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 Says It Mistakenly Hit Libyan Rebels Again!

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

NATO Says It Mistakenly Hit Libyan Rebels Again!


www.nytimes.com

June 18, 2011 - NATO acknowledged Saturday that its aircraft had mistakenly hit a column of rebel military vehicles last week near the Libyan oil port of Brega in at least the third such episode since the airstrikes began three months ago.

The number of casualties could not be determined. “We regret any possible loss of life or injuries caused by this unfortunate incident,” NATO said in a statement."

The accidental strike, which occurred Thursday, took place against a backdrop..............



(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
War On Terrorism
World War 3




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
How many Libyan Rebels and Civilians killed and/or wounded by NATO so far? I mean how many compare to Gadhfi forces? I mean they were also a last statement what the Student said about the leader of Gahadfi.

"Several students fluent in English and waiting by the collapsed building denounced NATO’s attacks. “The future with Muammar Qaddafi is perfect,” said Aya Suessi, 19.

Around the corner, however, a group of about a dozen male students praised the airstrikes.

One of the young men said most students did not support Qaddafi. “The ones who are for Qaddafi can do or say whatever they like,” he said. “We can’t say anything or they will kill us.”



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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
OOPS SORRY!

Didnt mean it, you forgive us dont you?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Meh, the U.S needs to stop taking up the slack for NATO. It's the EU's oil supply at stake, let them deal with it.

On Topic: Are gadaffi's forces still wearing uniforms? or are the rebels killing soldiers and donning said uniforms?

Alex. can i buy better intel for $200 please.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Kingbreaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
If we keep killing the rebels there won't be any more left to fight Gaddafi's troops. We're just making more enemies the more we stick our nose into other countries internal problems.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
They sure make a lot of 'oops' moments over there. But that's ok, it's all about helping out right?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
they only run a tally of death when theres a R by their names.

who knows how many people have been killed in libya or pakistan or iraq or afghanistan or yemen since obama took over.

obama is a war criminal even tho "he doesnt call it a war"



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kingbreaker
Meh, the U.S needs to stop taking up the slack for NATO. It's the EU's oil supply at stake, let them deal with it.


It's always puzzling reading comments like this.

What do you think the US involvement in the NATO operation is? Because as far as I was aware, the US took a very back seat after NATO took over following the initial strikes, when they did have the lions share of forces. Predominately, the warplanes involved are European, mainly UK and France, with some Canadian and Arab forces too.

Also, Libya never produced that much oil. It was about the same as the UK pre-conflict and only supplied a fraction of the EU's oil supplies. It's a bit of a stock response these days, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Mistakes happen.

I mean, how many times has the US bombed UK forces? Plenty!

I am sure the rebels know this and they certainly prefer having NATO air cover than not having it. All they have to do is ask us to piss off and I am sure we would oblige, but remember it is they and the Arab League who requested NATO get involved. People forget that little fact...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
So... NATO bombed Al-Qaeda operatives in Libya, and... you're UPSET?

Do people not realise that the US and NATO are funding "the enemy of our enemies" in places like Libya? I'm not saying that bombing them is right, or that it's a good thing... but I'm also not naive. There's a pretty good chance this was no accident.

That said... I'd love to know exactly what the point is in Libya. Seems to me like nobody has any idea whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Well, war is about killing and destruction, not about saving civilian lives.

Have we been dumbefied that much that we now believe that the same NATO which invaded Afghanistan and continues killing thousands of people, went to Libya to save lives?

Who is gonna save Afghan lives against NATO?

I mean can you see the logic here?

1. Implement a no fly zone to save CIA trained and sponsored terrorists from the Libyan regime.
2. Implement a no fly zone to save Taliban from NATO.
3. Implement a no fly zone to save Hamas from Zionists.
4. Implement a no fly zone to save Pakistan from US.
5. Implement a no fly zone to save Yemen from US.
6. Implement a no fly zone to save Iraq from US, ohh, never mind, over million killed through the policy of divide and conquer is enough.

You know you have been brainwashed when you start believing that initiating a war means peace. And dropping tens of thousands of bombs which kills and destroys, means saving lives.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

That said... I'd love to know exactly what the point is in Libya. Seems to me like nobody has any idea whatsoever.


Well if no wars ever happen, then whats the point of the military-industrial complex?

Bombs drop, people get killed, but thousands earn a paycheck working for boeing, gruman, lockhead martin, etc.

Cruel world? Read the report on iron mountain............

Not to mention libya exports oil and perhaps ghadaffi was giving the west a hard time. Thousands are being killed in syria by president assad and his minions, but I don't hear nato making a big deal there. And yemen is pretty bad also.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak

You know you have been brainwashed when you start believing that initiating a war means peace. And dropping tens of thousands of bombs which kills and destroys, means saving lives.


Indeed! Up is down, and left is right. When I say night, you should think daytime........

illogic means poor logic and brainwashing means wash the brain with nonsense till ultimate confusion ensues!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Doesn't it seem strange that only 13 people were killed in heavy battle in 2 days? The media is either lying about the number dead or dramatizing a skirmish as a large battle.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
There's nothing "accidental" about these strikes.

The elite use war to sacrifice people to their God.

You see, entities cannot take your soul unless you agree to it. That's why the Devil uses contracts.

Are you prepared to die for your "country"?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Mistakes happen.

I mean, how many times has the US bombed UK forces? Plenty!


Wrong, Not a lot. The UK deaths from US fire was five deaths for far. But British killed by British forces was around 14. That's more than that American firing the British. Most British deaths came from American air-support. It's a well known fact since since the US provide 90% of air-operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, meaning that the USAF will be bound to have more incidents. Most coalition forces appreciated our air-support. The pilot cannot see from 10,000 ft from the ground as they rely on intel given by ground forces.

I can list the British FFs you if you don't mind. To say "plenty" was over-exaggerated and show that Britain in general know nothing about static of friendly fire deaths. Unlike the US which most of them have air-to-ground incidents, most friendly fire incidents caused by the British were ground-to-ground incidents.

Bur I start with British killed by American forces first.

1) March 23, 2003 - A U.S. Patriot missile shot down a British Tornado GR.4A aircraft of No. 13 Squadron RAF, killing the pilot and navigator. Investigations showed that the Tornado's Identification friend or foe indicator had malfunctioned and hence it was not identified as a friendly aircraft. (Iraq)

^Now to comment, this is a prime example of how the British media would twist the incident and make it seems like it was due to American incompetence. I'd expect the headline probably said something. "Two British pilots killed by American friendly fire." The truth is that this was due to a flaw with the aircraft itself. It wasn't really anyone's fault.

March 28, 2003 - A British soldier was killed and five others injured when their armored vehicles was strafed by two USAF A-10 aircraft in the 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. (Iraq)

December 5, 2006 - A USAF F-18 aircraft during close air-support accidentally killed a British Royal Marine in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

December 5, 2010 - A USAF F-18 aircraft during close air-support accidentally killed a New Zealander serving in the British military in Nad 'Ali district of Helmand province, Afghanistan.

Now i'll list all the friendly fire incidents caused by British forces.

IRAQ WAR:

March 24, 2003 - British tank commander Sgt. Steven Roberts, of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, was killed by a L94A1 machine-gun fired from a Challenger 2 tank manned by a fellow British soldier who was trying to help Roberts quell a stone-wielding Iraqi protester. The Iraqi protester was also killed in this same incident. The gunner who shot Roberts did not know that his machine gun was inaccurate at short range. It was found out that three days before Roberts died, he was forced to give up his body armor to a fellow soldier due to government shortages. Had Roberts lived with the body armor, he would have survived the bullet wound.

March 25, 2003 - Two British soldiers were killed and two others injured when their Challenger 2 tank was accidentally fired on by another British Challenger 2 tank.

March 30, 2003 - British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison was killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.

April 3, 2003 - Fusilier Kelan Turrington, of the 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was killed by machine-gun fire mounted from a British tank.

July 16, 2006 - During a raid to apprehend a key terrorist leader and accomplice in a suburb of North Basra, Cpl John Cosby, of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, was killed by a 5.56 mm round from a British-issued SA80. It was ruled to be a case of friendly fire by the coroner. It was reported that the British forces who shot him were unclear about the rules of engagement.

AFGHANISTAN WAR:

April 6, 2006 - A British convoy in Afghanistan wounded 13 Afghan police officers and killed one, after calling in a US airstrike on what they thought was a Taliban attack.

August 20, 2006 - In Sangin Province, a RAF Harrier 2 aircraft mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban. This angers British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan". British paratroopers even said that they rather prefer the US air-support over the RAF.

January 15, 2007 - Lance Corporal Matthew Ford, from Zulu Company of 45 Commando Royal Marines, was killed and five others injured after being hit by gunfire in Afghanistan which was later found to be due to friendly fire. The final inquest ruled Ford deaths and five injured soldiers was caused from NATO rounds from a fellow British Royal Marine's machine gun. The report added there was no "negligence" by the other Marine, who had made a "momentary error of judgment".

August 23, 2007 - A USAF F-15 aircraft called in to support British ground forces in Afghanistan dropped a bomb on those forces due to the incorrect coordinates given to the pilot by the British Forward Air Controller. Three privates of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, were killed and two others were severely injured. It was later revealed that the British forward air controller who called in the strike had not been issued a noise-cancelling headset, and while he supplied the correct target co-ordinates, in the confusion and stress of the battle incorrectly confirmed one wrong digit mistakenly repeated by the pilot, and the bomb landed on the British position 1000 metres away from the enemy. The coroner at the soldiers' inquest stated that the incident was due to "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness".

^Now to comment, Not really the fault of anyone on the battlefield. If you want to criticize anyone then criticize the people who keep cutting the military budget. The American pilot only fired once the British FAC confirmed the coordinates. Doesn't sound like it was the US fault but more like the British Government not supplying the FAC a headset. Had the FAC had the headset, the three boys would have lived. However no matter who's fault was it, it's the British FAC always responsible for the pilots action.

September 26, 2007 - British soldiers in operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, fired Javelin anti-tank missiles at Danish soldiers from the Royal Life Guards, killing two. It is also confirmed from Danish forces that the British fired a total of 6-8 Javelin missiles, over a 1½ hour period and only after the attack was completed did they realize that the missiles were British, based upon the fragments found after the incident.

January 14, 2008 - In the night in Helmand Province, British troops saw some Afghans "conducting suspicious activities". Visibility was too bad for rifle-fire and they were too far away to call in mortar strikes. The squad decided to use a Javelin anti-tank missile missile they were carrying. British soldiers fired their missile on the nearby roof but the victims were their own Afghan army sentries. One Afghan soldier was killed.

July 9, 2008 - Nine British soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment were injured after being fired upon by British Army Apache helicopter while on patrol in Afghanistan.

January 14, 2009 - Captain Tom Sawyer, aged 26, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, and Corporal Danny Winter, aged 28, Zulu Company 45 Commando Royal Marines, were killed by an explosion. Two other British soldiers were also injured in the patrol. Both men were taking part in a joint operation with a Danish Battle Group and the Afghan National Army in a location north east of Gereshk in central Helmand Provence. The MoD subsequently confirmed that two men died from friendly fire when they were hit in error by a Javelin anti-tank missile from British troops.

December 20, 2009 - A British Military Police officer was shot dead by a fellow British soldier while on patrol. It was reported that no charges are to be brought against a British army sniper who killed a British Military Policeman because he was allowed to open fire if he believed that his life was in danger.

July 26, 2010 - Sapper Mark Antony Smith, age 26, of the 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, was killed by a smoke shell fired upon by British troops in Sangin Province, Afghanistan. The MoD is investigating his death and said a smoke shell, designed to provide cover for soldiers working on the ground, may have fallen short of its intended target.

Despite the UK being the small armed forces, it looks like that the British friendly fire rate was a bit higher than the US. The US has around 25 cases of friendly fire and look how much this the British had, it's around 16. Now do the math, 100,000 US troops and 20,000 British troops deployed in Afghanistan now.

As of now, the most common cause of friendly fire is as most know - air strikes. This only happens when men on the ground give incorrect co-ordinates(like the August 23, 2007 incident), which is going to be very uncommon as the men calling in the air strikes are highly trained in map reading & what not. I can't really think of any other ways of causing friendly fire, only a complete & utter sh*t c*nt could shoot an allied soldier by accident.

Iraq and Afghanistan has the lowest friendly fire rate in history. People do forget it's war so mistakes are bound to happen.



I am sure the rebels know this and they certainly prefer having NATO air cover than not having it. All they have to do is ask us to piss off and I am sure we would oblige, but remember it is they and the Arab League who requested NATO get involved. People forget that little fact...


The Rebels does enjoyed having NATO air-support. But the rebels did not do enough a lot of ground work since they thought they just let NATO warplane do what they want. The air-power itself will not resolve the conflict. The problem is not with the military, British, French or US. They did what they were ordered to do within the framework of how they were ordered to do it. The problem is with the politicians and their expectations. They thought that if they declared a no fly zone, took out Libya’s air-defenses, and bombed a few troop concentrations Gaddafi would fold and run for cover. They did not take into account the historical FACT that airpower by itself could not resolve the problem. And American airpower would no more have been able to accomplish what the politicians wanted to accomplish than British/French airpower. Without some plan in place to establish a credible ground threat to Gaddafi’s regime any airpower alone solution was (is) bound to fail.
edit on 19-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join