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 units left 61 African migrants to die of hunger and thirst

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Nato units left 61 African migrants to die of hunger and thirst


www.guardian.co.uk

Dozens of African migrants were left to die in the Mediterranean after a number of European and Nato military units apparently ignored their cries for help, the Guardian has learned.

A boat carrying 72 passengers, including several women, young children and political refugees, ran into trouble in late March after leaving Tripoli for the Italian island of Lampedusa. Despite alarms being raised with the Italian coastguard and the boat making contact with a military helicopter and a Nato warship, no rescue effort was attempted.

All but 11 of those on board died from thirst and hunger after
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Quite a humanitarian effort by NATO, eh?

72 refugees from Libya run into trouble so they contact the Italian the coastguard and NATO units, and then they are ditched for 16 days on the sea. 63 died.

Here's an interesting quote from the article:

"International maritime law compels all vessels, including military units, to answer distress calls from nearby boats and to offer help where possible."

In the early days of the Tunisia revolution, I watched a report from southern Italy where most of the immigrants arrived. Even after a week, the locals were getting antsy about the takeover of immigrants. Perhaps they just decided that they didn't want anymore immigrants in Italy.

EDIT: I noticed that the numbers don't seem to add up: they say 72 were on board, all but 11 died, and that 63 died. However, it's a good source so maybe somebody just screwed up the math.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 8-5-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Are you suggesting the ship was headed somewhere quick and had a reason not to stop? It does sound cruel, but without knowing more I would hesistate to brand them as evil and heartless. Now killing Ghadafi's family seems heartless, that was intentional. And no one knows why it wasn't his son they were trying to depose.

No one ever asks any real questions in here do they.

Maybe two got eaten or swam for it.
edit on 8-5-2011 by siren8 because: had to add



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
That is if it is true, this is the Guardian we are discussing here, big bru-ha-ha over nothing usually. Is this the same people that died off the spanish coast?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ToasterOverkill
That is if it is true, this is the Guardian we are discussing here, big bru-ha-ha over nothing usually. Is this the same people that died off the spanish coast?


What's wrong with the source? I've used lots of their articles before, for both internet and academic work.

And really, what do you propose as a legitimate source then? Because I can't think of a single damn news network that operates without bias of some sort.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
The Guardian is one of the most biased newspapers in the UK, clearly this is not apparent to you

There are no legitimate sources in this world but the guardian is the worst especially if you are of a conservative disposition.
edit on 9-5-2011 by ToasterOverkill because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ToasterOverkill
The Guardian is one of the most biased newspapers in the UK, clearly this is not apparent to you

There are no legitimate sources in this world but the guardian is the worst especially if you are of a conservative disposition.
edit on 9-5-2011 by ToasterOverkill because: (no reason given)


Obviously I am not of a conservative disposition.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Well NATO is always about humanitarian efforts such as in libya. Same thing here. No surprises.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
NATO = NWO = AGENDA 21, they aren't into saving people they are into exterminating people sadly. Don't weary it will soon get way wears and come to towns near you.
edit on 9-5-2011 by FarBeyondDriven69 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I guess it doesn't pay to get out of the way of the anvil and the hammer.

Clearly the mission in Libya is not a humanitarian one, unless your idea of charity is giving more oil to oil barons, and more gold to bankers, and things to shoot at and bomb to soldiers.

Only the people too stupid, or too involved in the barely hidden hope that this is all a religious crusade or involved in making their living off of this insane murderous militant process of giving yet more to the handful of people who nearly own and control everything on this planet would be so naive or misguided to believe there is anything humanitarian about the revolutions the CIA and MOSSAD are instigating and funding and manipulating.

The only thing the banksters and military industrial complex ever do to help anyone is themselves.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
you could bet your life,if this was a boat load of white people,NATO would of saved them,and found them safe refuge.

it's the same in libya at the moment,the mass murder of black migrants by the rebels,which is being pushed under the carpet by NATO and western media.

there is over 300,000 women and children on the libyan borders starving,that NATO are turning there backs on,while they have concentrated their efforts in securing oil fields.

so you can clearly see oil is worth more then life to NATO.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Typical NATO .. Nothing new in that .. NATO doesnt give a damn about assisting others.. They put on a show for the world while profiting from misery.. Just surprised their antics made the news this time..



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
Typical NATO .. Nothing new in that .. NATO doesnt give a damn about assisting others.. They put on a show for the world while profiting from misery.. Just surprised their antics made the news this time..


Assuming it was NATO units in the first place. Aside from the aircraft carrier, all we know is a helicopter with the word Army on the side dropped off some supplies. Also, at the risk of sounding heartless, at what point does it end? Its an open door for people to pile onto rafts, make shift boats etc and head out to sea in hopes of being rescued. They knew the risks....

Even though the guardian states the boat made contact, they fail to describe what hat contact was. From the article, it appears it was just visual and not verbal, which leaves open the possibility that a miscommunication occured. Its possible they thought the vessel needed supplies other than fuel.

Its also possible, since the vessel actually moved locations since the helicopter resupply, that NATO units assumed their was no mechanical / fuel problems present. No offical mayday / SOS was broadcast, which is what is required under international law for vessels to assist others in distress.

No one knew the vessel was in distress... Its possible they only thought they ran low of provisions, and in that regard, they assited the vessel.


edit on 9-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Joseph Konrad said it best-

"God left the conntinent of Africa long ago"

That statement was from Heart of Darkness during the Belgian occupation of the Congo.

It still holds some water today.

Unless there is something of worth in Africa, the civilized world doesnt pay much attention to the place



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by armtx
Joseph Konrad said it best-

"God left the conntinent of Africa long ago"

That statement was from Heart of Darkness during the Belgian occupation of the Congo.

It still holds some water today.

Unless there is something of worth in Africa, the civilized world doesnt pay much attention to the place


Why would you quote the author of one of the most racist books every published?

And what exactly are you basing your quote, "God left the continent of Africa long ago", the fact that
refugee Libyans were left to die by Americans and Europeans?
'
If it is that to which you refer, then it is indeed evident that God left the 'civilised' world long ago.

Something of worth over here? No nothing but 'useless eaters', like myself.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

• This article was amended on 9 May 2011. The original version referred throughout to a Nato ship. This has been changed to European units pending further clarification. The picture caption also used the wrong figure for the death toll. This has been corrected.


It appears Malta was alerted and denies being told. The ship was French which the French initially denied. It was the Italians and the Italian Coast Guard who knew and passed the buck to Malta.

Now that the article has been corrected, NATO should not be in the title of this thread. NATO was never alerted or told.

Also it appears that Gaddafi was kind enough to put a couple of them in prison where another died.

Terrible story, but NATO had nothing to do with it. The Guardian got it wrong and had to correct that. I wonder what else they got wrong or sensationalized?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stygmartyrZA

refugee Libyans were left to die by Americans and Europeans?


Care to point out where any American vessels / Assets were involved?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Boat of 600 Libyans sinks after NATO 'ignores SOS calls'




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMaverick
 


Witnesses: Ship With 600 Refugees Sank Near Libya

Read more:
www.foxnews.com...


An overcrowded ship carrying up to 600 people trying to flee Libya sank just outside the port of Tripoli, the U.N. refugee agency said Monday, citing witness accounts.


and


Other witnesses saw passengers swimming to shore but it was unclear how many survived, according to the International Organization for Migration.


and


The witnesses told aid workers that some would-be passengers in Tripoli became scared Friday and changed their minds about boarding the second boat but were forced onto the ship by Libyan soldiers.

"This is the first time that IOM has been told of migrants being forced by Libyan officials to get on a boat," IOM group said. In the past, some have reported being robbed by officials and soldiers of their savings and possessions like mobile phones.


Forced into boats by Libyan soldiers..... Forced Humanitarian crisis maybe?

The Italian coastguard did respond:


In a third case, relayed by an Eritrean priest in Rome to Boldrini, a boat with more than 70 people on board ran into trouble in the Mediterranean and only a handful survived, making their way back to Libya.

London's Guardian newspaper reported Monday that 61 African migrants died of hunger and thirst in March on that third ship after being ignored by a NATO warship and helicopter.

NATO denied the accusation, saying the Italian ship Garibaldi was 100 nautical miles out to sea while the refugee ship is believed to have floundered much closer to shore.

"Therefore, any claims that a NATO aircraft carrier spotted and then ignored the vessel in distress are wrong," the military alliance said.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
A very sad story, but let's face it, Europe does not want these people.




top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join