Nato accuses Gaddafi of using mosques and children's parks as shields

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Saturday June 18 2011 16.48 BST

Nato has accused Muammar Gaddafi of using mosques and children's parks as shields after the Libyan leader taunted the alliance in an address broadcast to protesters in Tripoli.

In a speech piped through loudspeakers to a few thousand people demonstrating in Green Square, Gaddafi railed against Nato's intensified air strikes in the capital. "Nato will be defeated," Gaddafi yelled in a hoarse, agitated voice to the crowd. "They will pull out in defeat."

Nato spokeswoman Oana Lungescu dismissed Gaddafi's speech as propaganda, and countered claims from Libya's prime minister on Friday that the alliance was deliberately targeting civilian buildings. "We are saving countless lives every day across the country," she said. "We are conducting operations with utmost care and precision to avoid civilian casualties. Civilian casualties figures mentioned by the Libyan regime are pure propaganda."

She also accused Gaddafi and his regime of "systematically and brutally attacking the Libyan people", saying government forces "have been shelling cities, mining ports and using mosques and children's parks as shields".

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/18/nato-gaddafi-mosques-childrens-parks

[David__77]

1. How dare you not come out in the open to be killed in your own country!

This is truly appalling!

[joshcryer]

7. Wait, you think it's OK to build a bunker under a childrens park?

Really?

[David__77]

13. I support the sovereignty of Libya.

That is all.

[CJvR]

26. Gaddafi...

...thanks you for your support.

[JackRiddler]

16. No. Do you think it's okay to just repeat any bullshit without even backing it up?

Isn't kind of insulting to expect people to believe such claims without at least a source for the claim?

Come on, let's see your satellite photos of the anthrax producing RVs!

By the way, as a child I lived under a government that saw fit to hold the entire civilian population hostage (that would include many children's parks) to an insane nuclear confrontation.

[muryan]

24. You were held hostage as a child?

Which country was this and where was the prison located?

[JackRiddler]

28. So were you, by two insane superpowers committed to nuclear warmaking.

One of them is still a superpower. When it attacks various countries and kills women and children in the process, it finds rationales for blaming the countries it attacked.

[muryan]

32. You and I have grossly different definitions of the word hostage

You probably wouldn't use the word so freely if you understood its actual implications.

[JackRiddler]

45. No, looks more like you just want the rhetoric thrown at your preferred targets only.

It's perfectly acceptable to claim that Libyan military is holding its people up as human shields against the noble NATO bombing.

However, a country that accumulates a nuclear arsenal of tens of thousands of warheads is also "hiding it under playgrounds." There's no way to target nuclear forces without destroying or contaminating populated areas, thus killing children.

The lesson this latest in a series of six dozen bombing campaigns teaches, once again, is that the targeted country should have just been a lot bigger, meaner and have lots of nuclear arms. Then the bombs would fall somewhere else.

Imagine it: It probably does add up to 50 countries bombed from the air by US forces since 1946, and every single one was for humanitarian reasons! Every one of those countries run by a monster -- never the USA!

[muryan]

48. I think despots will behave as despots

I also think that you will keep beating this horse until it is long dead, until the next one comes along.


What do you want? What would you have us do?

[JackRiddler]

50. Shut down the vast military empire, bring the people and the money home.

The United States is not in the business of overthrowing despots. It has established far many more than it has overthrown, and that is for a reason. We have better things to do for our people at home than to pursue 19th century imperialism.

[joshcryer]

29. Oh, sorry, I assumed that you followed Libya news and were aware of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/africa/13tripoli.html

[JackRiddler]

49. Pathetic that you think that sorry piece in New York Pravda supports your case.

The details these reporters from Judy Miller's former paper report they actually saw are clear enough: massive bombs struck near a playground.

Then they spin some bullshit about an unseen underground compound that they wish to define as a legitimate target. They claim to have seen an entrance but not "the compound" itself. Then they start talking about "the compound" as though it must exist, as though their initial speculation about it has now established that existence, and as though it must be military. The fact that bunker busters were used is supposed to be confirmation that it must have been a nasty and legitimate target (meanwhile the war itself is illegal). So if NATO bombs something with a really big bomb, that's proof it was good to bomb. The fact that a nearby complex was bombed in 1986 is supposed to also provide evidence of a legitimate target.

Those Libyans, building tunnels in their capital city! What use could these backward people possibly have for such edifices?! Now if you really want to see "underground compounds," just go to New York City. There are hundreds of them, and the only way you can definitely reach them from warplanes or missiles is by bunker buster, so by New York Times logic...

[joshcryer]

56. Gaddafi's minders and propaganda not allowing journalists free access is common knowledge.

The fact that you defend such behavior is ultimately damning to your argument. You clearly believe there was no bunker there.

As far as Gaddafi's bunkers he specifically built them for private access and to hide, it was clear in the design of the things. As far as NYC's "underground passages" they are for sewage, water, electrical, and even transportation.

In Colorado I know at least that anyone can go "spelunking" in the sewage passages without fear of arrest or with impunity. Gaddafi wouldn't even let the journalists explore. That's freedom for ya.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turborama]

54. Video of a report from the same location

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE72XBK_wTI

This carousel can be seen in the background from 02 minutes 03 seconds into the video...

[joshcryer]

57. Thanks. Yeah, I think Gaddafi's own people misplaced the playground.

Either that, or they decided not to put it directly on top just in case it gave the position away. Given the corruption and incompetence of Gaddafi's government I'm inclined to believe the former.

[tabatha]

8. How dare you hide in one children's playground to kill innocent children in another.

Btw, there is a video of this somewhere - of Gaddafi firing from a mosque.

[Purveyor]

2. Same ole, same ole bullshit we hear with EVERY illegal attack we launch on a sovereign country.

The day isn't that far off that this USofA is going to be put back in it's 'box' but good!

[bhikkhu]

3. Lungescu isn't american

and she wasn't speaking about our attacks, but about the NATO mission in Libya.

Its not always "all about us".

[JackRiddler]

18. Squirm it around all you like, the "NATO mission" is mostly US military at work.

US military, US gear, US taxes paying for it, US commanders, US politicians giving the propaganda cover.

It's a NATO action -- and a US action. You don't get to claim it's somehow not a US action by hiding it under the "NATO" label.

[bhikkhu]

19. Mental gymnastics

I think Obama has taken a limited, effective, and fundamentally good approach to a miserable situation. At the end of the tunnel, Libya will be freed of a ruthless dictator, the Libyans themselves will have done most of the work (which is very important - they deserve the credit, that is how national identities and unity is built), and the roles of the US and Europe will be something that all involved should be proud of.

Crapping on Libya for the sake of crapping on Obama is something, I hope, that will disappear down a deep memory hole soon.

[JackRiddler]

31. Your false imputation of motives is noted.

I am not crapping on Libya nor on Obama. If I were crapping on Libya, however, that would be better than bombing it in the name of humanitarian intervention. As for Obama, he is a faithful cog in an empire that produced wars even before he was born.

All of the words you just spoke, I have heard before -- from Republicans in defense of Bush's warmaking. When you criticized the Iraq invasion, you were accused of supporting Saddam and hating the Iraqi people who were struggling for their freedom. You were told that your real motive was that you hated Bush. Now I'm hearing the same nonsense from people who think it's about Obama the person, rather than Obama's policies, who are equally partisan and equally thoughtless.

I actually wish you were right, but there is no reason based on history or the real alignment of forces in Libya to think that this won't be going on for a very long time.

[joshcryer]

30. All from US descretionary spending that has built up under your guidance for decades.

Not one iota of new funding is paying for the actions in Libya.

[JackRiddler]

34. My guidance?

What sophistry is this then?

Never mind.

It's a cakewalk, it will pay for itself, they will throw flowers at us in the streets!

[joshcryer]

36. I was a kid when the US was building it's military industrial complex.

Al Gore was the first President I voted for, and he lost.

So spare me, please. The previous generation is complicit in the actions of the current government.

[JackRiddler]

44. In that case you must be about 80 now.

The rhetoric is stale enough.

[tabatha]

10. In this day and age there is video to back it up.

I have seen it. If I find it again, I'll post it on the Libyan page.

[muryan]

21. Illegal by what standard?

[JackRiddler]

37. Every possible applicable law?

The US Constitution.

The Kellogg-Briand Treaty (ratified by the Senate).

The UN Charter.

The War Powers Act of 1973.

UN SC Resolution 1973, which called for a no-fly zone and not regime change as the UK has now admitted they are pursuing?

Hint: If you want to make an argument, go with Richard Perle's: Claim that it's the right thing to do and fuck international law. Because none, none of the conceivably applicable laws allow the current US-NATO action in Libya.

[muryan]

46. Law requires an enforcement mechanism

So I'm not sure what you mean by international law. Interesting topic academically, functionally not so much.

UN Resolution 1973 governs the military mission, not the diplomatic one. If it was the military mission you'd be seeing boots on the ground right now.

[JackRiddler]

51. I get it, I get it, the strong do what they like and the rest should watch out.

Because there is no argument there other than, "We can do it and no one can stop us, so it is good, legal, whatever."

[totodeinhere]

59. In the real world it's only illegal if you lose.

NATO will eventually prevail and if he is still alive Muammar Gaddafi will be hauled off to a war crimes trial whereas the leaders of NATO will get off Scot free. That's how it works.

[BOG PERSON]

4. iow NATO thinks playgrounds and mosques are legitimate targets

[christx30]

6. If Gadaffi puts artillery in

a playground, and that artillery is bombing civilians or NATO forces, should NATO destroy them or allow them to continue to kill people?

[tabatha]

9. No, they do not.

Accusing does not translate to your iow.

[joshcryer]

11. They did actually strike the bunker under the playground.

They were accurate enough to avoid the playground completely, though. Possibly Gaddafi misplaced the playground, the west has much more accurate locational information of west-built bunkers and tunnels.

[JackRiddler]

53. Amazing! They said so, so it must be true! ...

And you know this is a "bunker," as opposed to a sewer or a civilian bomb shelter or any one of a dozen other things that might be underground, how? Because NATO told you so. Hell, Western civilization itself told you so, and of course an advanced civilization is going to know what's under the Libyan street better than some Libyan functionaries. They said so, so it must be true! Hooray!

[CJvR]

27. According to...

...the rules of warfare they are - IF the enemy places military targets there. Hell it even clearly states in one of the conventions that it is OK to open fire on hospitals under certain conditions. The rules of war are there mainly to protect civilians and reduce the worst atrocities, they are not there to "balance the game" by giving scum safe areas to operate from.

[joshcryer]

33. They fired on that playground at 2 in the morning. Gaddafi claimed children were playing there.

No one bought Gaddafi's lies except the "baby incubator" conspiracy theorists.

[Bragi]

39. "Scum"= anyone who esists the US military /nt

[CJvR]

41. No.

Scum = those who hide behind protected objects and civilians while "fighting" to preserve the reign of Mad Dog Gaddafi.

[Bragi]

58. Has any military foe ever NOT been accused of this? /nt

This is the standard media line trotted out by military apologists everywhere whenever they have to admit to bombing civilians. I gave up giving it any credence years ago.

[defendandprotect]

5. Sounds like Gaddaffi -- !!!

[tabatha]

12. Here is a video of a missile being launched from a mosque

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or_248pWLEI

When the screen flashes, it is because a photo is being taken of one of the video frames.

[JackRiddler]

17. Extremely persuasive. Now show us the vial of anthrax in the UN, Secy Powell.

[muryan]

22. Yea, that's the exact same thing

[joshcryer]

35. I don't know *one* person advocating the Libyan Revolution who bought Powell's lies.

Or Bush's. Not one person.

[JackRiddler]

38. No, because they weren't Obama's lies.

These are good, because they're Democratic!

[joshcryer]

40. No, if it was a Republican president I'd be supporting the actions, though not as vocally.

Because I know that doing it so vocally is implicit support for the person doing it. ie, those who don't support the Libyan Revolutionaries, who are fighting hard every day for their freedom, are implicitly supporting the GOP line (in reality the GOP does want us there, but they want extra funding for the actions, because far be it for the military to work within its discretionary funding).

[Nossida]

14. So......

NATO will go ahead and bomb these so called
hiding places, knowing they are under a Play Ground?

Qaddafi made you do it?
Is this the same logic
you assholes used when
you bombed the University?

Just any excuse to keep killing people will do you.

[ellenrr]

15. hmmm ...who else does this?

oh that's right - the Israelis.
Accuse Hamas of using women and children as shields, then go ahead and kill women and children.

[muryan]

23. You're implying that NATO is intentionally killing civilians?

[JackRiddler]

43. Predictably and necessarily = intentionally.

This is the old saw where they know that dropping X bombs per day will mean a predictable average of Y dead per day, but pretend that if they didn't target the Y, it's collateral, incidental, worthwhile, someone else's fault -- anything other than murder.

[muryan]

47. So the UN approved NATO mission is just an excuse for murder.

I think I understand you now.

[JackRiddler]

52. The imperialist coalition is in violation both of the UN resolution and the NATO charter.

NATO is a mutual defense treaty. The treaty does not call for out-of-area actions except in case of an attack.

Libya did not attack a NATO member. In fact, NATO members armed the supposedly dreadful Gaddafi regime and would have continued doing so forever, if not for the Arab uprisings.

The UN resolution did not approve regime change. The NATO action has been in violation of UN SC 1973 since almost the beginning.

Phew! You sure packed a lot of lies into one line. I see where that's important.

The Western imperialist coalition of France, UK, US and co. isn't running the campaign in order to commit murder, and of course I said nothing of the sort, so kindly take your false words out of my mouth.

They are murdering in the course of running the campaign, however. If you kill people incidentally while robbing a bank, that's just as much murder as if you intended to kill people.

Governments and their officials don't get excuses for saying they didn't intend deaths that came about inevitably and predictably as a result of their actions.

[joshcryer]

55. The UN resolution envoked R2P, so any hostile forces in cities are fair game.

Gaddafi is laying siege to cities. He'd have been wise to remove himself from those cities, and he continually refuses to do so. Indeed, he can't really do that because it would leave 4/5ths of the country in rebel hands and his fall would be sooner rather than later, so he's doing his best to prolong the fighting as much as he can.

What he did not predict or plan for is that outside countries would come to the rebels aid.

[Poll_Blind]

20. "And that's why we MUST bomb mosques and children's parks!"

:eyes:

PB

[CJvR]

25. Well...

...if you really don't give a shit about your own population, and Gaddafi don't, then it is a win-win situation. You either get less bombed or lots of lovely carnage for the media to roll around in. Techically there are no legal obstacles to taking out such targets, since the warcrime was placing civilians in harms way to begin with, but while that might hold in Haag it will not hold in the court of public opinion.

[reorg]

42. "We are saving countless lives every day across the country," said Ms Lungescu n/t

Given the number of sorties and the firepower of our bombs, we could have killed hundreds of thousands by now, I guess.

So, the fact that it's only a few hundred, up to 1000 civilians perhaps, should make us proud.

I have never considered this before. It's a whole new perspective. The next Ted Bundy could learn from it, too. Imagine the baffled looks of the jury when he says: "Okay, I slaughtered a few dozen, but can't you see how many I spared?"