Turn on thread page Beta

Was NATO justified in Libyan intervention? watch

  • View Poll Results: Was NATO justified?
    Not at all
    12
    54.55%
    Yes, even when the targets were not military
    10
    45.45%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I am not trying to change anyone's opinions, I am merely investigating the reports our TV screens must have forgotten to show us.

    As the dust settles there are ever more sceptics in NATO's actions around the world, from the onset we are bombarded with propaganda until the very last 'enemy' is killed...this seems to be the form for all military actions done by NATO. The most recent was the Libyan 'civil war' NATO took part in.

    We have not seen any evidence of the horrific claims that were made at the outset by the Gaddaffi regime. As explained in the first video, we were merely bombarded with claims in the media and some amateur photography of black libyans being lynched, with no story or investigation of their source.



    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread691464/pg1

    This article shows how Gaddaffi was merely targeting armed rebels attacking his government and civilians, something any government would agree was acceptable, it is hypocritical for NATO to say he was targeting civilians, although they were put in danger during the fighting, NATO was no different in it's scheduled blitzing.

    http://libya360.wordpress.com/2011/0...i-july-1-2011/

    This shows Gaddaffi's speeches (cheesy I know) on July 1 2011 to roughly 1.7 million of his supporters across the country who demonstrated PEACEFULLY, in this country they were described in the media as 'handfuls that remain loyal to gaddaffi' as if to discredit their opinions. Very democratic isn't it? Very little if any footage was used on Western broadcasting stations, instead film was taken to make the crowds appear much smaller (smaller towns had smaller demonstrations and certain areas of cities had demonstrations) the speech you have been shown was from Green Square where the massive crowds appeared.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14010305
    Russia has been very sceptical about NATO's dealings in Libya saying that their main goal was clear, but it turned into a removal of all Gaddaffi forces and government, political or military. Don't you remember that NATO was only there to protect civilians?

    A convoy of Jeeps holding the remaining members of Gaddaffi's government on a highway does not pose a direct threat to civilian wellbeing if I am not mistaken, and the protests for reform had ended months ago. I doubt that convoy was searching for some of it's own citizens to kill.

    Destroying a tank that is firing upon peaceful protesters (civilians) is justified.
    Destroying a tank that is firing upon armed militia (not civilians) is NOT justified with NATO's original claims kept in mind.
    Consciously destroying political figures (not civilian) is not Justified in any jurisdictions.

    I am not trying to change anyone's opinions, I am merely investigating the reports our TV screens must have forgotten to show us.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Why were these 1.7 million not fighting against the few rebels then? and trying to keep Gadaffi in power?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    When it comes to Oil and Power morals and justification go out the window with the people at the top.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    Why were these 1.7 million not fighting against the few rebels then? and trying to keep Gadaffi in power?
    Because believe it or not in the rest of the world (IE not the west) violence isn't the norm for Muslims, despite what some would have you believe.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The original posts contains so many errors of fact, its embarrassing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    Because believe it or not in the rest of the world (IE not the west) violence isn't the norm for Muslims, despite what some would have you believe.
    Really? what do you call what is happening in Syria? Yemen? Bahrain? Sudan? Only violence against your own people is the norm? He had weapons [given to them by UK] why did he not arm all the 1.7 and defeat NATO [which isn't impossible] and keep his reign.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    The original posts contains so many errors of fact, its embarrassing.
    Here is no error in fact then.

    Free healthcare
    Free education
    Interest free housing loans
    Free land and resources for farmers
    10% unemployment.

    Guess which country it is? The one with the ''tyrannical dictator'' or the ''land of the free''?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    Really? what do you call what is happening in Syria? Yemen? Bahrain? Sudan? Only violence against your own people is the norm? He had weapons [given to them by UK] why did he not arm all the 1.7 and defeat NATO [which isn't impossible] and keep his reign.
    Sorry I can't ask him, he was removed from the picture long before he could stand trial with shoddy evidence which would inevitably lead to execution. :rolleyes:

    Oh look, the thread has been moved to a sub-forum whilst it's still a current affair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. It was never justified.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Read the UN report on it then. One was released before the no fly zone came into effect and details and investigates many of the claims made and investigates war crimes by both sides.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    What sort of ridiculous poll is that? Where's the option for "Yes, if the targets were military"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    France and the UK clearly think it was.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. They would have been if they helped Syria too, but they didn't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Biased poll is biased. You're basically offering people the choice of "kill civilians" or "no we shouldn't have invaded".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What's happened has happened. Let's just see how Libya is going to turn out.


    All we're getting from the news is NTC NTC NTC NTC NTC and loads of peace signs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. Look at the way NATO are ****ing off out of there without any sort of offering of help to reform the country. Thousands of innocent people have died because of NATO and what a ****ing mess it is. Any help for Bahrain? Syria? Nah, British funded armies are too busy killing protesters there, hell they're buying our weapons and creating jobs for us!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    Here is no error in fact then.

    Free healthcare
    Free education
    Interest free housing loans
    Free land and resources for farmers
    10% unemployment.

    Guess which country it is? The one with the ''tyrannical dictator'' or the ''land of the free''?
    Maybe, just maybe, Libya can offer this because...
    It has oil reserves of 8288 barrels of Oil for each of it's residents
    While the UK only has 48

    If you did some extremely basic maths you'd realise just how extreme a lack of understanding of any sort of basic economics/global politics your comment shows

    The UKs State incomes simply can't compete with those of petroleum backed states. Look at somewhere like Brunei or Qatar if you don't believe me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    Here is no error in fact then.

    Free healthcare
    Free education
    Interest free housing loans
    Free land and resources for farmers
    10% unemployment.

    Guess which country it is? The one with the ''tyrannical dictator'' or the ''land of the free''?
    How does any of that have anything to do with 'FREEDOM'?

    I am fed up hearing this. All it means is that they are supposedly well off - it does NOT mean they are free.

    Who is to say this will not continue under a democratic regime?

    So many people on this forum seem willing to trade democracy for a handout. It's a worrying sign for the future.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Squidgyness)
    How does any of that have ANYTHING to do with 'FREEDOM!'

    I am fed up about hearing this. All it means is that they are supposedly well off - it does NOT mean they are free.

    Who is to say this will not continue under a democratic regime?

    So many people on this forum seem willing to trade democracy for a handout. It's a worrying sign for the future.
    I'd rather not be free rather than have a false sense of freedom in a supposedly free nation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrislpp)
    I'd rather not be free rather than have a false sense of freedom in a supposedly free nation.
    'False sense'? In what way are you not politically, economically and personally free? If you mean Libya, how do you know it isnt actually free now? Are you there? Is the government elected and in place already?

    If Libya does become a restrictive society, I will be the first one to criticise it. However, no one can judge the new country - until the new regime has been elected.

    All we can do is judge the society that went before it - this society was not free, and to suggest it was the 'land of the free' is wrong.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.