• Is NATO a criminal organisation?
    15 replies, posted
Pretending to bring democracy all over the world with humanitarian help and to protect the people against terrorists and dictators. What really happened in Libya, when France ordered the strikes against Kaddafi's regime? Let's talk about this here, I'd be interested to know what you think, do you believe the mainstream medias or would you rather believe in any other information sources? I'd like to share you a video of Michel Collon, a Belgian journalist. He was investigating in Libya after the NATO raid and he reveals one of the worse crime of those strikes. [video=youtube;hsAD4gyLznQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsAD4gyLznQ[/video] (English translation are well subtitled). [highlight](User was banned for this post ("No debate presented, asking a question" - Megafan))[/highlight]
Considering Michel Collon is a Marxist, I don't think he's a very neutral source concerning NATO, an organisation that was founded mostly to unite Western democracies against the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, his video is a lot of speculation and anecdotes. Or, well, one anecdote, in this case. Hardly proof that NATO as a whole is a criminal organisation.
I would not say they are a criminal organization, I think its main thing is that its a multi country military. It can deploy forces when its member nations are threatened or it deems it necessary to take action and on country will.
NATO can not in any way be defined as a criminal organisation, as it is an intergovernmental organisation of 28 member states, meaning that they are supported by governments of sovereign states. It is not possible for such an organisation to be criminal. Whether their actions are ethically correct or not is another matter. In my opinion, all of their operations so far have had varying degrees of ethical questionability, but calling them a criminal organisation is going too far. Their purpose is not to wreak havoc, but to protect their member states and occasionally to enforce no-fly zones.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;39417118]NATO can not in any way be defined as a criminal organisation, as it is an intergovernmental organisation of 28 member states, meaning that they are supported by governments of sovereign states.[b] It is not possible for such an organisation to be criminal.[/b] Whether their actions are ethically correct or not is another matter. In my opinion, all of their operations so far have had varying degrees of ethical questionability, but calling them a criminal organisation is going too far. Their purpose is not to wreak havoc, but to protect their member states and occasionally to enforce no-fly zones.[/QUOTE] Though it IS possible. You just can look at Israel - it is largely a terrorist state and even most jews abroad hate it, but it's still considered normal country due to american protection. But I agree, nato is not criminal organization. It's simply organization dedicated to ensure that there will be peace in Europe and ultimately, the world.
We got to accept the fact that it is slightly criminal,they panic way too much and stick their noses in mostly everything. [sp] Do i even need to mention that they are on Albanian mafia payroll?[/sp]
NATO is also linked to the Gladio operation, which is main objective is to enforce security forces in Europe to protect them against a possible Soviet invasion. But, Gladio was related with the Brabant killers in Belgium and other attacks in Italy. You really should take a look to this fact, who was organised to scare European people: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio[/url]
point at a human organisation that doesnt commit crimes
[QUOTE=LoucoussBe;39417426]NATO is also linked to the Gladio operation, which is main objective is to enforce security forces in Europe to protect them against a possible Soviet invasion. But, Gladio was related with the Brabant killers in Belgium and other attacks in Italy. [B]You really should take a look to this fact, who was organised to scare European people:[/B] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio[/url][/QUOTE] Operation Gladio was never really designed as a terror organization; it was a paramilitary army trained, funded and equipped as "stay-behind" brigades in the event Europe was overrun. I mean sure, it was also given considerable leeway in observing and "dealing with" Soviet sympathetic elements within European society, but random acts of violence against the people never really seemed their style. Besides, Belgian parliamentary findings found no substantial evidence linking Gladio to the Brabant killers (who were more than likely neo-fascists,) nor did the Italicus Express bombing be linked to them (the most that could be argued was Gladio allowed the bombing to occur, since it was organized by leftist terrorist organizations.)
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39417763]Operation Gladio was never really designed as a terror organization; it was a paramilitary army trained, funded and equipped as "stay-behind" brigades in the event Europe was overrun. I mean sure, it was also given considerable leeway in observing and "dealing with" Soviet sympathetic elements within European society, but random acts of violence against the people never really seemed their style. Besides, Belgian parliamentary findings found no substantial evidence linking Gladio to the Brabant killers (who were more than likely neo-fascists,) nor did the Italicus Express bombing be linked to them (the most that could be argued was Gladio allowed the bombing to occur, since it was organized by leftist terrorist organizations.)[/QUOTE] Well, I'm Belgian and I'm very interested about those Brabant killers... I don't really understand, and it's strange, that the Brabant killers, after their attacks in shops, the amount stolen was abandoned in the wild. Also, after their final strike, a cop shot on their car and later witnesses saw two strange men (they were 3) near a black golf (the same vehicule identified by the cop) in a forest, near the road, asking for help, but the witnesses were scared to see their behavior and drove away.
[QUOTE=LoucoussBe;39417881]Well, I'm Belgian and I'm very interested about those Brabant killers... I don't really understand, and it's strange, that the Brabant killers, after their attacks in shops, the amount stolen was abandoned in the wild. Also, after their final strike, a cop shot on their car and later witnesses saw two strange men (they were 3) near a black golf (the same vehicule identified by the cop) in a forest, near the road, asking for help, but the witnesses were scared to see their behavior and drove away.[/QUOTE] can you provide a source about these strange men? it sort of sounds like the jfk assassination conspiracy theories.
With regards to that video, Libya is one of the worst examples for criticising NATO over civilian casualties. I'm sure the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen far more civilians killed. Human Rights Watch [url=http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/14/nato-investigate-civilian-deaths-libya]investigated this[/url] and they found 72 civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Libya. They identified seven strikes in which they could not see a military target NATO could have been going for, and called on NATO to investigate these as potential war crimes. However, they also said all this [quote]“NATO took important steps to minimize civilian casualties during the Libya campaign, but information and investigations are needed to explain why 72 civilians died,” said Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch and principal author of the report.[/quote] [quote]The number of civilian deaths from NATO air strikes in Libya was low given the extent of the bombing and duration of the campaign, Human Rights Watch said.[/quote] [quote]Countries such as Russia that have made grossly exaggerated claims of civilian deaths from NATO air strikes during the Libyan campaign have done so without basis, Human Rights Watch said. “The countries that have criticized NATO for so-called massive civilian casualties in Libya are trying to score political points rather than protect civilians,” Abrahams said.[/quote] [quote]“The overall care NATO took in the campaign is undermined by its refusal to examine the dozens of civilian deaths,” Abrahams said.[/quote] And they lay out what the laws of war have to say about civilian casualties, which is pretty important for this debate: [quote]Under the laws of war, parties to a conflict may only direct attacks at military targets and must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians. While civilian casualties do not necessarily mean there has been a violation of the laws of war, governments are obligated to investigate allegations of serious violations and compensate victims of unlawful attacks.[/quote] So NATO's crime in Libya was basically ignoring the deaths that did happen. But I think that to argue as Collon does that they intentionally targeted civilians, is really not backed up by evidence. If there was real evidence for that, you can bet Human Rights Watch would be all over it.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39418239]can you provide a source about these strange men? it sort of sounds like the jfk assassination conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE] Yes of course, the Police made a website: [url]http://www.killersbrabant.be[/url] Also, this (French) reproduction about their last strike: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zmLxLlz6Ps[/url] (But this isn't really the subject we're talking about).
No. No they are not. War is, always has been, and always will be hell. War is full of questionable decisions and less-than-ideal tactics. war is full of collateral damage. It is utterly unavoidable. NATO does their damnedest to minimize non-combatant casualties, but the simple fact remains: War is hell, and you will inevitably pop some civvies sooner or later. That doesn't make you a war criminal. What does is not giving a fuck and mowing down anything that moves. THAT makes someone a war criminal. What NATO does? Yeah that's just warfare. They do their best to minimize civvie casualties, that's not something that an organization guilty of war crimes would do.
The only reason rebels won in Libya was because NATO kept pining down royalists. Gadaffi was a thorn in the eye of the west + he was Russia's ally. Same thing happened with Serbia really, lots of media manipulation and Serb demonizing happened in the 90s [sp]and Albanian mafia bribes them to hell and back[/sp]
Yea, I'm sure those children totally were killed willingly. I mean it's not like accidents happen a lot in war and of course no civilian ever suffered from a war. You can't say the NATO is a criminal organisation just because of that. Do you really think Sarkozy was like "Yo pilot, go bomb some children for me, will ya" ? In that case the US Army for example would be a criminal organisation too, wouldn't it? Thinking about what they did in the Vietnam war, how many civilians (and children under them) they killed, and how many of those killings were no accident. Seriously, war is the cruelest and stupidest thing we humans ever brought with us, and innocent civillians, including children, unfortunately will always have to suffer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.