Yes, there may be some who refuse to believe that the Gaddafi supporters want his regime and that those still battling in Sirte and other towns are only doing it through vast sums of money and fear of reprisals by the powerful Gaddafi forces (?) but surely everybody apart from brain dead morons must agree that there are CIVILIANS living in these towns and as the "rebels" pound them with bullets and rush into slaughter them ("you have refused to surrender so we shall kill you") - NATO (us) should be bombing the attacking "rebels" in order to "protect innocent civilians".

Or don't those women and children count? They no longer, of course, control the oil.

Come on Cameron. We know our "loyal boys" adore killing people - tell them to kill a few more.

Nobody seems to have picked up on this - either in the wider media nor on here.

Nato is meant to be protecting Libyan civilians from violence. Or did the UN only specify "Libyans who prefer a different regime"?

In which case - yes, it is correct that NATO should not be bombing the advancing rebel forces.

Very well said JK,and of course true.The mandate was broken from the first,and this is why of course we won't get UN support for far more important interventions elsewhere.

JK2006 wrote:
Nato is meant to be protecting Libyan civilians from violence.

Which is exactly what they are doing.

ALL violence could have been avoided if the Gaddafi terror regime had surrendered to the IOC. They are perpetuating the violence (which would go on in perpetuity unless Gaddafi is removed).

Perhaps some think Gaddafi should be allowed to defy international law, the UN, the Arab League, most countries in the world and the vast majority of Libyan subjects (why else weould he need mercenaries??). Hitler thought he should do too.

I see another son has fled. Preparing the way perhaps ?

Good to see you have come around to our way of thinking ITK - NATO should be bombing the rebels tanks and soldiers attempting to kill innocent civilians in Sirte and other Libyan towns.

JK2006 wrote:
Good to see you have come around to our way of thinking ITK

JK, I think you have about as much "support" with "your way of thinking" as Gaddafi does LOL !

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Nato is meant to be protecting Libyan civilians from violence.

Which is exactly what they are doing.

ALL violence could have been avoided if the Gaddafi terror regime had surrendered to the IOC. They are perpetuating the violence (which would go on in perpetuity unless Gaddafi is removed).

Perhaps some think Gaddafi should be allowed to defy international law, the UN, the Arab League, most countries in the world and the vast majority of Libyan subjects (why else weould he need mercenaries??). Hitler thought he should do too.

I see another son has fled. Preparing the way perhaps ?

The UN mandate was simply protecting civilians,there was nothing in it about surrender,or regime change.
Now if we respect the rule of law should be doing exactly as JK says.

You'll need to do more than spout of unprovable rubbish to convine the intelligent people here,keep trying,god loves a tryer

Hate to use ITK tactics ITK, but surely it shouldn't matter whether "innocent civilians" support rebels, Gaddafi or a small party like UKIP, the UN has decreed that NATO should protect them and therefore should be bombing the massed forces of war trying to kill Sirte and other residents?

Or have I got this all wrong?

Interestingly, the current leader of the new regime, aka 'rebels' was until recently Gaddhaffi's much feared Justice Minister.

Out with the old, in with the..... errmmm, help me I'm struggling here...

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Good to see you have come around to our way of thinking ITK

JK, I think you have about as much "support" with "your way of thinking" as Gaddafi does LOL !



Ur on ur own again,nobody here agrees with u,and I agree fully with JK's post.

"Why aren't NATO bombing the current Libyan regime?"

Simple. Because they were only ever interested in getting rid of Gadaffi and laying their greedy hands on that "tiny" 12% of Libya's oil reserves.

The motivations were never the same as the "reasons" we were given.

I wonder how "well protected" the thousands of innocent civilians "we" have killed feel. Or would feel had our brave boys blown the fuck out of their neighbours but, by some extremely slim chance of fate, left them alive. Which, needless to say, they didn't.

JK2006 wrote:
Hate to use ITK tactics ITK, but surely it shouldn't matter whether "innocent civilians" support rebels, Gaddafi or a small party like UKIP, the UN has decreed that NATO should protect them and therefore should be bombing the massed forces of war trying to kill Sirte and other residents?

Or have I got this all wrong?

Interesting view, JK ... but you have to look at the wider picture.

Were we right to drop a nuke and bring WW2 to an end? (The people who were killed may not think so - but maybe millions of others were saved as a result?)

What is stopping the "innocent" people of Bani Walid and Sirte from leaving (a Gaddafi gun in their backs maybe?) They have had a week to clear the area.

It is Gaddafi loonies that are holding "human shields" - just as its the Gaddafi loonies who have maintained the violence?

(PS - I gather more bodies have been found in Tripoli)

david wrote:
Interestingly, the current leader of the new regime, aka 'rebels' was until recently Gaddhaffi's much feared Justice Minister.

Out with the old, in with the..... errmmm, help me I'm struggling here...

No member of the NTC can stand at the elections, david. They (members of the NTC) are "in power" temporarily to organise such elections (they wont organise themselves LOL !)

In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
Interestingly, the current leader of the new regime, aka 'rebels' was until recently Gaddhaffi's much feared Justice Minister.

Out with the old, in with the..... errmmm, help me I'm struggling here...

No member of the NTC can stand at the elections, david. They (members of the NTC) are "in power" temporarily to organise such elections (they wont organise themselves LOL !)

That may be, but by siding with the 'rebels' hasn't he very conveniently got himself out of a 'tight spot', i.e. being pursued for any crimes he may have committed alongside Gaddhaffi?

Cynical, moi?

david wrote:
That may be, but by siding with the 'rebels' hasn't he very conveniently got himself out of a 'tight spot', i.e. being pursued for any crimes he may have committed alongside Gaddhaffi?

Cynical, moi?

Quite probably - the intelligent ones got out early (like the intelligence chief who fled to Britain and we let him flee to Qatar) / or switched sides.

The remaining ones have gambled and left it too late.

As JK once said ... history is written by the winners ... and these last few are far from being winners.

JK2006 wrote:
Hate to use ITK tactics ITK, but surely it shouldn't matter whether "innocent civilians" support rebels, Gaddafi or a small party like UKIP, the UN has decreed that NATO should protect them and therefore should be bombing the massed forces of war trying to kill Sirte and other residents?

Or have I got this all wrong?

Looks like Gaddafi was planning to wipe-out Tripoli, JK - news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16067425 -

In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
That may be, but by siding with the 'rebels' hasn't he very conveniently got himself out of a 'tight spot', i.e. being pursued for any crimes he may have committed alongside Gaddhaffi?

Cynical, moi?

Quite probably - the intelligent ones got out early (like the intelligence chief who fled to Britain and we let him flee to Qatar) / or switched sides.

The remaining ones have gambled and left it too late.

As JK once said ... history is written by the winners ... and these last few are far from being winners.

The only winners here are the oil barons ITK,the rest of it was payback for annoying Ronnie and Maggie back in the 80s.

Interesting - an intelligent friend says "but you've got to support one side against the other in a war".

Exactly; NATO's pretence that this was in order to protect civilians is shown to be a lie. It was supporting one side against the other.

Latest Amnesty report "there have been appalling human rights breaches BY BOTH SIDES".

Locked Out wrote:
"Why aren't NATO bombing the current Libyan regime?"

[color=#004080]Simple. Because they were only ever interested in getting rid of Gadaffi and laying their greedy hands on that "tiny" 12% of Libya's oil reserves.

The motivations were never the same as the "reasons" we were given.

I wish I could live in the simple, schoolboy world of black and white. What makes you think that a probable Islamic government of Libya will let us have their oil now that Gadaffi's gone and they no longer need our airpower?


I wonder how "well protected" the thousands of innocent civilians "we" have killed feel.
[/color]

Did you just pluck that figure from the air?

And this is an invitation to a calm, logical debate - not a rant, more false accusations, or amateur psychiatry sessions.

Innocent Accused wrote:
The only winners here are the oil barons ITK,the rest of it was payback for annoying Ronnie and Maggie back in the 80s.

... AND the Libyan people who went onto the streets, faced bullets and tanks (and torture squads remember) and yet STILL demanded freedom !

They now have it ... what they do with it is up to them.