Statement by the NATO Secretary General on Libya

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TheMaverick

 

He goes on to say this is a special moment in history for the NATO alliance and that freedom is the strongest force in the world, he was almost gloating over it, with his Nazi accent.

That's a GERMAN accent. So I guess Germans are all Nazis then?

reply to post by ALF88

 

I can't stand that guy, he is a war criminal.

Evidence? Oh you have none? Must be the accent doing it for you too then right?


------------------

I don't agree with the NATO campaign that much either. I think it's a waste of time. But to call people Nazis and war criminals when neither of these things fit the description is simply dishonest at BEST.

edit on 21-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Ah, no he is Danish and was their former Priminister.
Secondline.

reply to post by 13th Zodiac


Meh.

I don't think it matters much. Since there's no such thing as a Nazi accent.

reply to post by TheMaverick


lol they turned off the commenting section since the video has already 7 dislikes thats nice.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

Neither of these articles support your assertion that they were targeting civilians.

The UN resolution 1973 was about establishing a NO FLY ZONE. That zone was established within a few weeks. After that they supported the rebels. You don't need a source for that. It is COMMON SENSE, but that is something you don't seem to have. And supporting the rebels by bombing them their way was a crime, so everything that happens during that campaign is a war crime as well and yes they didn't care about civilians. That is the same as purposely targeting them. Putting Special Forces on the ground is a crime, because it is against resolution 1973 and the SAS was operating in Libya way before the war started, which was admitted by the British government and that is in violation to international law as well.

Establishing a no fly zone is one thing, actively participating in a war as a DEFENSE ORGANIZATION, without being attacked is against NATO statutes. So he is a war criminal. No need for sources. It is about using your brain.

Originally posted by projectvxn

I don't think it matters much. Since there's no such thing as a Nazi accent.

That is something we do agree on although the "meh" before that made clear that you are trolling.

reply to post by ALF88


You should read the text of UN resolution 1973:

It does MUCH more than establish a No-Fly zone.

It also establishes an arms embargo and give enforcement authority to NATO members.
It establishes a mandate to protect civilian populations and give authority to act militarily in order to do so.
It, at NO POINT does it restrict the US or any NATO member from using special operations troops to help paint targets and locate targets of opportunity in the interest of protecting the civilian population.

You can google the text or go to the UNs website and look for it there.


-----------------------------------------
So three letters means I'm trolling?

Again, hit the alert button or stop your incessant whining.

Originally posted by projectvxn

It also establishes an arms embargo and give enforcement authority to NATO members.

Boots on the ground was excluded! There are boots on the ground and they are fighting. Don't try to sell us your Special Forces are not involved in the fighting BS. Either you are incredibly naive or a liar.

Originally posted by projectvxn
It establishes a mandate to protect civilian populations and give authority to act militarily in order to do so.

By killing civilians? (It is proven, I am sure you can google proof for that) Stop defending NATO. The guy is a war criminal and your tactic to defend him has failed before it even started.

reply to post by ALF88


I never said SF wasn't fighting and no, boots on the ground were not entirely excluded. Everyone in the UN security council knows you have to put a few target painters on the ground to get bombs to fall on certain targets. This NFZ isn't as straight forward as you think it is.

I also never said there were no civilian deaths due to NATO strikes.

It's war. That sort of thing happens. It doesn't make the Secretary General of NATO a war criminal no matter how much you wanna jump up and down and scream about it.

reply to post by projectvxn


You make me laugh, all you do in threads, is tell everyone they don't know what they are talking about, you seem to think your the only one who ever served in the military, and been in combat situations, what you don't seem to get, is not everyone likes to brag or tell anyone that will listen, to there military background.

And yes, i do find it kinda ironic, that were being told in a gloating manner in a German accent, on how NATO has raped pillaged and massed bombed civilians in another sovereign country, and executed its leader in cold blood in the street on world TV, almost like being in 1940's again.

reply to post by TheMaverick


I've backed up my claims with fact. And you have?

All I see is accusatory/reactionary BS that is ill-informed at best.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by ALF88

 

I never said SF wasn't fighting and no, boots on the ground were not entirely excluded. Everyone in the UN security council knows you have to put a few target painters on the ground to get bombs to fall on certain targets. This NFZ isn't as straight forward as you think it is.

I also never said there were no civilian deaths due to NATO strikes.

It's war. That sort of thing happens. It doesn't make the Secretary General of NATO a war criminal no matter how much you wanna jump up and down and scream about it.

edit on 22-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

26.000 bombing campaigns? You call that protecting civilians? It is bombing a country back into the stones ages! Civilians were brought in danger and were killed massively by NATO and rebel rats. This war is about western imperialism and not about protecting civilians or bringing democracy to Libya.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by TheMaverick


I think it's embarrassing to watch a fellow American parrot the MSM talking points while arguing with a German of all the people.

No wonder America has such a low standing in the world.

reply to post by projectvxn


For god sake man, you keep saying the same crap, go through some of my threads going back 9 mths, i've posted loads of evidence to war crimes committed in Libya by NATO.

And as for targeting that convey with gaddafi in it, you know full well they knew gaddafi was in that convey, its there bloodly job to know, they knew gaddafi was in sirte all along, that's why they flatten the place, so yeah they did blatantly target a sovereign leader for execution without trial.

reply to post by TheMaverick


So what?

Ghaddafi was a head of military operations. A Legitimate target.

I never denied that he was being targeted and it doesn't bother me in the least that the rebels killed him.

In my experience most people who allege war crimes post pictures of dead people and say "see, see! War crimes!".

Just because civilians die in war, which is a tragedy each and every time, doesn't mean it's a war crime. It's war. People die in war.

reply to post by projectvxn


No its not a war, its a civil war, big differents.

Ghaddafi was a head of military operations. A Legitimate target.

No he wasn't, he was the head of state.

Under your assertions, Obama is a legitimate target, if the US is ever invaded.
We have a rule of law for a reason, but NATO no longer recognizes International law any more.

Originally posted by projectvxn
So what?

Ghaddafi was a head of military operations. A Legitimate target.

I never denied that he was being targeted and it doesn't bother me in the least that the rebels killed him.

That speaks for itself!

reply to post by TheMaverick


War is war man.

articles.latimes.com...

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by ALF88

 

NATO fighting with Al Qaeda toppling a government destroying the most developed country in Africa by violating the UN resolution.

What UN Resolution was violated? (And we agree that there are AQ elements in Libya and that has been very troubling for me).

Boots are on the ground, the no fly zone was established after a few weeks. The rest was taking side in the conflict and killing over 60.000 innocent civilians.

Yep they have SF on the ground in Libya. Do you know what they do? They paint targets for the enforcement of the No-Fly zone. These kinds of operations aren't as easy as you think.

Secondly do you have a source on the amount of civilians killed? Also, are you aware that in a war zone it is virtually impossible to COMPLETELY avoid civilian deaths? Or do you think war is like a video game where there is no one but you and the bad guys around?

NATO warned the rebels that deliberate targeting of civilians would be met with hostility from NATO.
NATO Warns Rebels Against Attacking Civilians

And now please stop your spam posts.

I don't post spam. Just because someone disgarees with you doesn't mean it is spam.

He is a war criminal!

Again, PROVE IT. You have to prove that NATO was deliberately targeting civilians. If that isn't the case, then he is not a war criminal.

edit on 21-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Sadly i agree with ALF88 and ALF88 is correct about AQ The rebels are AQ.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TheMaverick

 

War is war man.

articles.latimes.com...

By your Accounts NATO Worker since the way your saying war is war i guess the russians have a right to attack the west to then?

Legitimate Targets

Hmm Legitimate Targets Just like Obama is a Legitimate Target to the russians? or NATO?

Libya will have a Civil War it wont happen now, but it will you can deny it all you want.