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 airstrike kills 8 Libyan civilians! Looks like it happened again!

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

NATO airstrike kills 8 Libyan civilians! Looks like it happened again!


www.prisonplanet.com

A NATO warplane has targeted a market in the Libyan town of Tawragha, leaving at least eight civilians dead and several others wounded.
Some of the injured are in critical condition, Xinhua reported on Wednesday, citing a local news agency.
NATO carried out the airstrike on Tawragha, 300 km east of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, on Tuesday amid reports that NATO warplanes were hovering over Tajura, another town 20 km east of Tripoli on the same day.
Libyan state television has reportedly aired..
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.presstv.com




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
How many civilians killed by NATO so far compare to Gadaffi forces killed?

usually i think civilian casualties always happen but what happens after the accidental bombing, these people will rally behind Gaddafi even more.

Both sides are done terrible things at least NATO know what its doing trying to prevent civilian deaths but due to bad Intel, things happens. Just my opinion.

www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 29-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


And subtract the from the number of "civilians" Gaddafi killed those that in America would have been labeled "domestic terrorists."

Im sure the Libyan people are thanking their lucky stars the allies are there bombing the crap out of them and murdering them to save them.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well America isn't the one that are doing the bombing right now, the hands of it now goes to our European and Canadian allies.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well America isn't the one that are doing the bombing right now, the hands of it now goes to our European and Canadian allies.


Who's the head honcho of NATO?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDarkestHour

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well America isn't the one that are doing the bombing right now, the hands of it now goes to our European and Canadian allies.


Who's the head honcho of NATO?


Well of course its America 75% of NATO spending, yet right now our NATO allies are doing most of the bombing now. Probably we are too bulked down in Iraq and Afghanistan with 10x more troops than any other NATO country.

Yet NATO leaders are not American. Here is it: en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 29-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Or its just too politically unpopular in America right now for an already unpopular president to officially lead an unpopular war when Americans are overwhelmingly sick of us hemorrhaging money in the mid east bombing people that have done nothing to us just to make it easier for the wealthy interests to extract resources there so they deliberately took a back seat while doing most of the spending and providing most of the bombs.

It could be that, too.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Cost of ordinance is miniscule versus the cost of flying and maintaining aircraft.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by TheDarkestHour

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well America isn't the one that are doing the bombing right now, the hands of it now goes to our European and Canadian allies.


Who's the head honcho of NATO?


Well of course its America 75% of NATO spending, yet right now our NATO allies are doing most of the bombing now. Probably we are too bulked down in Iraq and Afghanistan with 10x more troops than any other NATO country.

Yet NATO leaders are not American. Here is it: en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 29-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)


Who's arming the allies? You made it clear, 75% America.
Without America, NATO is nothing. Without our funds, without our arms..what's NATO? Who's really responsible?

France.. Britain.. Canada.. They've become nothing more than proxies. Nevertheless, the entire organization of NATO is responsible. The last time I checked, being a part of a criminal organization is a criminal act in itself.

Thanks for the links.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Come on people, this is propaganda!


We are giving the Libyans

Humanitarian Aid through Kinetic Military Action



They should be happy and thankful for the bombs!

We should liberate them through a ground kinetic military action!


Civilian deaths are unfortunate but necessary, they are collateral damage.

Al Queda in Libya is GOOD (and so is radiation!)













God I hope America wakes up soon.....



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDarkestHour

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by TheDarkestHour

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well America isn't the one that are doing the bombing right now, the hands of it now goes to our European and Canadian allies.


Who's the head honcho of NATO?


Well of course its America 75% of NATO spending, yet right now our NATO allies are doing most of the bombing now. Probably we are too bulked down in Iraq and Afghanistan with 10x more troops than any other NATO country.

Yet NATO leaders are not American. Here is it: en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 29-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)


Who's arming the allies? You made it clear, 75% America.
Without America, NATO is nothing. Without our funds, without our arms..what's NATO? Who's really responsible?

France.. Britain.. Canada.. They've become nothing more than proxies. Nevertheless, the entire organization of NATO is responsible. The last time I checked, being a part of a criminal organization is a criminal act in itself.

Thanks for the links.


is America doing the aerial bombing of Libya lately? Check again, America handed over to our NATO allies to do the aerial-bombing. Even without America, then some EU countries need to step and spend by spliting 50/50. That way NATO won't have to complain who's doing most of the work/spending this. Besides Europe military is capable without US protection now.
edit on 29-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by TheDarkestHour
 


is America doing the aerial bombing of Libya lately? Check again, America handed over to our NATO allies to do the aerial-bombing.


Keywords: lately.
If there wasn't attention in the MSM about Americas involvement and Obamas unconstitutional war, do you think America would still be bombing Libya?

Like I said, America is responsible for the arms and weaponry these other countries have. Maybe not entirely, but a pretty damn good percentage. Hence the term "proxy". I mean, you and me are on the same side here. This whole Libya mess is completely unethical, and I feel writing letters and making phones calls isn't really doing anything. I just want this garbage to end, I don't want anymore people being harmed.

Being a part of NATO, a group of war criminals, is justification enough for prosecution to the highest extent.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


I dont think its really a matter of "capability" as much as why would they pay their fair share for actions in the mid east that they benefit from economically when stupid America can pay the whole thing AND look like the bad guy?

My country is being exploited by international economic interests to make the extraction of resources in the mid east more profitable and easy for the companies who are benefiting from our war mongering down there. It doesnt make me proud that we are "competent" because in fact, the American people are being punked into paying to make other people richer, many of them, not even tax paying Americans.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDarkestHour
 


I said about bombing like from the air, not from giving arms and supplies to rebels on the ground. We talking about aerial bombing.

BTW can we discuss about this thread that has nothing to do with the discussion we having now?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by TheDarkestHour
 


I said about bombing like from the air, not from giving arms and supplies to rebels on the ground. We talking about aerial bombing.

BTW can we discuss about this thread that has nothing to do with the discussion we having now?


Giving weapons to airstrike makes America equally as responsible. At what point does the arms dealer become responsible for selling arms?

As for the thread, my condolences to the dearly departed and those injured. The violence is clear that ignorance is running rampant right now. I'll continue to do the best I can here to stop this non-sense.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
is America doing the aerial bombing of Libya lately? Check again, America handed over to our NATO allies to do the aerial-bombing.


Wasn't it the US that the CIA-sponsored rebels directly appealed to for support? Wasn't it the US who brought this before the UN? Wasn't it Obama that was at the forefront of this "Kinetic Military Action"? Wasn't it Hilary Clinton who carried out a speech of humanitarian support through a "No-Fly Zone" in Libya while US and British warships salvo'd off over a hundred cruise missiles at the Libyan government?

None of this would've started without the US at the controls. The other coalition countries, such as Canada, Britain, and France, are all proxies to the US and its foreign policies. The US backed out weeks into the assault and let its proxies, who have ALL tasted the blood of imperialist warmongering and are poised to gain from conflict, soften up Libya.

You can bet your ass that the US spent this time bolstering regional forces and preparing for more wars (such as a ground invasion of Libya and Syria).

And you're seriously trying to blame other NATO countries for this? This wasn't even NATO that started the assault! It was a coalition of the willing for at least two weeks into the assault, and then turned into a NATO mission after there was no clear leadership directing the operation (along with great suspicion as to the entire operation and it's similarities to Iraq).



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
8 ?

there were 20 million civilian casualties in WWII

20,000,000

I'm not excusing it or defending it, just tryin to put it in perspective



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
8 ?

there were 20 million civilian casualties in WWII

20,000,000

I'm not excusing it or defending it, just tryin to put it in perspective


Perspective for what? This isn't a world war.

And besides, most of the civilian deaths during WWII occured due to malnurishment, work/death camps, and executions; not so much as collateral damage (though obviously many did die as collateral damage, just look at Dresdene/Nagasaki/Hiroshima).



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
For those of you who are against this so called war, what would you have NATO do? Should NATO pull out then sit and watch as anyone remotely associated with the rebels is killed, along with their entire family?

Yes, the US was appealed to, but France was nearly ready to go it alone. It was the European members of NATO that really pushed this action. As for the US supplying money and arms... What are you smoking? Look at the French air force and naval aviation, they fly french made jets, the Rafale and Mirage, and the Brittish fly the Eurofighter. Other nations ivolved are flying F-16s and such that were PURCHASED from US manufacturers at quite a premium. Gates in his last speach even railed against NATO members that were not pulling their weight, inferring that the US might not always be able to ride to the rescue at 30 knots with a carrier group. Though he oddly singled out Poland for not deploying aircraft, which is BS since Poland has been in Afghanistan and Iraq since joining NATO... I actually think he was referring in a round about way to the UK budget cuts, which have hit home with the lack of a Harrier task force.

So once again other than mindless finger pointing and NWO theories, how is it that the US can take a back seat on this operation yet still be blamed for it? As someone already pointed out, 8 deaths is extermely low. What, did you expect that with the new SECRET MIRACLE BOMBS no innocents would die?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
For those of you who are against this so called war, what would you have NATO do? Should NATO pull out then sit and watch as anyone remotely associated with the rebels is killed, along with their entire family?

Yes, the US was appealed to, but France was nearly ready to go it alone. It was the European members of NATO that really pushed this action. As for the US supplying money and arms... What are you smoking? Look at the French air force and naval aviation, they fly french made jets, the Rafale and Mirage, and the Brittish fly the Eurofighter. Other nations ivolved are flying F-16s and such that were PURCHASED from US manufacturers at quite a premium. Gates in his last speach even railed against NATO members that were not pulling their weight, inferring that the US might not always be able to ride to the rescue at 30 knots with a carrier group. Though he oddly singled out Poland for not deploying aircraft, which is BS since Poland has been in Afghanistan and Iraq since joining NATO... I actually think he was referring in a round about way to the UK budget cuts, which have hit home with the lack of a Harrier task force.

So once again other than mindless finger pointing and NWO theories, how is it that the US can take a back seat on this operation yet still be blamed for it? As someone already pointed out, 8 deaths is extermely low. What, did you expect that with the new SECRET MIRACLE BOMBS no innocents would die?


Ya i can agree with you 8 civilians is low. If NATO dropped the first bomb on Libya, you are committed to help the rebels get rid of Gaddafi and his forces. Hence now, France already delivered arms and supplies to the Rebels. online.wsj.com...

And UK provided body armor and police uniforms for the rebels and civilians who supported them. www.seattlepi.com...


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
is America doing the aerial bombing of Libya lately? Check again, America handed over to our NATO allies to do the aerial-bombing.


You can bet your ass that the US spent this time bolstering regional forces and preparing for more wars (such as a ground invasion of Libya and Syria).

And you're seriously trying to blame other NATO countries for this? This wasn't even NATO that started the assault! It was a coalition of the willing for at least two weeks into the assault, and then turned into a NATO mission after there was no clear leadership directing the operation (along with great suspicion as to the entire operation and it's similarities to Iraq).


LOL if Obama ever send our ground troops, he will be toasted in the 2012 election. Plus i'm happy to see that most of our NATO allies carry the burden on this one because we already bulked down in Libya and Afghanistan.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join