Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
NATO Denies Killing Civilians in Libya Strike
Two loud explosions have been heard in the Libyan capital Tripoli as jets flew over the city, Reuters news agency reported witnesses as saying.
A photo taken on a government tour shows mourners carrying the coffin of 15 people Libya said were killed in a NATO air strike, on June 22 in Tripoli. NATO has come under verbal fire again from Moamer Kadhafi's regime, which accused it of killing 15 more people in strikes on civilian sites in the eastern city of Brega, a claim promptly denied by the alliance. (AFP/File/Mahmud Turkia)
Earlier on Saturday, Libyan state TV reported that at least 15 people were killed in strikes on civilian sites in the eastern city of Brega, a claim promptly denied by NATO.
"The colonialist crusader Atlantic coalition bombed civilian sites, among them a bakery and a restaurant in Brega, creating 15 martyrs and more than 20 wounded, among them regular clients of those places," state TV reported.
The report, which did not say when the attack took place, referred to a NATO "war of extermination" and "crimes against humanity" in Libya.
However, state news agency Jana said the attack was on Saturday and spoke of five more "citizens" killed a day earlier.
Following the Libyan television claim, the NATO spokesman said the alliance "did target buildings in an abandoned area of Brega".
"These were legitimate military targets that were hit We took a long time to watch the area and make sure. Meticulous planning went into this."
NATO dissent
As far as NATO is concerned, he said, "any people in that area at that time were legitimate military targets."
In its daily operations report, the alliance said that on Friday it had targeted 35 objectives, including military vehicles and installations, around Brega, a key refinery town some 800km east of Tripoli and 240km southwest of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.
Earlier this week, after NATO admitted misfires that Tripoli says caused several deaths, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini called for a suspension in the campaign in the latest sign of dissent within NATO.
"I believe an immediate humanitarian suspension of hostilities is required in order to create effective humanitarian corridors," while negotiations should also continue on a more formal ceasefire and peace talks, he said.
NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said more civilians would die if operations were not maintained under a UN mandate to protect Libyans from the exactions of the government of veteran leader Muammar Gaddafi.
"NATO will continue this mission because if we stop, countless more civilians could lose their lives," Rasmussen said in a video statement on the NATO website.
Meanwhile, 17 of the country's top players, including national goalkeeper Juma Gtat, have defected to rebels, the BBC reported.
Adel bin Issa, the coach of Tripoli's top club al-Ahly, announced the defections in the rebel-held Nafusa Mountains in western Libya.
"I am telling Colonel Gaddafi to leave us alone and allow us to create a free Libya," the BBC quoted Gtat as saying at a hotel in the town of Jadu.
"In fact I wish he would leave this life altogether."
Gaddafi has suffered a series of defections by military officers, diplomats and members of his government, but has resisted efforts by rebels backed by a NATO bombing campaign to dislodge him after four decades in power.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllAnyone that believes these denials is a fool. NATO is a coalition of imperialist liars.
If It is true that 1000 children are murdered by their parents in America every year, that means AS MANY KIDS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY MOM AND DAD RIGHT HERE THAN ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS AND SOLDIERS KILLED BY THIS WAR SINCE 9/11!
Just need to put another reality check on the war like the now it is time rhetorical question "Does sugar kill more than Terrorists?"
I don't know if NATO's denial of responsibility for this particular bombing is accurate or not. But be that as it may: apart from bombing and other direct military attacks by NATO states, the NATO states are responsible - probably legally and definitely morally - for any killing, rape, abduction, mutilation, expulsion, theft, fraud, vandalism, torture and other actions, be they legitimate acts of war or crimes, committed by the Libyan rebels. That is a responsibility we took upon ourselves when we joined the Libyan civil war on their side. For better or for worse, the blood of those killed by the Libyan rebels is on our hands.
Anyone who claims that only soldiers are hit by weapons is unaware of any military history at all. They are by that statement alone, willfully ignorant fools who should be ignored.
The proper phrase to use is that the cowardly enemy has resorted to using human shields to try and prevent the consequence of disobeying our will in this matter. Vere ARE your Papers, mein herr? How dare you question our glorious leader.
/insanity... maybe
I stopped listening to Al Jazeera when I realized that thier reporting was skewed (apparently influenced by Qatar's politics). http://rt.com/on-air/, http://globalresearch.ca/ , and http://www.uruknet.info/ are better sources on this topic.
Of course what NATO says should given no credibilty at all -- propaganda and dysinformation is just another one of their weapons, as with the US, Israel, and the rest of the empire.
I'm sure that will work wonders. Not listening to anyone who has a perspective...
The thing is, every newspaper and tv station, every political blog on the interenet, all of them will have their own pov. All of them. The trick isn't to stop listening, but to filter out the bullshit from their biases.
The sites I listed do give various sides. I don't have the time to listen to a one sided station, or to filter out the dysinformation from them. AJ went on and on reporting events that had no basis in fact except that 'rebel sources' said that. Yes, they would say that the story was unsubstantiated -- Ill give them that -- but they didn't give the opposing reports or the full story -- which is what good reporting should do: dig for the truth and the big picture. Al Jaz DID have a persepctive, but they were not up front about it. I no longer trust what they say or that they will not intentionally mislead.
Sure, on occasion even Fox will say somthing true, but that's no more a reason to watch Fox than to eat junk food because their may be some traces of nutrients in it.
Example:
"Earlier this week, after NATO admitted misfires that Tripoli says caused several deaths, "
One admits the truth; one does not admit a lie. The presumption and framing here, then, is that were only misfires, and not intentional, based on faulty intelligence, or part of systemic disreagrd for civilian safety. It also says "Tripoly says ...", implying that there may not have been several deaths -- that maybe Tripoly was making it all up. Now, contrast the frames of those two presumptions and you see a clear underlying bias, and maybe worse. How much time and energy does it take to deconstruct all such stories and then run around researching the story to find opposing reports and frames? Quite a bit -- and with good reporting that task is not dropped into the lap of the reader, but included in the article.
Of course they deny it. NATO is the US and you can't trust our government.
People on the ground have documented their murders.
bluepilgrim, your correct perspective escapes a lot of people. I am one who believe that the fact that you know you are being lied to, does not mean the lie has no effect on you. Go ask the ad and marketing companies. They make zillions doing just that. Furthermore victims of cult and conc. camps have to sometimes go through rigorous deprogramming. Of course their conscious mind know they have been lied to , but the damage to the more important unconscious mind is typically more profound and damaging. Show me one who watches or listens to lot of pop "news" and you will find a bewitched fellow. The atmosphere today is that of a massive conc camp
Also you notice the incoherence of the thinking process that afflict a lot of "normal" looking people. This I think has to do with the dysfunctions associated with watching a lot of "news" and being twisted out of shape by the ubiquitous lies, half truths, autosuggestions and other bags of tricks, that constantly infect the mind and soul
Secondly I am not sure, as is brainlessly repeated, that the truth is more powerful than the lie. Evidence shows that the lie is more potent. The best antidote against known notorious liars is to stay the hell away. They have nothing for you except illusions and functional madness.
Yes -- a huge problem is that while one guards the front door againt the demons, others sneak through the side and back doors. The controversy about Saddam, for example often centers on whether he had WMDs -- weapons of mass destruction -- or not. In reality, when one does the researh, one finds that the term itself is propaganda. The only true WMD s are nuclear bombs or massive bombing campaigns.
Biological agents have a potential for causing massive death, but they are difficult to employ, and have some other practical problems, Chemical weapons are similar, and are used tactically not to kill the enemy but to frighten them away and/or hamper their fighting ability. Chemicals can cause massive death -- if one has a huge chemical plant that leaks, as in Bhopal, but such a plant is hardly useful as a battlefield weapon to do 'mass destruction'.
The term WMD, then, is not an accurate description of the real dangers, but a terrorist weopen itself -- a verbal and psychological weapon, as is the term 'war on terror'. To talk about whether the 'war on terror' can be won or not does not close the door against the framing and implications of the phrase itself, which repeated often enough does seep into the unconscious.
But these are fairly obvious examples -- there are large numbers of similar stealth psy-op weapons which are difficult to catch, and people are more easily infected by those memes than any rogue bacteriological agent. Compared to the body's immune responses and defenses, the human mind has very limited natural immunity against such deceptive agents. The 'information war' is quite eral and often with deadly consequences. In those terms, Edward Bernays is likely one of the worst war criminals in history, and his ghost continues to kill.
[From the article]: As far as NATO is concerned, he said, "any people in that area at that time were legitimate military targets."
Precisely how NATO and the US military look at every situation, regardless of whether it's true or not.