world

Libyan rebels say NATO airstrike killed 13 of their own

20 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

"we might have to give up lives for the greater good"

This is what war is. It sucks, but otherwise the entire world would be enslaved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We must kill the terrorists (al-Qaeda) even if they are our own (CIA).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brilliant, Sarkozy/Obama. Just brilliant. Feeling good yet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is why airstrikes are so cowardly. You cannot properly verify who you are killing, you just make sure you are absolutely safe.

If we don't have the courage to fight properly, maybe we should just arm the rebels and stay out of the fighting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Willi did you actually read the article? The rebels were at fault and they've openly said so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts, nice attempt at spinning. The rebels did not say it was their fault. They said it was a mistake caused by a lack of coordination.

But the fact is those pilots dropped bombs on a convoy with an ambulance in it for God's sake. That is a no-no and a big one. I would like to know which countries cowards in the sky pulled that stunt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spin?

Clearly you failed to read the article too

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoops...

"“This unfortunate accident was a mistake that was caused by the rebels’ advance during the coalition’s attack,” Ghoga said. "

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

" Clearly you failed to read the article too "

Pal, that the press spins Obamas misadventure to make it look good is a give.

But the simple fact remains: Like with Clintons bombing of Serbia, the reality does not match the hype.

If they really feel they must help a population which is being murdered, then of course they´d have to declare war and go in on the ground. Bombing one side of a civil war from the safety of 3000 meters up, and even cowardly refusing to call it a war ("kinetic action" according to Obama, my behind), does not end such a conflict, it only causes more deaths.

And that the same clowns who no bomb Libya as peaceful "kinetic action" while not lifting a finger while Bashid murdered hundreds of thousands in Darfur... that quesion I won´t even raise here.

Hypocrits both, as their supporters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is why airstrikes are so cowardly. You cannot properly verify who you are killing, you just make sure you are absolutely safe.

You can't stop bullets or artillery strikes either. Not being safe is kinda the point of dropping high yeild explosives.

And you keep pulling that coward card, it doesn't work, it will never work. The goal of any fighting force is to develop weapons that increase the probability of enemy death while reducing the risk to the user. Sending in troops for your ideal of fighting would be ineffective and grossly irresponcible.

But the fact is those pilots dropped bombs on a convoy with an ambulance in it for God's sake.

Ever hear of a battle wagon? Gaddafi has been sending his men out in armored civilian busses to try and sneak through the air screen. I certainly wouldn't put it past him to tack some armored plates onto an ambulance and use it as an improvised troop carrier.

You seem to be more outraged at this than the rebels. They're probably just happy that Gaddafi can't shoot at them with old Mirage and MiG fighters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like the media is being friendly to that cause on this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that = the

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hopefully this will keep up and NATO will be able to end this war amongst themselves. This is a new style of war and maybe what Obama meant by "kinetic action."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Question, The coward card works for those who have the power to think rationally, freshly, and are not attached to their national biases like a Siamese twin.

I am sure the rebels are happy about the airstrikes and are forgiving, ahem, today. But these cowardly things add up.

If Gaddafi does use a few random ambulances as troop carriers does that mean you advocate blowing up all ambulances just to be safe? Judging by your last post, I am going to say yes, and I think you will advocate the cowardly method of doing it by air. And how many legit blown up ambulances do you think will get the west hated all over Libya?

Bad idea. The only way to be reasonably sure of what is going with a misused ambulance is from the ground. You can get clues from the air, but not the big picture. And all you can do is blow it up. You can't stop it and actually check it. If we are not going to be reasonably sure who we are killing, we need to leave it up to the rebels. And never mind their happiness today. This stuff could add up to a new government that hates us just as much as the last, and gives us an all new Lockerbie bombing. I would rather pass.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and The Question, I have argued specifically against direct action, why do you accuse me of advocating sending in troops? I don't, but I do say it would beat airstrikes, so long as the troops are following the rules of engagement (and no mercs). But what I advocate is arming the rebels.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Gaddafi does use a few random ambulances as troop carriers does that mean you advocate blowing up all ambulances just to be safe?

If an ambulance is moving astride a line of armed troops in a combat zone I could see it looking a little suspicious.

You can get clues from the air, but not the big picture.

Thats pretty much the reverse of how it actually works. On the ground you see some armed guys, from the air you can see the armed individuals, local geography, where they're going to, where they came from, and any other units that may be moving with them a few miles away. By contrast ground troops can only see whats in front of them.

I have argued specifically against direct action, why do you accuse me of advocating sending in troops?

At every turn you keep saying that it would be better to clarify from the ground. It's not, ground units are no better at differentiating one group of armed people from another. Hell, we shoot at ourselves from time to time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't, but I do say it would beat airstrikes, so long as the troops are following the rules of engagement (and no mercs).

There you go, you've stated that if it's a choice between air and ground units you'd prefer the U.S used ground forces. That is what I take issue with, you're justifications for this preference are flawed. If you don't advocate direct action, fine, but don't go out stating that ground units would be preferable to air units in this situation. It's simply not feasible in any way shape or form.

But what I advocate is arming the rebels.

That has never worked. They always end up getting pointed back at us. The way I see it if things go sour with the rebels and they decide to hate us at least they'll have to buy their own damn guns. We use them better anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Arming the rebels/CIA/al-Qaeda will not help --> and has not helped.

Arming the populace (like Gadhafi is doing) will help --> this is the Swiss example. -but the globalists do not want this because armed people don't make good slaves. -Too difficult to enforce a tyranny on an armed populace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NATO forces are killing allies.Well...if they will kill all the Libyans, then the civil war will end...Tragically, but will end. You dont have democracy and got oil?Then we are comming to you.(c) USA+NATO

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Question, you say arming the rebels has never worked. Then your next sentence is that the weapons get pointed back at us. I think you just gave something away there. Your definition of "worked" is not about democracy, peace or fairness, but getting governments friendly to us no matter what. Which is how we got the Manuel Noriega, Saddam Husseins and Shahs of the world, which is how America got so hated. Once again, you seem to advocate the cycle of blood.

Arming rebels has worked. See Vietnam. The Soviets armed the rebels and they won. The U.S. got bodily involved and lost and got a nasty reputation for bombing the wrong targets from the air.

And for the record, I am not dissing air reconaissance. But it is still harder to determine friend or foe from the air. Its also harder to change your mind before blowing the wrong target to hell. And you can't "take" the target and no one can wave a white flag. You cannot target individuals. You blow things up like an ambulance from the air, if there was a five year old child in the ambulance their odds of survival plummet. Taken from the ground you have more options than just "blow it to hell".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Soviets armed the rebels and they won.

That was more a failure of popular support. Plus the soviets ended up having their own guns used against them as well throughout the Eastern Bloc and other places of soviet interests. And it was all that support they were sending out that contributed to their eventual collapse.

Taken from the ground you have more options than just "blow it to hell".

You're also way more likely to get killed by enemy fire. The common reaction to being shot at in a war zone is, oddly enough, to shoot back. Ends fail to justify means. Airstrikes are just flat out better in this instance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites