The Arab League condemned the air strikes saying: ‘What we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians’;
■ Russia joined the criticism, saying the strikes hit non-military targets and called for a ‘halt in the indiscriminate use of force’;

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 12:31pm:


The truth hurts doesnt it mavisdavis - the evil right wing clown of contempt for what is good and right in this world

Mavis that foolosophy claims to be a woman now.

Last week it was a man.

My guess is it's a frustrated post op tranny whose operation was botched in Thailand. I guess that would make you bitter and twisted not know who or what you are.

I cant imagine conservatives supporting the warpigs illegal invasion of Libya, slaughter of innocent civillians and attempted assassination of a national leader under the flag of the UN - most conservatives have no time for the UN.  I can imagine Neo-cons supporting it, but then they are not conservatives but Bolshevik, Imperial warpigs and genocidal maniacs.



Lets not let warpigs and imperialists dress in sheep's clothing.

interesting.....with a mere 60 posts to his name, he seems to know everyone in here on a first name basis

Oh the cowardice and fraudulant webs that he weaves in the hope that his foul putrid stench is not noticed

Prevailing wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 10:13am:



You should volunteer as a human shield. Take the Poncey Bint Fool with you.
This could be your 15 minutes.

JuLIAR Gillard and Kevin Rudd, Imperial neo-colonial warpigs and assassins with blood on their hands.

billy the fish wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 3:59pm:




so the muslim states have called for a cease fire yet they want the innocent Libyians saved from Gaddafis  bombs..

so how? did they say?????


so what would you do billy?....wave that magic wand you guys seem to have.

billy the fish wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 3:59pm:


So we stand back and watch the slaughter of innocents and do nothing? then you will complain just as much as when allied forces do something about it. Cant win with you bleeding heart liberals.

LIBYA: WEBSITE, GADDAFI'S SON KILLED BY A SUICIDE-BOMBER
http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201103211039-cro-ren1026-...

(AGI) Tripoli - Khamis, Gaddafi's sixth son, was reportedly killed by the injuries suffered in a suicide bombing on Saturday. A Libyan pilot deliberately crashed his jet against the Bab al-Azizia barracks. Hospitalized in the intensive care unit of a Tripoli hospital, he reportedly died a few hours later. The news was disclosed by the Algerian newspaper Shuruk, which echoes the Al-Manara Libyan opposition's Website.
  However, the news has not been confirmed by the regime's media.

Prevailing wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 11:50am:


good result!

billy the fish wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 3:16pm:


Im only celebrating the death of one scumbag. you lot are celebrating Gaddaffis slaughter of thousands. I prefer my position  ANY DAY over your amoral support for a mass murdered.

Prevailing wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 4:38pm:


evidence? proof?

.....speaking of war pigs. Two suckers take it for the team.

THE US Army has apologised after the publication of photos showing their soldiers smiling and posing with civilians they allegedly murdered.

This week, German news magazine Der Spiegel published three photographs said to show two US soldiers accused of being part of a rogue "kill team" last year during their tour in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the most damaging image appears to show one soldier smiling as he lifts the head of a dead, bloodied Afghan man.

One of the soldiers being court martialled over the murder of the three Afghan civilians has already announced his intention to plead guilty to murder charges, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The publication of the pictures by the paper, which says they are just three of 4000 it has obtained, is a public relations nightmare for the US army which is still recovering from the fall-out from the shocking Abu Ghraib pictures from Iraq published five years ago.

The US army had sought to keep secret during prosecution of a war crimes case.

One photo shows two Afghans, who appear to be dead, leaning up against a post.

The other two photos show two soldiers accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in January 2010 kneeling next to the body of the slain man.

The two soldiers depicted kneeling by the corpse are: Army Specialist Jeremy Morlock who is accused of participating in the murder of that man and two other unarmed Afghans in February and May 2010. He appears to be smiling and holding up the head of a corpse in one photo. His lawyer has said he will plead guilty.

The other is Private First Class Andrew Holmes, who is accused of participating in the murder of that Afghan. He kneels next to the corpse, which is stretched out on the sand and grass.

In their statement, the US army said the photographs depicted "actions repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States Army".

"The actions portrayed in these photographs remain under investigation and are now the subject of ongoing US court-martial proceedings, in which the accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty," The Daily Mail reports.

The photos have been placed under a protective order by an Army judge as charges are pressed against Morlock, Holmes and three other soldiers from a western-Washington-based Stryker Brigade that served in Afghanistan from the summer of 2009 to the summer of 2010.

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-army-apologises-for-kill-team-photos-of-andrew-holmes-and-jeremy-morlock-with-afghans/story-e6frfkyi-1226026155676

   

Prevailing wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 5:17pm:


I think that 'slaughtering thousands of civilians' is an exageration that doesn't improve your argument. I refute the suggestion that leaving Gadaffty in power to slaughter his own people would be an improvement. I do wish the USA had kept its nose out of this one though. Its reasoning, conduct and ability to to fight or act as a global policeman has been seriously discredited by history.

Senator Christine Milne endorsed the Nofly Zone yesterday. Personally I don't have much problem with it either, I don't know how you can say so without a mention of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia though. I'm for a multi national UN administered peacekeeping FORCE, for when leaders go feral. I'm for an International Law that makes it a requirement for countries to arm on a one for one basis. One bomb for us and one for the UN. One salary for a soldier and one to the UN.

Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya: beware the lies of March

In 1999 and 2003 this was the very week Britain went to war – or, as the government put it, liberate people and protect civilians

It's March, the sun is shining and spring is just around the corner. Oh, and Britain is bombing a foreign country again. If you've got a distinct feeling of deja vu about what's been going on this weekend, then it's hardly surprising.

In this very week in 1999 Britain took a leading role in the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

And on this very day in 2003, Britain took a leading role in the bombing – and invasion – of Iraq.

And now we're at it again in Libya.

We're being told we have to intervene in Libya to "protect the Libyan people" from being murdered by the forces of Gaddafi. We're told that having declared a ceasefire, Gaddafi "stepped up the attacks" on civilians. And that doing nothing about the dictator is simply not an option.

Now all this could be true – but our experience of other March military assaults in which Britain has played a prominent role suggests we should, at the very least, treat with one huge barrow-load of salt the claims currently being made about why we're going to war.

Back in March 1999 we were told that we had to intervene because the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was "set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during world war two". That wasn't true.

In March 2003 we were told that we had to invade Iraq, because Saddam had WMDs that "could be activated within 45 minutes".

That wasn't true either.

Far from Milosevic engaging in a "Hitler-style genocide", what was occurring in Kosovo was a civil war between Yugoslav forces and the western-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, with atrocities committed on both sides. And the claims about Iraqi WMD were pure hogwash put forward to justify a military intervention to topple a regime that the west, having supported in the 1980s, now wanted out.

Both in 1999 and 2003 our leaders lied to us about the real reasons for our country's involvement in military conflict. How can we be sure that what is happening in 2011 is any different?

If the US, Britain and France are acting out of genuine humanitarian concerns for Libyan civilians, why has there been no discussion of similar action against the government in Bahrain – which last week invited into the country military forces from that great democracy Saudi Arabia to crush pro-democracy protests – or against the regime in Yemen, where 45 anti-government protesters were killed on Thursday?

The other lesson to draw from the previous March conflicts is that military interventions – sold to the public as reasonably straightforward operations against dictators with little public support – rarely go to plan. Nato thought that a few days of heavy bombardment would force Milosevic to cave in – they were wrong: the war lasted 78 days and at the end of it the Yugoslav federal army was undefeated.

The invasion of Iraq, its neocon cheerleaders assured us, would be a cakewalk, with grateful Iraqis – all of whom hated Saddam Hussein – lining up to hand bouquets of flowers to their "liberators".

And today, supporters of the Libyan action, such as the Tory MP Colonel Bob Stewart, predict that Gaddafi's forces are likely to desert. But what if the advocates of military action are wrong – as they were in 1999 and 2003? What if support for Gaddafi within Libya is stronger than we have been led to believe? Then we could be involved in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.

I have said it before - the targetting of innocent civilians is wrong.  Those who live in countries illegally invaded by outlaw western states should not target western civilians - they did not hurt you and our government will laugh and thank you for every civilian you kill.  THE only legitimate military targets in war are regime leaders, Government, bureaucracy, leaders of Business and corporate media, these are the ones fomenting war, not innocent civilians.  So before you strap a bomb vest on think about who the most high value target really is.

Again, inciting violence against civilians like the media and government does in illegal wars is disgusting, it makes me sick!

If Qaddafi is assassinated, the Libyan people are entitled to retaliate - I'm not saying they aren't so lets get that strait, self defenses legitimate, but targeting Western civilians is wrong - go after te Western regime leaders because the innocent civilians you kill are probably sympathetic to you.  I will condemn any corporate media Journalist or Imperialist regime leader who incites war and violence.

Look all I am saying is if Western Corporate media are in a country like Libya inciting military action against a countries regime and inciting rebellion then they present themselves as combatants on the field of battle and a legitimate target to be taken out.  I have no problems with that and condemn any action of the western controlled corporate media propaganda operatives to incite killings and violence.

what_next wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 5:30pm:

Oh, Neil Clark. Thanks!!
Neil Clark is a UK-based journalist, blogger and writer. He is a contributor to a wide range of UK and international publications. His blog was voted best UK blog in the 2007 Weblog Awards

A smacking has been even 4 years ago. Best Blog!! Move over, Albert smacking Schweitzer! Gotta listen to Neil Clark!!!

interesting.....

The USA control many of the tyrrants in the Middle East including those in Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco etc and YET they are silent on the state and military slaughter of unarmed demonstrators.

But in Libya a No-Fly zone resolution is turned into a mass aerial bombardment of anything that moves at night.

Oh the web of self interest and deceit that we weave in the name of Freedom and democracy.

So tell me - why doesnt the USA begin with interventions and condemnations in the middle eastern countries it controls? Surely it doesnt support the dictators OVER these poor unarmed demostrators who are seeking freedom and basic human rights?

Tell me it isnt true?

Based on the clearly deteriorating mental state of Bill_crany aka Prevailing, I predict another enforeced stay in a mental instituion very soon. Supporting Gaddaffis 'right' to murder his own citizens is certainly a sign of extreme paranoia.

Watch and see if Im right. I was after the Victoran bushfires where he calimed they were deliberately set by the government. he was away for nearly a year then.

Holiday time coming for you again Bedwetter Bill!!!!

so nutjob, do you support gaddafi killing his own people because they want a change in government? just answer the question!

what_next wrote on Mar 24^th, 2011 at 8:59am:


the topic is gadaffi and libya.  stick to the topic. do u think the UN attacks on gadaffi are good or bad?

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

here is the document from westpoint academy

US funded al-qaeda

research yes good

namaste

the topic is gadaffi and libya.  stick to the topic. do u think the UN attacks on gadaffi are good or bad?


Do I agree the attacks on Gaddafi are a good thing?

Well first of all, the UN and America have insisted that Gaddafi himself is not a target, you forget this is not a war (according to the US) it is simply enforcing a no fly zone over Libya, which includes bombing the defence forces of Libya. Why the US would then bomb his compound is hard to understand.

However, the British and French have stated that Gaddafi himself is a legitimate target and should be destroyed, it looks as though all sides can't agree on the same issue.

Now do I agree with it, yes and no. I believe in democracy and I believe every country should have it, especially when the people are so passionate about gaining it. However if you are going to attack one nation for not supporting democracy and for murdering its people, then I believe you should have the same stance on every nation.

What we are seeing is the hypocrisy of how the US treats friend versus foe. Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia all had Governments killing innocent protesters, as we are seeing now in Bahrain with the support of the US. How can the US be pro-democracy in Libya, but anti-democracy in Bahrain? The answer is simple, money. Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia all have billion dollar arms deals with the US, so when they attack and kill innocent civilians, the US turn a blind eye, something which goes against the very foundations of the democracy they supposedly represent.

I do not support Gaddafi, however, you tend to feel a little sympathy for him due in part to the fact that he is doing nothing different to what the other middle Eastern dictators (or leaders) were doing, yet he is the only one being attacked.

Why is the death of say an Egyptian or a Bahrain national not seen as abhorrent act by the US? Are Egyptian and Bahrain nationals worthless. If the US wants credibility it must support democracy in all nations, even those where it has a vested interest, otherwise they come out looking like hypocritical war mongers.

Confusion reigns. What a circus.

Video shows US senator John McCain calling Gaddafi a terrorist after signing a huge arms deal with him.