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

[QUOTE=OvB;30568415]Justify bombing civilian protestors with fighter jets. I'm serious, do it.[/QUOTE] He claims Al Qaeda is in their ranks.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30567642] 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.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, are you actually talking about Muammar Gaddafi, or are you talking about a fictional "half-decent" leader of the same name? Hell have you even heard of the stories many of the Libyans have talked about? What kind of decent leader, even a "half-decent" one, has it where it's a crime if you engage in political conversations with foreigners, punishable by three years in prison? Do "half-decent" leaders publicly execute dissidents? Oh but surely he showed great restraint when he shelled his own people---surely that violent siege around Misratah never happened. If he was a "half-decent" leader he'd step down from power since his people and the international community are all crying for it. There's nothing ulterior here. The Libyan people want him gone. He lead an authoritarian government and has a piss poor human rights record. No way around that. [quote]more folks would be joining the uprising[/quote]So the number of armed rebels is an indicator of those who support the uprising in Libya? That makes so much sense! [quote]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)[/quote]It's a legit tactic against a tyrant. [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]Because NATO is an alliance of professionals; Gaddafi and his thugs are not. Plain and simple. [quote]cowardice is not exactly a staple of Islamic peoples[/quote]Right, so if you follow a certain faith your cowardice suddenly vanishes. Sorry human instincts, you're just been voided by religion. Too scared to speak out against your tyrannical regime? Well you're an aberrant if you're Muslim since, you know, you're not supposed to be a coward. [quote] I'm saying this war is stupid, probably has ulterior motives[/quote] You know, you don't help your argument when you call a conflict like this "stupid". Oh yes, every war involving a country with oil reserves has ulterior motives. Watch out Illuminati, this guy knows!

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30567642]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] The people that do not usually agree with NATO/UN are the dictators you mention. And how is taking a dictator out of power morally questionable.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30567642]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. 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. 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. 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] Yeah, you don't actually know anything about the situation, do you?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30569680]Yeah, you don't actually know anything about the situation, do you?[/QUOTE] You don't need an answer because he's already answered you. If someone believes that Gaddafi is half-decent and can't see why he's "really that bad", the ignorance is well established.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;30563637]Civilians always take losses in the crossfire, this isn't big news it sucks, but what can you do.[/QUOTE] you can stop your deadly involvement and hijacking of another people's revolution maybe? "oh ye, civvies die all the time, what you gonna do?" maybe we could just leave it at a no fly zone instead of bombing the ever loving shit out of the libyan government? maybe we should stop using depleted uranium bombs that will leave the libyan landscape barren and future generations sick? [editline]19th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;30564029]NATO is a country? I never knew that.[/QUOTE] pretty sure hes referring to the fact that his country is involved in NATOs activities even though his country is unable to fix his own, but hey, making him look stupid without reason sure is fun right? why bother even attempting to understand basic comments he makes

[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] Oh course I can have a different opinion and it has to be trolling.

[QUOTE=The Pretender;30564441]Civilian casualties is a normal part of war, it sucks, but it is war.[/QUOTE] Especially when Gaddafi is using them as human shields.

"Libyan officials said..." Well, theres the problem.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;30570994]you can stop your deadly involvement and hijacking of another people's revolution maybe? "oh ye, civvies die all the time, what you gonna do?" maybe we could just leave it at a no fly zone instead of bombing the ever loving shit out of the libyan government? maybe we should stop using depleted uranium bombs that will leave the libyan landscape barren and future generations sick? [editline]19th June 2011[/editline] pretty sure hes referring to the fact that his country is involved in NATOs activities even though his country is unable to fix his own, but hey, making him look stupid without reason sure is fun right? why bother even attempting to understand basic comments he makes[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/du/cover.html[/url] DU is not used to make people sick or give them a tail. It's significantly denser than regular steel and having that small projectile being more dense than something like a brick, armies will certainly utilize it. My uncle, while he was in Iraq had a few good opportunities to check out a few of the T-72 wrecks left behind from Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, there is hardly any hazard when you're exposed the dust that the penetrator/sabot left behind in the husks. Most of the time if you inhale it,it'll probably just get blown out of your nose with a good sneeze, but you're not getting sick unless you snort lines of the shit. Jenkem is the pariah of Facepunch. His alts, Glaber especially tries to fight for that pedestal. [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] As some people here mentioned earlier, the cause is entirely justifiable, and the UN even allows this action. I'm still trying to fathom as to how getting a brutal despot out of his seat is considered an act of bullying. And one thing for certain is having this country go through a civil war is significantly better than having those people live under oppression.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;30564782]I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.[/QUOTE] Colossal troll of legendary proportions, ignore him. :colbert: OP is a professional troll as well.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;30572657]Colossal troll of legendary proportions, ignore him. :colbert: OP is a professional troll as well.[/QUOTE] Don't you guys have that gold member revocation thing?

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;30572670]Don't you guys have that gold member revocation thing?[/QUOTE] No, it eventually got to the point where it was just a joke, and there weren't any valid posts in it, so the thread was removed.

When I see Al Jazeera confirm it, I'll believe it. Otherwise, JenCum can fuck off.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;30563672]I guess you could say you got to [u]brake[/u] some eggs to make an omelet.[/QUOTE] How do you [b]Brake[/b] eggs.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;30576533]When I see Al Jazeera confirm it, I'll believe it. Otherwise, JenCum can fuck off.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1099330-NATO-admits-to-civilian-deaths-in-Tripoli-air-strike[/url]

[QUOTE=JDK721;30576589][url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1099330-NATO-admits-to-civilian-deaths-in-Tripoli-air-strike[/url][/QUOTE] That's alright then.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;30585832]That's alright then.[/QUOTE] Jenkem can still fuck off, though.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;30565891]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] They were throwing depleted uranium and cluster bombs in Yugoslavia. Around 7000 civilians died.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;30572314]As some people here mentioned earlier, the cause is entirely justifiable, and the UN even allows this action. I'm still trying to fathom as to how getting a brutal despot out of his seat is considered an act of bullying. And one thing for certain is having this country go through a civil war is significantly better than having those people live under oppression.[/QUOTE] Like Kopimi said, way to not bother understanding my posts. Let's get this straight, even though repeating it a dozen times doesn't do anything when you only skim my posts: [I]I am not pro-Gaddafi, per se. However, I do think NATO are the criminals in this operation.[/I] Just because "the UN" says it doesn't mean anything. They let people get away with ridiculous things all the time and cockblock legitimate causes. Their peacekeepers are good for nothing, commit "war crimes" all the time too, and aren't even allowed to do their job. They left Rwanda and let people die when they could've stayed and helped. I have [I][B]absolutely[/B][/I] no faith in them. How is it justifiable to take over someone's country, based on claims (such as those by the ICC) that are difficult or impossible to prove, some of which are even obviously made up? How is it justifiable to back up a rebel cause that has nothing to do with you, a cause which was even proven to be harboring Al-Qaeda fighters, using your proxy to get people in power that you approve of? That's not any better than being a criminal syndicate or gangsters, and would get you imprisoned here. How is it justifiable to keep going on these crusades to remove "evil" people, when they haven't done anything to us and their people haven't asked to be helped? There would actually be less bloodshed if we waited for the old fart to die, then took advantage of the transition period, not blow the crap out of his country and pretend we're only enforcing a no-fly zone. What makes him a brutal despot, apart from holding singular authority over his people? Giving viagra to his men? I can't believe you even buy that story. Again, I urge you to look at this and tell me who isn't part of it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Dialogue[/url] Is it just a coincidence that Libya is the only one who doesn't want to go play with NATO in their fearmongering counter-terrorism ops, and is now having the crap bombed out of it?

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30588123]Like Kopimi said, way to not bother understanding my posts. Let's get this straight, even though repeating it a dozen times doesn't do anything when you only skim my posts: [I]I am not pro-Gaddafi, per se. However, I do think NATO are the criminals in this operation.[/I] Just because "the UN" says it doesn't mean anything. They let people get away with ridiculous things all the time and cockblock legitimate causes. Their peacekeepers are good for nothing, commit "war crimes" all the time too, and aren't even allowed to do their job. They left Rwanda and let people die when they could've stayed and helped. I have [I][B]absolutely[/B][/I] no faith in them. How is it justifiable to take over someone's country, based on claims (such as those by the ICC) that are difficult or impossible to prove, some of which are even obviously made up? How is it justifiable to back up a rebel cause that has nothing to do with you, a cause which was even proven to be harboring Al-Qaeda fighters, using your proxy to get people in power that you approve of? That's not any better than being a criminal syndicate or gangsters, and would get you imprisoned here. How is it justifiable to keep going on these crusades to remove "evil" people, when they haven't done anything to us and their people haven't asked to be helped? There would actually be less bloodshed if we waited for the old fart to die, then took advantage of the transition period, not blow the crap out of his country and pretend we're only enforcing a no-fly zone. What makes him a brutal despot, apart from holding singular authority over his people? Giving viagra to his men? I can't believe you even buy that story. Again, I urge you to look at this and tell me who isn't part of it: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Dialogue[/url] Is it just a coincidence that Libya is the only one who doesn't want to go play with NATO in their fearmongering counter-terrorism ops, and is now having the crap bombed out of it?[/QUOTE] Libya was considered a terrorist state a few decades. Despite having the 'status' removed, Libya, nor NATO has considered bringing the state into that pact. Gaddafi has also been a host to a number of infamous terror attacks including the pan-am flight bombings, I mean shit, he personally ordered the attacks. The deserters provided a lot of information regarding the status of Gaddafi's army and it's military campaign, why would deserters lie to the people they're surrendering to? Oh and there has been talk of Al Qaeda with in the ranks of the rebels, but where's the proof? I've been hearing Gaddafi rant and yell about how he's bombing his own people to get Al Qaeda, and there's a ton of media speculation, but I just see a bunch of people fighting against some mad man. Not to mention that the UN's efforts in Rwanda was a 'failure' as declared by them and I'm pretty certain that they're using that as precedent for future missions.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;30588408]Libya was considered a terrorist state a few decades. Despite having the 'status' removed, Libya, nor NATO has considered bringing the state into that pact. Gaddafi has also been a host to a number of infamous terror attacks including the pan-am flight bombings, I mean shit, he personally ordered the attacks. The deserters provided a lot of information regarding the status of Gaddafi's army and it's military campaign, why would deserters lie to the people they're surrendering to?[/QUOTE] Saying that they "didn't consider" adding it to the pact is pretty bunk. They already would know who is and isn't going to go with their agenda, why even bother going through the motions when you could save time and money by getting to the point and bombing the crap out of him? How do you know they're even deserters? They could've also been easily enough paid off to grand legitimacy to the campaign. Call it a conspiracy and stick your head in the sand like a sheeple, but you're failing to consider all of the possibilities here. Even a shallow study of history should tell you people rarely go to war over justice; there's usually something to be gained, directly or otherwise, by doing so. What proof is there Gaddafi ordered the bombing? False flags happen in real life too. There's absolutely no reason he would've done that that I can think of. [QUOTE]Oh and there has been talk of Al Qaeda with in the ranks of the rebels, but where's the proof? I've been hearing Gaddafi rant and yell about how he's bombing his own people to get Al Qaeda, and there's a ton of media speculation, but I just see a bunch of people fighting against some mad man. Not to mention that the UN's efforts in Rwanda was a 'failure' as declared by them and I'm pretty certain that they're using that as precedent for future missions.[/QUOTE] You're "pretty certain"; you talk of proof, let's see yours before you discount my take.

[QUOTE=Jenkem;30588859]Saying that they "didn't consider" adding it to the pact is pretty bunk. They already would know who is and isn't going to go with their agenda, why even bother going through the motions when you could save time and money by getting to the point and bombing the crap out of him? How do you know they're even deserters? They could've also been easily enough paid off to grand legitimacy to the campaign. Call it a conspiracy and stick your head in the sand like a sheeple, but you're failing to consider all of the possibilities here. Even a shallow study of history should tell you people rarely go to war over justice; there's usually something to be gained, directly or otherwise, by doing so. What proof is there Gaddafi ordered the bombing? False flags happen in real life too. There's absolutely no reason he would've done that that I can think of. You're "pretty certain"; you talk of proof, let's see yours before you discount my take.[/QUOTE] I was going to ask your proof of Al Qaeda fighters in the rebel's ranks. Deserters getting paid? If they caught them, would they expect their pockets stuffed with blood diamonds or what. American Revolutionaries did not go to war to defend their rights? Wait what is this.

I don't get the big deal on this. With war comes deaths. NATO is doing Libya a favor. Everyone wants for the west to act and help the rebels lives, and when someone of civilian status gets killed its a shit war on two sides of the front. Gahdaffi is being a big dick about this. Pouncing on the death of these 7 people when he has his soldiers running a muck killing anything thats running. Raping women and burning homes. What a fucking loser. This article isn't even news. Its just hype, sensationalism. This is a civil war, how do you expect civilians NOT to die? People are so irrational.

No because nato is just trying to institute there twisted capitalist regime into the libya.

NATO needs to stop being useless. [QUOTE=Jenkem;30563595] 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] The fuck is wrong with you?

I sometimes wonder if it is some form of fascism where a country is kept in a constant state of war and unified against an enemy all the time. This takes focus off interior problems. Because I can't find the logic in being in war for almost 200 years straight. Libya is ok, afghanistan now that you are peace keeping and shit etc. Edit: I should write some conspiracy theory books :v:

I can't help but feel that we are hypocritical at times with situations like this. Sometimes there are threads about accidents like this and everyone understands that an accident occurred, and other times (namely with the various threads on SWAT raids gone awry) it's a giant hate fest. But that's just my two cents. Regardless of all that, it's a shame that it happened, hopefully the death itself was painless.

[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;30603365]I can't help but feel that we are hypocritical at times with situations like this. Sometimes there are threads about accidents like this and everyone understands that an accident occurred, and other times (namely with the various threads on SWAT raids gone awry) it's a giant hate fest. But that's just my two cents.[/QUOTE] Well this is NATO, a multi-national military alliance, and that was SWAT.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30603465]Well this is NATO, a multi-national military alliance, and that was SWAT.[/QUOTE] I understand the difference in scale, same idea though. But circumstances are different in every situation.