strikes against the forces of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who have been shelling Misurata and pounding it with ground-to-ground rocket fire. The pace of NATO strikes had picked up noticeably in recent days, after rebel leaders complained of a l
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
War On Terrorism




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Does this tell me that the Libyan rebels always shoot their guns in the air a lot or something tell me that it was an error. I guess it was an error in my opinion or more likely rebels don't have their colored panels marked clearly. This is like the thrid time i heard a NATO warplane killed 13 fighters in another accident fiasco.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
My guess is that in the next few days/weeks we'll be hearing talks about how NATO isn't doing what they should, friendly fire incidences, etc. This will lead them to say that the U.S. needs to start taking more of a control back.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Between all the "friendly fire" rebel killing and blowing up the rebels tanks, does anyone else get the idea that the people pulling the strings don't really want the rebels to win? Or at least wants to drag it out for as long as possible by sabotaging the opposition?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Who says it's friendly fire ? It could also be a nice neat way of dealing with any possible " rebel " that the west doesn't want to see running the joint once the dust settles .



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
sh*t happens all the time



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
If the war in iraq was fought like this it would have taken 20 years to overthrow saddam hussein. this would have caused more deaths, suffering and pain to the people. more importantly it would have caused more problems for the world. because they move so slow to solve current problems, by the time they solve them more and more problems are created. in other words if they keep going at this pace this will never end.

a libyan farmer left his home at the start of the revolution hoping that it would end very quickly, months later and hes without hope thinking of ways he can feed his children.

my point is:

you either let ghadafi take his country back and put order into it or you move in since you(NATO) decided to get involved, kick him out, and leave. this might sound unfair but it was you who decided to get involved so now you must deal with it. if you didnt get involved the libyan crises would have ended.

and to be honest, i really dont care about the rebels. the libyans have the best life out of all african countries, and on top within the arab countries. they enjoy many things. the reason they revolted was due to successful revolts in neighbouring tunisia(west) and eygpt(east) so they thought hey lets give it a try, they were inspired(no more no less), but when they failed they stopped and went home, they dont hate qadafi. but all the sudden we got rebels with weapons fighting a war with NATO supporting them day and night. who are these rebels? no one seems to know the answer.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DarylHamblett
 




sh*t happens all the time


Wow, how deep and eloquent you are!!!

Contributing so much to this thread!!!

Anyways, I think NATO could care less who they hit, to them it's not like the rebels are actually doing the fighting. For all intents and purposes this is a Europe led crusade into Libya. Half of the rebels are probably CIA or CIA funded anywhoo



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
It's taking a long time because there are too many whiny Americans throwing a fit that were over there. They should shut up and get out of the way and let the military take this guy out.

They coulda been done and back home by now but the President is trying not to offend anyone. Really pathetic.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


It's sad we are in the postion not to give them lethal weapons, it always backfires on us. This is insane! "Go Rebels" then blast them away, pull back the air defense, cant anyone get it right? We have no choice but to help the rebels now. Obama should have acted when they first went in. I'd like to know the name of the General on this one!

I think we should be dropping white flags down rather than killing the militants too. Crazy!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Rebels today, Terrorists tomarrow.

I don't buy into that method of thinking, but it's happened before with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and look where we are know. I think there is some shady business goin on.
edit on 27-4-2011 by TraptInTheSystem because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2011 by TraptInTheSystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraptInTheSystem
Rebel's today, Terrorists tomarrow.

I don't buy into that thought of thinking, but it's happened before with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and look where we are know. I think there is some shady business goin on.


I agree this war is shady. A few air strikes and some drones, WOW. I think the shady part is the awful thought of letting them kill each other off, then what?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
Half of the rebels are probably CIA or CIA funded anywhoo


Well, this is what I found:



but then again:



Unfortunately I don't fully speak or read Arabic, but I can hear the hoster saying the word "Yahudi", which means Jew. The title says enough, though.

Pretty confusing stuff. :/



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
This just means that the "rebels" want troops co-located with them to do a better job of coordinating the air strikes and "painting" the "targets". They want to see NATO troops, in action, on the ground is what I'm saying and don't be fooled, that's next! But we all knew it was coming anyway! The fratricide is unfortunate, but since it's not actually fratricide, now you know nature of the Beast



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   



edit on 28-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Nice vid. Anyways i think that the problem is that NATO is not removing Gahdaffi in power yet proving protection to civilians in air power. This is going to cost us a lot of money so what's the point of intervening in the 1st place if you cant remove him from power?



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join