Coalition launches Libya attacks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joel`
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 406
  • Views Views 21K
You wanna know my opinion, you send the best 10 agents you have in, and take him out only. take the top man out, and fuc him over. Real 007 style, but in reality, we are doing the right thing and i hope we do this with the minimal amount of death possible, but unfournately there is always going to be deaths in a situation like this,

I know theres no other choice. And that fact makes me sad.

Joel' said:

Dont take me wrong. I still think killing is bad. And I dont like that idea. In my world, killing would be banned just like "the shots" ( bad joke, I know :) ). But since I dont make the rules, I dont have right for opinion.
I like to think UN is like friends. They all like each other, but theres always one leader. USA is that leader. And "we" all follow USA. ( Yep, dear England, swallow you pride). USA > World
Nevermind, rebel in me is talking ( this is also bad joke, we all know what happens to rebels).
So, to sum things up. We all agree he is coming down, this way or another. I dont like and I dont accept the fact that he is ( and UN ) killing people, for good reason, or bad reason. Killing is bad. Well, at least I can dream a little.
 
I know theres no other choice. And that fact makes me sad.

No-one wants this to happen, but we all have to get on with it, I am sure if we all had our way, the world would all be peaceful and there be no need for wars, deaths and violence at all, but un fournately some people in this world make that impossible.
 
No-one wants this to happen, but we all have to get on with it, I am sure if we all had our way, the world would all be peaceful and there be no need for wars, deaths and violence at all, but un fournately some people in this world make that impossible.

I agree.
Just, we are looking at wrong people.
 
I agree.
Just, we are looking at wrong people.

What do you mean, I guess you mean what i think Joel said very early, that it is the in consistency that annoys people, We should be doing this to every countr in thi situations, not hand picking which ones we help.. One of the biggest things for me and most disapointing, is how we didnt stop that ****** in zimbabwe.
 
What do you mean, I guess you mean what i think Joel said very early, that it is the in consistency that annoys people, We should be doing this to every countr in thi situations, not hand picking which ones we help.. One of the biggest things for me and most disapointing, is how we didnt stop that ****** in zimbabwe.
For me its Rwanda...
 
What do you mean, I guess you mean what i think Joel said very early, that it is the in consistency that annoys people, We should be doing this to every countr in thi situations, not hand picking which ones we help.. One of the biggest things for me and most disapointing, is how we didnt stop that ****** in zimbabwe.

First of all, UN should cut down in roots this kind of situations, but they dont ( so far). Second, there are many dictators. UN should be on stand-by. And third, do you know how much USA earns thru selling weapons ? Money thru selling weapons makes 40-45 % of USA's GDP. So, I dont think their interes is to cut war in roots. Wow, Im feeling like Mel Gibson in some movie about conspiracy. This gone little to far :D
 
Last edited:
First of all, UN should cut down in roots this situation, but they didnt. Second, there are many dictators. UN should be on stand-by. And third, do you know how much USA earns thru selling weapons ? Money thru selling weapons make 40-45 % of USA's GDP. So, I think their interes isnt to cut war in root. Wow, Im feeling like Mel Gibson in some movie about conspiracy. This gone little to far :D
all countries sell arms to each other, not just the US. But weapons are neutral, what makes them "good or bad" is the user
 
What do you mean, I guess you mean what i think Joel said very early, that it is the in consistency that annoys people, We should be doing this to every countr in thi situations, not hand picking which ones we help.. One of the biggest things for me and most disapointing, is how we didnt stop that ****** in zimbabwe.
Cambodian Genocide in the 70s. 2 million people dead.
 
Like others I find the inconsistency by the UN frustrating but it seems they can only really get involved if the Countries such as ours vote to go in. (I think that right?)

I am pleased we're doing it to stop the killing and potential killing that is occurring in Libya at the moment but I do believe that these Countries (Britain, France, USA, etc) have other motives to go Libya as well as stopping Gaddafi.

At the end of the day, Libya has a lot more to offer in terms of resources and trading to Countries such Britain, France and USA than the likes of Rwanda and Zimbabwe ever will hence why we stepped in.

The whole irony is that we've profited of Gadaffi, trained his troops and most likely sold him weapons and now we are helping get rid of him.

It seems it is a year of revolutions in North Africa. It is just a shame that it has resorted to violence but sometimes you have to when you come up against a man like Gadaffi.

It will be interesting to see what will happen to Gadaffi's son who was quoted saying something like "My father will fill the streets with blood". He's also claimed that the Libyan government funded some of President Sarkozy's presidential campaign in 2007 which is even more amusing.
 
Like others I find the inconsistency by the UN frustrating but it seems they can only really get involved if the Countries such as ours vote to go in. (I think that right?)

I am pleased we're doing it to stop the killing and potential killing that is occurring in Libya at the moment but I do believe that these Countries (Britain, France, USA, etc) have other motives to go Libya as well as stopping Gaddafi.

At the end of the day, Libya has a lot more to offer in terms of resources and trading to Countries such Britain, France and USA than the likes of Rwanda and Zimbabwe ever will hence why we stepped in.

The whole irony is that we've profited of Gadaffi, trained his troops and most likely sold him weapons and now we are helping get rid of him.

It seems it is a year of revolutions in North Africa. It is just a shame that it has resorted to violence but sometimes you have to when you come up against a man like Gadaffi.

It will be interesting to see what will happen to Gadaffi's son who was quoted saying something like "My father will fill the streets with blood". He's also claimed that the Libyan government funded some of President Sarkozy's presidential campaign in 2007 which is even more amusing.
Excellent post, also think that we have a lot of dirty history by letting him be around for so long, and perhaps we see this as a chance to correct this
 
all countries sell arms to each other, not just the US. But weapons are neutral, what makes them "good or bad" is the user

Still, we are making weapons to stop the war and keep the peace. Thats irony. But In global, I agree with you.
 
3.17am: Here is a timeline of the major developments in Libya since the start of protests inspired by uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. I've chopped this down from a lengthy Press Association filing. It shows that when civilians began taking to the streets calling for change, Gaddafi responded immediately with deadly force.

17 February: Libyan protesters start demonstrating. Security forces respond with snipers and live fire.

18 February: 35 protesters are reportedly shot by Libyan security forces and taken to hospital after attempting to march on one of leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's homes.

22 February: Gaddafi vows to fight to his "last drop of blood" and on television calls for his supporters to "fill the streets" and "attack (the protesters) in their lairs".

23 February: British government begins its delayed evacuation of Libya. A day later, the EU and Russia condemn governments in north Africa and the Middle East for using force to break up peaceful demonstrations. Gaddafi rolls out his now-familiar tactic of blaming al-Qaida for the uprisings.

4 March: Interpol issues an "orange notice" worldwide alert against Gaddafi and 15 associates.

15 March: Gaddafi's troops begin bombing the eastern city of Ajdabiya to retake it from Libyan rebels. A day later the UN security council starts debating a no-fly zone. The Arab League, Britain and France back the resolution, tabled by Lebanon, while Russia and Germany express doubts. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, calls for an immediate unilateral ceasefire in Libya.

17 March: The security council approves a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya. The resolution is backed by 10 Security Council members, with five abstentions, but crucially there is no veto.

18 March: The Gaddafi regime responds to the resolution by announcing an immediate ceasefire and "the stoppage of all military operations" but its forces continue to attack the opposition-held cities of Misrata and Adjadbiya.

19 March: Leaders from Europe, the US and Arab League meet in Paris and switfly agree to send in the jets. The French jump the gun, sending in warplanes before the official agreement. Overnight the attacks begin on Gaddafi bases and positions.

2.53am: There have been tributes around the websites of Libyan revolutionaries for Mohammed Nabbous, the multimedia reporter for the opposition movement who was shot dead in Benghazi on Saturday. Here's something from the blog of Louis Abelman who has been posting from the rebel capital.

Today we received the news that Mohammed Nabbous, a citizen media activist and one of the great figures of the 17 February youth revolutionary movement, was killed by a Gaddafi sniper while covering the first hours of fighting in Benghazi. His death represents a terrible loss for the movement and for the future of Libya.

As a leader and a member of the Transitional National Council, he gathered a progressive group of activists around him and organized the institution known as the 17 February Revolution Youth Media Centre.

Nabbous single-handedly built a megaphone to the outside world— part television studio, internet relay, and command and control centre.

He cut a striking figure, tall and suave with a British accent acquired at Oxford, where he studied engineering, and spoke with quickfire brilliance. His was a singular dedication to the revolution and a better future for his country, for which he gave his life, and we mourn him.
 
Why are threads like this even started, all they do is cause arguments. I am actually unsure of why they dont just try and take out Gaddafi surely that would be an easier solution you would think the combined force of the americans and english would be able to track down this mother ****** and dispose of him
 
Im not the one who are invading. Im not the one who decide to send or not to send troops. Im not the one who said killing is good. What can I do ? I can do this. Argue about this with you ( not argue, debate). Im not saying he is good. He is madman. Why are you telling me than Im killing them ? Im killing them just because I dont like war ? You dont know what war is. You have never experienced one. You think its simple like that. Its not. Stop acting as godsend.

In theory you are. Your country elected a leader to represent you, and your country (I don't know which, but it's likely true unless you live in Russia or somewhere) agreed to send the UN troops in. This is the fundamental basis of modern democracy. You elected someone who made the decision to send the troops in. You're just as responsible as anyone.

I know you're not saying he's good, but you just don't understand. If we don't kill him, he kills thousands more than if we do kill him. I've repeated this so may times now.

Stop acting as if you're the arbiter for all military and conflictual knowledge. I know people who have lived through wars, and because of that very fact they cannot be trusted to make a clear-headed decision on it. When you've got such an emotional reaction to war, you will always, without fail, find it to be a bad thing, and sometimes that just isn't right.

Why are threads like this even started, all they do is cause arguments. I am actually unsure of why they dont just try and take out Gaddafi surely that would be an easier solution you would think the combined force of the americans and english would be able to track down this mother ****** and dispose of him

Threads like these are started to have debates. Much as I disagree with Vanjagl's opinion (and much as it is more holey than a Bible made out of swiss cheese), it's interesting to see.

We can't just track down Gaddafi in his own country, surrounded by his own supporters and military. It'd be suicide trying to do that. We need to work patiently and try and minimise losses, not just send off a bunch of special operatives to go and get shot trying to covertly break in and assassinate him.
 
It is about time the UN got involved in this using armed forces to kill your own people is wrong. Hopefully Muammar Gaddafi can be captured and held accountable for his actions.

Has any Arab nations got involved yet?
 
it could be a heroic mission to stop a horrid man from killing his own people, it could be the oil is wanted, or it could just be another movement towards the new world order, to be honest and fair none of us know do we :)
 
_51757020_011576275-1.jpg

Col Muammar Gaddafi says Libya will fight a "long war" after Western air strikes against his forces to protect rebel-held areas.

Military officials are said to be assessing the damage after at least 110 missiles were fired by the US and UK.

After an attack by French planes, some 14 bodies were lying near destroyed military vehicles outside the rebel-held city of Benghazi, Reuters says.

The head of the Arab League has criticised the bombardments.

His comments are significant because the Arab League's support for the no-fly zone was a key factor in getting UN Security Council backing for the resolution authorising the move.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas says if no Arab states participate in the no-fly zone, and there is criticism from the Arab world, the US could decide to pull out. The UK and France had also been told the Arabs would participate, she adds.

Meanwhile, US military chief Adm Mike Mullen says aircraft from Qatar are moving into position near Libya to participate in the operation establishing a no-fly zone.

Earlier, he said the initial raids had been "successful".

Damage done
US fighter planes and B-2 stealth bombers were also involved in the overnight raids early on Sunday, Pentagon officials said.

Cruise missiles hit at least 20 air-defence sites in the capital, Tripoli, and the western city of Misrata, they said.

Italy has now said its aircraft will be ready to take part in operations against Libya from Sunday.

Col Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam called the attack a "big mistake".


"Believe me, one day you will wake up and you will find out that you were supporting the wrong people and you had made a big mistake in supporting those people," he told Christiane Amanpour for ABC This Week. "It's like the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq. It's another story."

Libyan TV has broadcast footage it says showed some of the 150 people wounded in the attacks. It said 48 people had been killed.

There was no independent confirmation of the deaths and UK Finance Minister George Osborne told the BBC that such claims should be treated with caution as the military was striving to avoid civilian casualties.

Adm Mullen also said he had not received any reports of civilian deaths or injuries.

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says coalition military planners will be urgently studying satellite and other reconnaissance imagery to determine how much damage has been done to Col Gaddafi's air defences and to see if some targets may have to be hit again.

He says they will also be monitoring the activities of Libyan government ground forces near key populated areas like Benghazi and Misrata, with any offensive action on their part bringing down urgent air strikes.

A rebel spokesman in Misrata told the BBC that pro-Gaddafi forces had launched fresh attacks on Sunday with heavy shelling in the city.

Inch by inch

"We will fight inch by inch," he said while a sculpture of a golden fist crushing a US jet was being shown.

He earlier said he would open arms depots to the people to defend Libya and described the attacks as "crusader aggression".

The UN Security Council has approved the use of force to protect civilians.

Western forces began their actions on Saturday after pro-Gaddafi troops attacked the main rebel-held city of Benghazi. Col Gaddafi's allies accused the rebels of breaking the ceasefire.

A French plane fired the first shots, followed shortly by US and UK forces firing at least 110 missiles.

The BBC's Kevin Connolly, in the rebel-held eastern city of Tobruk, says that once the air-defence systems are taken out, combat aircraft can patrol Libyan airspace more widely. It will then become clear to what extent they will attack Col Gaddafi's ground forces.

This will determine the outcome of the campaign, he adds.

Russia and China, which abstained from the UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force in Libya, have urged all parties to stop fighting, as has the African Union.

Col Gaddafi has ruled Libya for more than 40 years. An uprising against him began last month after the long-time leaders of neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt were toppled.


_51758301_libya_airstrikes_624map.gif
 
It is about time the UN got involved in this using armed forces to kill your own people is wrong. Hopefully Muammar Gaddafi can be captured and held accountable for his actions.

Has any Arab nations got involved yet?
Qatar, Jordan and UAE,
 
Back
Top