A youtuber showing a collection of video footage of war crimes by rebels. One of them involves prisoners being force fed a dead soldiers body. Pretty ****ed up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VlNICfXJlc
Some fairly disturbing stuff in there including a kid getting slowly impaled and burned. She has censored most of them and only shows snippets to get the point across.
I won't post the website link directly here to the actual videos but you can get it from the article in which they're linked if you really want to see them.
Problem is actually confirming who's who in this mess.
Anyway the article considers that as a consequence of this type of brutality there are two issues.
1) The war may be severely prolonged if people start siding with anti rebel forces due to a drop in popularity of the rebels and
2) The future government may not be any different if not more brutal than the last.
Well that's just it isn't it? You'd think our government would be smart enough by now to know that supporting wars in the middle east is pretty much replacing one butcher with another.
In which case:
STOP ******** AROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND GTFO!
I mean these rebels act like ****ing victims but look at the ****s. They deserve Gaddafi.
Woah dude, they have oil over there and ****. Maybe the new brutal dictator will know how to get more oil pumping or something. I suppose Gaddafi did something to urge Obama into his "we can't stand idly by" approach but I don't believe it was the bombing of the commercial jet that happened so long ago which Obama tried to use as an excuse. We can stand idly by for all kinds of stuff.
Woah dude, they have oil over there and ****. Maybe the new brutal dictator will know how to get more oil pumping or something. I suppose Gaddafi did something to urge Obama into his "we can't stand idly by" approach but I don't believe it was the bombing of the commercial jet that happened so long ago which Obama tried to use as an excuse. We can stand idly by for all kinds of stuff.
Yes they have oil. They have it, we want it and we'll kill, bomb and create a general cluster **** of rape murder and torture to get it.
As for standing idly by, we're all guilty of that. Our stupidity and self gratifying apathy enables ****wit politicians to do what they want. We've been following this formulae for years. And then we wonder why they want to kill us. Sigh...
It;s not unexpected unfortunately and since most of the rebel government are ex-Gaddafi loyalists, it's not improbable that the regime will continue, but in an elite Clique of officials rather than a dictator.
Well that's just it isn't it? You'd think our government would be smart enough by now to know that supporting wars in the middle east is pretty much replacing one butcher with another.
Anyway the article considers that as a consequence of this type of brutality there are two issues.
1) The war may be severely prolonged if people start siding with anti rebel forces due to a drop in popularity of the rebels and
2) The future government may not be any different if not more brutal than the last.
Which is a bit of a leap. Note that the transitional government have already condemned it and begun investigations, which is more than the last. Note also as said government has pointed out, the vast majority of the rebel fighters are merely ordinary citizens with guns, not disciplined troops, hence some level of abuse can be expected (some in fact are prisoners who were offered pardons if they fought against the regime).
So yeah. These "war crimes" are nothing more than what you'd expect when you remove the presence of law and order and give people guns. These are somewhat minor compared to the systematic, organised breaches by governments such as the previous regime. It's kinda like comparing the guy running his own illegal liquor still in the mountains with Al Capone.
Don't get involved. It's none of our business and we sure as hell aren't interested in humanitarianism in the first place since we have supported dictators when it suits us.
Radalan 说:
rejenorst 说:
Burgass 说:
The Government has already denounced extremist Islam.
And it's a bloody civil war do you think there would be no war crimes?
Well that's just it isn't it? You'd think our government would be smart enough by now to know that supporting wars in the middle east is pretty much replacing one butcher with another.
Which is a bit of a leap. Note that the transitional government have already condemned it and begun investigations, which is more than the last. Note also as said government has pointed out, the vast majority of the rebel fighters are merely ordinary citizens with guns, not disciplined troops, hence some level of abuse can be expected (some in fact are prisoners who were offered pardons if they fought against the regime).
So yeah. These "war crimes" are nothing more than what you'd expect when you remove the presence of law and order and give people guns. These are somewhat minor compared to the systematic, organised breaches by governments such as the previous regime. It's kinda like comparing the guy running his own illegal liquor still in the mountains with Al Capone.
I agree with you but let's not forget we're the ones putting the guns in their hands. We're still responsible for the consequences of ******** around in those countries. So far I think we have made one warning to the rebels about it but I am not sure. But aside from that I don't call mass bombing civilian cities an act of humanitarianism. The original idea was to provide a no fly zone but that was obviously bull****. The intentions of humanitarianism are completely bogus which I believe you and I have discussed before in other threads.
Then there's the reason for going in in the first place, the very few American officials who did go in claimed there was very little evidence of Government bombing of civilians, something the Russian army claims they can confirm as a lie. However Russia has its own interest and is currently on a criticism rampage of western policies. The media blackout means that western politicians could tell us x,y,z bull**** about what Gaddafi did/is doing as a pretext for war.
Anyway next stop Iran and Syria hoo-********-raaa...
Chances are that the next rebel leader will probably be another Gaddafi/Saddam/Bin Laden. Ok maybe not but we supported all these monsters when it suited us and only to have to take them out again.
We know about support for Osama and Saddam and some of the reasoning behind it but there's plenty of sources now that claim we worked with the Gaddafi government at times:
Don't get involved. It's none of our business and we sure as hell aren't interested in humanitarianism in the first place since we have supported dictators when it suits us.
Why not get involved when they specifically ask for us to do so? Better to help the people when they ask than to free the **** out of them when they don't (ie. Iraq).
rejenorst 说:
Archonsod 说:
Which is a bit of a leap. Note that the transitional government have already condemned it and begun investigations, which is more than the last. Note also as said government has pointed out, the vast majority of the rebel fighters are merely ordinary citizens with guns, not disciplined troops, hence some level of abuse can be expected (some in fact are prisoners who were offered pardons if they fought against the regime).
So yeah. These "war crimes" are nothing more than what you'd expect when you remove the presence of law and order and give people guns. These are somewhat minor compared to the systematic, organised breaches by governments such as the previous regime. It's kinda like comparing the guy running his own illegal liquor still in the mountains with Al Capone.
I agree with you but let's not forget we're the ones putting the guns in their hands. We're still responsible for the consequences of ****ing around in those countries. So far I think we have made one warning to the rebels about it but I am not sure. But aside from that I don't call mass bombing civilian cities an act of humanitarianism.
Mass bombing of civilian cities? Really? Come now, Rej, you really need to stop getting your information from Russia Today.
rejenorst 说:
The original idea was to provide a no fly zone but that was obviously bull****. The intentions of humanitarianism are completely bogus which I believe you and I have discussed before in other threads.
The original idea, if you had bothered to pay even the slightest bit of attention, was to prevent Gaddafi and his forces from attacking civilians, without resorting to putting soldiers in as an occupying force. That has been followed, if a bit liberally, by destroying Gaddafi's capability to launch attacks on civilians, by targetting his armored forces, missile launchers, air force, etc.
rejenorst 说:
Then there's the reason for going in in the first place, the very few American officials who did go in claimed there was very little evidence of Government bombing of civilians, something the Russian army claims they can confirm as a lie.
Russia can go **** itself in any event, but do you have any sources on the American officials saying that? Again, not from Russia Today.
rejenorst 说:
However Russia has its own interest and is currently on a criticism rampage of western policies. The media blackout means that western politicians could tell us x,y,z bull**** about what Gaddafi did/is doing as a pretext for war.
Anyway next stop Iran and Syria hoo-****ing-raaa...
Not likely unless Iran gets nukes and starts rattling sabers. Syria, I dunno--maybe another no-fly zone is in order for that regime's mass butchering of civilians. But only if the people ask for it.
Those brutal, savage dictators that us (the western imperialists) put into place in favor of the glorious Gaddafi are now explicitly condoning and even ordering their soldiers to commit acts of cannibalism, rape, and murder! If we just stopped trying to annex their countries for their oil, they would all just get along and not kill eachother.
Why not get involved when they specifically ask for us to do so? Better to help the people when they ask than to free the **** out of them when they don't (ie. Iraq).
Let's not pretend our government gives a **** about them. Otherwise we would have intervened in Bahrain as well.
Instead we invited their leader over for ****ing tea.
Mass bombing of civilian cities? Really? Come now, Rej, you really need to stop getting your information from Russia Today.
Ok.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-01/nato-bombing-killed-718-civilians-libya/2739788
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/19/libya-nato-bombing-civilian-casualties_n_879903.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-09/world/libya.zlitan_1_musa-ibrahim-pro-gadhafi-libyan-civilians?_s=PM:WORLD
http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/2011/09/04/libya-sirte-inside-hospital-results-of-the-nato-bombing-3rd-september-2011/
http://english.cntv.cn/20110824/102052.shtml
http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/nato-bombing-civilians-in-libya-witnessed-by-former-congresswoman-cynthia-mckinney-in-libya/
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/liby-j28.shtml
Rasmussen made the statement in the immediate aftermath of another NATO bombing raid which inflicted mass civilian casualties. According to the Libyan government, NATO warplanes struck the eastern oil port of Brega, striking a restaurant and a bakery, killing 15 Libyans and wounding another 20, including both workers and customers.
The pretense that the war is being waged to “protect the Libyan people” has been shattered by repeated strikes against Libyan civilian infrastructure and the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children. NATO warplanes have now completed close to 5,000 “strike sorties”, attacking on average 50 targets a day.
The US admiral who heads NATO Joint Operations Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, recently confirmed in Congressional testimony that a principal aim of the US-NATO bombing campaign is the assassination of Gaddafi as a means of accomplishing regime change.
The original idea, if you had bothered to pay even the slightest bit of attention, was to prevent Gaddafi and his forces from attacking civilians, without resorting to putting soldiers in as an occupying force. That has been followed, if a bit liberally, by destroying Gaddafi's capability to launch attacks on civilians, by targetting his armored forces, missile launchers, air force, etc.
No **** Sherlock. And the original manner in which we proposed to do so was through a no fly zone only since it was reported that Gaddafi's forces were bombing civilians with aircraft.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12723554
It was promised that there would be no further intervention than this instead the resolution hammered out made the language so ****ing broad and vague that we may as well have invaded the ****ing country with boots on the ground without actually being in breach of the resolution. the wording allowing for the use of "all measures" I mean wtf.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
So what happens? We vote to bomb them ... how original.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f5080b82-506a-11e0-9e89-00144feab49a.html#axzz1XrLtfRkp
And promptly within the span of a week we loose the backing of the Arab league since the no fly zone did not include calls for bombardment.
http://www.whatthefolly.com/2011/03/22/arab-leagues-shifting-stance-on-libyas-no-fly-zone/
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/20/arab-league-slams-libya-attacks-amid-reports-of-growing-civilian-toll/
Russia can go **** itself in any event, but do you have any sources on the American officials saying that? Again, not from Russia Today.
Yes. There's a few links of U.S. officials stating the same thing where you asked me provide sources other than RT.
Not likely unless Iran gets nukes and starts rattling sabers. Syria, I dunno--maybe another no-fly zone is in order for that regime's mass butchering of civilians. But only if the people ask for it.
Oh please... we've already placed sanctions on both irregardless. Now we wait until they either cave to our demands or can no longer afford to defend themselves.
