Steady aim: NATO airstrike in Libya kills several civilians - Polidicks

[quote]TRIPOLI (Reuters) – Libyan officials said on Sunday a NATO strike had hit a civilian house in the capital and killed several residents, an allegation which, if confirmed, could sow new doubts inside the alliance about its mission in Libya. A NATO spokesman said the alliance was taking the reports of civilian casualties very seriously and it would try to establish if it was a NATO bomb which had killed the residents. On another front in the four-month-old battle to force out Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a doctor in the city of Misrata said eight rebel fighters had been killed and 36 wounded in fighting with government troops. In the early hours of Sunday morning, reporters were taken by Libyan government officials to a residential area in Tripoli's Souq al-Juma district where they saw a body being pulled out of the rubble of a destroyed building. Later, in a hospital, they were shown the bodies of a child and two others who, officials said, were among a total of seven people killed in the strike. "There was intentional and deliberate targeting of the civilian houses," deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said at the site. "This is another sign of the brutality of the West." There was no way for reporters to verify that all the bodies they were shown came from the building. Libyan claims of civilian casualties from NATO attacks have sometimes been received skeptically by international media. On one occasion, Libyan officials presented a wounded child as the victim of an air strike but medical staff passed a note to a foreign journalist saying she was hurt in a road accident. "NATO would be very sorry indeed if the review of this incident concludes it to be a NATO weapon," NATO spokesman Wing Commander Mike Bracken told the BBC World Service. "But I would ask that you look at our record during this operation over the last three months and the use of precision guided weapons to avoid civilian casualties." FRAGILE RESOLVE If it is proved that the deaths were caused by a NATO air strike, it would be the first acknowledged incident of its kind in the campaign and could weaken the already fragile resolve of some countries in the alliance. NATO has been pounding targets in Libya for months in what the alliance says is an operation to protect civilians who rebelled against Gaddafi's 41-year rule. Strains are appearing within NATO member states as the campaign drags on for longer than most of its backers anticipated and Gaddafi remains in power -- even making a show of defiance last week by playing chess with a visiting official. Rebels from the city of Misrata, about 200 km (130 miles) east of Tripoli, have been trying to push west toward the capital but on Sunday they took heavy casualties when they came under fire from pro-Gaddafi forces. A doctor at a field hospital near the front line in Dafniyah, an area just west of Misrata, said eight fighters had been killed and 36 wounded. A Reuters reporter at the field hospital said he saw a procession of pick-up trucks arriving from the front carrying the wounded and the dead, some of them covered up with blankets. "Gaddafi's forces were underground (in trenches). We were patrolling and they ambushed us," said rebel fighter Mohammed Swelhi, whose friend, Mustafa, was one of two bodies brought from the front in the back of a truck. "My cousin was injured yesterday. And today my friend was killed. My group, we're all close friends," he said. Last week, NATO aircraft dropped leaflets around the front line warning pro-Gaddafi fighters they would be targeted by attack helicopters if they did not lay down their arms. But rebels say there has been little sign of the alliance. "We don't know what NATO is doing," said the doctor, called Nury, who was tending the wounded at the field hospital. CASH CRUNCH After four months of civil war, rebels control the eastern third of Libya, the Mediterranean port city of Misrata and much of the Western Mountains region stretching to the border with Tunisia. But they remain far from seizing their ultimate prize -- Gaddafi's powerbase of Tripoli and its hinterland -- despite air support from the world's most powerful military alliance. Speaking in the eastern city of Benghazi, the chief rebel oil official castigated Western powers for failing to make good on their promises to help the rebel cause. "We are running out of everything. It's a complete failure. Either they (Western nations) don't understand or they don't care. Nothing has materialized yet. And I really mean nothing," Ali Tarhouni said in an interview with Reuters. "All of these people we talk to, all of these countries, at all these conferences, with their great grand speeches -- we appreciate (them) ... but in terms of finances they are a complete failure. Our people are dying," he said. (Additional reporting by Matt Robinson in Misrata, Saif al-Jubouri in Tripoli, Peter Griffiths in London and Maria Golovnina in Benghazi; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Angus MacSwan)[/quote] Sauce: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110619/wl_nm/us_libya[/url] NATO will probably claim it was a loyalist bomb or something even if they were responsible (on purpose or otherwise). I hope the rebels get curb stomped just to set us all straight. We shouldn't be nationbuilding when we can't even fix our own country.

Civilians always take losses in the crossfire, this isn't big news it sucks, but what can you do.

I guess you could say you got to brake some eggs to make an omelet.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;30563672]I guess you could say you got to brake some eggs to make an omelet.[/QUOTE] Some bacon would go good with the omelet, but they don't eat pigs over there so you have settle with the sausage.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;30563736]Some bacon would go good with the omelet, but they don't eat pigs over there so you have settle with the sausage.[/QUOTE] Sausage is also made of pig. On topic: Even if they have just killed some innocents, I'm glad to see NATO doing something.

[QUOTE=meatballfish;30563974]Sausage is also made of pig. On topic: Even if they have just killed some innocents, I'm glad to see NATO doing something.[/QUOTE] Well if there's one lesson to take home from this thread, it's to never open an IHOP in the Middle East.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30563595] NATO will probably claim it was a loyalist bomb or something even if they were responsible (on purpose or otherwise). I hope the rebels get curb stomped just to set us all straight. We shouldn't be nationbuilding when we can't even fix our own country.[/QUOTE] NATO is a country? I never knew that.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30563595]NATO will probably claim it was a loyalist bomb or something even if they were responsible (on purpose or otherwise). I hope the rebels get curb stomped just to set us all straight. We shouldn't be nationbuilding when we can't even fix our own country.[/QUOTE] While I agree we should focus on our own problems, it's absolutely terrible to say that you want the rebels to lose. They're fighting for a good cause against a oppressive government, and while I don't think we should have ever gotten involved, their cause is definitely just.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;30564379]While I agree we should focus on our own problems, it's absolutely terrible to say that you want the rebels to lose. They're fighting for a good cause against a oppressive government, and while I don't think we should have ever gotten involved, their cause is definitely just.[/QUOTE] Watch, he's going the pull the 'Hurr what about Syria, why aren't we dropping bombs on them' card.

Civilian casualties is a normal part of war, it sucks, but it is war.

Well a perfect example of the genocidal commanders of fascist NATO force disregarding civilians lives.

[QUOTE=yaik9a;30564513]Well a perfect example of the genocidal commanders of fascist NATO force disregarding civilians lives.[/QUOTE] I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

They wanted our air support. It was only a matter of time before an accident happened.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;30564782]I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.[/QUOTE] He's the guy that goes around Libyan war threads saying how much he loves Gaddafi. In another words he's a troll, he's even been banned for it.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30563595]NATO will probably claim it was a loyalist bomb or something even if they were responsible (on purpose or otherwise). I hope the rebels get curb stomped just to set us all straight. We shouldn't be nationbuilding when we can't even fix our own country.[/QUOTE] Please don't post uninformed bullshit in the OP of a news story.

"[b]Libyan officials said[/b] on Sunday a NATO strike had hit a civilian house." They've already done that numerous times, when it wasn't true.

Why do people still believe the Libyan government's so called "news" about these things? They're obviously false, it's called propaganda.

[QUOTE=veribigbos1;30565152]Why do people still believe the Libyan government's so called "news" about these things? They're obviously false, it's called propaganda.[/QUOTE] yes because NATO has never bombed civilians before, right? this couldn't possibly be a true story

[QUOTE=JDK721;30565220]yes because NATO has never bombed civilians before, right? this couldn't possibly be a true story[/QUOTE] It was never done purposely, and if kim jong-il said that South Korea had dropped a bomb on one of North Korea's civilian suburbs, would you believe him?

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;30563637]Civilians always take losses in the crossfire, this isn't big news it sucks, but what can you do.[/QUOTE] It's easy to handwave with the argument "This is war, war is hell. That's just too bad. Sucks to be a civilian in war" as a pilot dropping precision-guided bombs or a high-up guy holed up in the CIC of his ship in the Med. It's a different issue once you're actually face to face with them on the battlefield, unless you're giving up the very principles why you're intervening on part of the rebels in the first place.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;30566205]It's easy to handwave with the argument "This is war, war is hell. That's just too bad. Sucks to be a civilian in war" as a pilot dropping precision-guided bombs or a high-up guy holed up in the CIC of his ship in the Med. It's a different issue once you're actually face to face with them on the battlefield, unless you're giving up the very principles why you're intervening on part of the rebels in the first place.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I just had to comment on your avatar. Did you read that book? I'm going to read it soon :3 On-topic: Are we really going to take Qaddafi's henchmen's word for granted? There needs to be some sort of investigation before anyone starts pointing fingers.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;30566636]I'm sorry, I just had to comment on your avatar. Did you read that book? I'm going to read it soon :3[/QUOTE] Yes, great book. It's miles better than Red Storm Rising for 1980s WWIII goodness and takes an attempt at depicting non-stereotypical Soviets and "men in battle".

[QUOTE=JDK721;30565220]yes because NATO has never bombed civilians before, right? this couldn't possibly be a true story[/QUOTE] Gaddafi has been proven to have supplied his troops with drugs and viagra and ordered them to rape civilians, so no, I wouldn't believe the Libyan government about these things anymore without outside proof.

I would think that NATO has been doing what they can minimize civilian casualties. I mean if they didn't we would see Gaddafi's compound looking like a parking lot.

I'm curious as to when people will figure out that it's an absolute fucking miracle that more civilians haven't died as it is. The technology that we have today allows to be accurate to within INCHES of a target, but that still doesn't prevent the resulting explosions from creating collateral damage. Imagine if we had been involved in this conflict with the technology we had during Vietnam, or from back in the 50's! Basically what I'm trying to say is that considering the damage we've done to Ghaddafi's forces and his compound, it's surprising that casualties in the civilian population have been as low as they have been, and that people need to compare that to what the numbers COULD be.

This is why NATO should stop interfering and go back to keeping the skies over Libya clear.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;30567384]This is why NATO should stop interfering and go back to keeping the skies over Libya clear.[/QUOTE] Or at least keep the bombing in civilian dense areas down.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;30564029]NATO is a country? I never knew that.[/QUOTE] I'm referring to NATO as a collective force stomping around the world trying to step on rogue dictators and bring them in line, completely disregarding any consequences or moral considerations. People back them because they're the one thumping "justice" while hypocritically singling out and annihilating anyone who doesn't agree with them like some kind of huge bully. It's not really what they're saying or even appear to be doing, and it may seem awfully far out, but if you step back and look at the pattern of the last few years it makes more sense. [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;30564379]While I agree we should focus on our own problems, it's absolutely terrible to say that you want the rebels to lose. They're fighting for a good cause against a oppressive government, and while I don't think we should have ever gotten involved, their cause is definitely just.[/QUOTE] The problem here is that I fail to see how Gaddafi is really that bad. Most of the claims being made are just groundless dirt-slopping to demonize him, and people buy it thoughtlessly. Like I've said before, if he was such an evil man on the level people here claim, then more folks would be joining the uprising; cowardice is not exactly a staple of Islamic peoples. This isn't happening, leading me to believe that he isn't really as awful as he could be (and indeed may even be a half decent leader). The issue here is that he is not a proponent of NATO's or the UN's overbearing policies, resulting in him being branded an enemy and his country having the crap bombed out of it as punishment. It also doesn't help my take any that he also has massive oil reserves, a characteristic common to the last two or three farce wars we got ourselves into. To me, it's more than a little suspicious. Failing even those, I'd say just wait him out until he dies and take control during a leadership transition. After all, NATO has taken to trying to assassinate his family (as if this is a legitimate tactic), and you generally just cause more chaos and upheaval by forcibly removing a leader while he's [I]in[/I] power. [QUOTE=Electrocuter;30564822]He's the guy that goes around Libyan war threads saying how much he loves Gaddafi. In another words he's a troll, he's even been banned for it.[/QUOTE] I never even said I like him. I'm saying this war is stupid, probably has ulterior motives, and that we should keep out of things that don't concern us. Actually, I don't think anyone has banned me over this. My opinion is obviously a bit different from the average facepuncher, but it's not trolling. [QUOTE=veribigbos1;30565152]Why do people still believe the Libyan government's so called "news" about these things? They're obviously false, it's called propaganda.[/QUOTE] Why believe NATO, either? They're bothing pointing fingers, making unfounded claims, and have zero weight in this mess, yet people grant legitimacy to NATO.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;30567355]The technology that we have today allows to be accurate to within INCHES of a target, but that still doesn't prevent the resulting explosions from creating collateral damage. Imagine if we had been involved in this conflict with the technology we had during Vietnam, or from back in the 50's![/QUOTE] Fog and friction of war. They still exist in an era of "smart" weaponry.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30567642] The problem here is that I fail to see how Gaddafi is really that bad. [/QUOTE] Justify bombing civilian protestors with fighter jets. I'm serious, do it.