Comments on: Were NATO strikes on Gaddafi’s home town justified?

By: Biginabox

Biginabox — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:23:08 +0000

“Were NATO strikes on Gaddafi’s home town justified?”
Of course. Unless Sirte was prepared to be starved into submission to protect Gadaffi’s miserable skin, and the moralisers willing to watch.
The revolutionary forces pleaded on behalf of the residents of Sirte with Gadaffi’s frontmen for months, but they made almost no concessions to the general welfare. Gadaffi’s neck was more valuable. After that, the sooner it ended the more lives were saved.
As for the bombing itself, the details are far from clear. Much o9f the so-called ‘residential’ areas struck were in fact either evacuated or not even finished. And the attack on Sima hospital is a legal minefield for Gadaffi aplogists, since his forces were installed within, making it a military target.

By: Hardliner

Hardliner — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:35:04 +0000

Muammar al-Qaddhafi was a murderer and a pillager. As such, he – and all who helped him (actively and passively) – were fair game. Al-Qaddhafi viewed other Libyans as his “property”, with whom he could do as he pleased.

Al-Qaddhafi chose to “hole up” in Sirte, rather than to surrender. He could have taken refuge at a military base, where civilians would not be at risk from the inevitable shoot-out.

While some in Sirte likely did not back al-Qaddhafi, the destruction they suffered will be a long-lasting lesson. Those, who do not stand up to a dictator, may be swept away with him.

Germans understand this. The horrendous destruction inflicted on Germany during World War II, to this moves Germans to reject political extremists. Indeed, a specific unit of the German government – the Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution) – watches all extremists carefully.

Those, who defend al-Qaddhafi – or criticise NATO for having helped Libyans to oust him – embrace al-Qaddhafi’s approach: murder and pillage.

Libyans will benefit from his decision to fight to the end. That fight thinned the ranks of democracy-haters. Had al-Qaddhafi surrendered quietly, thousands of his henchmen would have survived, to poison Libya for many more years.

Further, during their months-long fight for freedom, many Libyans acquired skills with firearms, e.g., battle rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. I pray they’ll be smart enough not to surrender these to anyone. While explosives (artillery shells, grenades, missiles, etc.) are dangerous, especially if stored badly, firearms – if securely stored – are quite safe.

Because Libyans lacked weapons and the skills to use them, they had to have help to oust al-Qaddhafi and his accomplices. If Libyans are to remain free, they must remain armed. Those, who urge Libyans to disarm, simply cannot grasp that dictators flourish, when their victims are disarmed.

As to Mugabe, South Africa should deal with him. It bespeaks South Africa’s insensitivity to Zimbabweans’ sufferings, that they have not ousted Mugabe. It is ironic, that South Africans, who got much foreign help to free themselves from Apartheid tyrants, will not reach out to help neighbors, who groan under Mugabe’s pillaging.

Dictators deserve death. Those, who provide that, deserve our praise, for they liberate the oppressed.

By: Wenzile

Wenzile — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:59:35 +0000

Lets cut all the nonsense of NATO mission to protect civilians. This was NATO’s mission to assassinate Gadaffi and thats exactly what they did plain and simple.

By: thetruth7

thetruth7 — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:30:43 +0000

Nato in Libya equals oil for Nato countries and their war planes. No oil in Zimbawia so Mugabee you are safe. Nice one Nato this means I can still fuel my gas guzzling SUV brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrum. What country can we topple nest for oil as Libyas wont last for ever. any suggestions guys? Im serious, at least I speak the truth!

By: StephenManion

StephenManion — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:04:03 +0000

Must have been an incredibly slow news day. Ask the same questions for months. Get the same answers. Try and make that a story. Lame.

By: Teluu

Teluu — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:21:47 +0000

NATO is always looking for a fight, and Libya episode is a shame to the western uncivilized attitude. This will hunt them for generation to come.

By: JJ1234

JJ1234 — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:59:42 +0000

I just don’t understand how these rebels have some of the updated weapons in their hands when these political leaders are crying out loud that they are fighting the terrorism. Just like in Irak, this end will be very sad…

By: tod

tod — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:57:48 +0000

Obviously we’re sitting on the wrong side of the fence. NATO is a pawn of U.S. and west, consequently U.N. was useless in trying to tie their hands. With over 50,000 casualties and total devastation of some cities, did NATO really “protect” civilians or protect NTC rebels who were a ‘rag-tag” army that couldn’t stand vs Gaddaffi’s troops. Oil is the name of the game an d Western allies will be lining up for reconstruction projects paid for in “black gold.”

Neat world we live in, eh?

By: vothmr

vothmr — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 00:53:20 +0000

the NATO bombings were absolutely justified. Yes it is a tragedy for the people whose houses are being bombed because they harbor pro-gaddafi fighters but that is the nature of war. Doesn’t anyone recall when gaddafi shot and killed hundreds of protesters just because they were protesting? i bet the people who were getting shot at then are pretty damn glad that NATO intervened. NATO has been hitting military targets. there are no huge dumb bombs being dropped all over cities, just precision airstrikes. in my opinion its better to get this whole ugly war business over as quickly as possible. without NATO assistance, there would be a long drawn out civil war. Remember the American civil war? i bet if France or England or someone had helped out one side then thousands and thousands of lives could have been saved. I guess the main point is that people is a necessary evil of war, its a dirty business, all that can be done is to minimize the carnage. The Libyan people don’t want to kill civilians as much if not more than we (NATO) does. Eventually everyone has to be reintegrated under whatever regime pops us at the end of this mess.

By: abdhalla

abdhalla — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:28:45 +0000

Whats going on there is completely a mockery of NATO’s mandate shelling a city indiscriminately like we are seeing NTC & NATO do is immoral and borders on crimes against humanity…looking at sirte the city is ruin for a month now the siege has yet to bear any fruits the humanitarian crisis is at its peak how is NATO protecting civilian if they are contributing to the mass killing of Gaddafi supporters.

someone said when hunting for a beast be very careful not to turn into one..I think in this case its too late.