NATO hits 3 ports to protect rebel-held port

[EFerrari]

Source: AP

By DIAA HADID and SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Diaa Hadid And Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press – Fri May 20, 9:53 am ET

TRIPOLI, Libya – NATO fighter jets struck three ports in bombing runs overnight, targeting Moammar Gadhafi's navy in an effort to protect the nearby rebel-held port of Misrata, NATO said Friday. It was the broadest attack on Libya's naval forces since the alliance joined the conflict.

One bombing run hit the main port of Tripoli, where reporters could see flames and smoke rising above the stricken warship into the night sky. Other targets were the Khoms port, between Tripoli and Misrata, and Sirte, east of the city.

In Brussels, NATO confirmed that its warplanes targeted the ports and accused Libya of using its ships in the escalating conflict, including attempts to mine the harbor in Misrata. Rebels trying to end the nearly 40-year rule of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi have been struggling to hold Misrata against repeated attacks by Gadhafi's forces.

British Maj. Gen. John Lorimer, a communications officer, said British warplanes hit two Libyan corvette warships in the Khoms harbor and "successfully targeted a facility in the dockyard constructing fast inflatable boats, which Libyan forces have used several times in their efforts to mine Misrata and attack vessels in the area."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya

[dipsydoodle]

1. Libya: Nato strikes hit eight Gaddafi warships in ports

Nato air strikes have hit eight warships belonging to Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces in co-ordinated raids on Tripoli, Al Khums and Sirte.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13465653

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[wuushew]

3. Why are we destroying ships at port?

It seems that is likely to kill the most civilians. I thought the navy was out there off the coast of Libya. I guess we don't really rule the waves after all.

[atreides1]

4. It went from a no-fly zone

To nothing that doesn't back the rebels zone...and this will eventually include civilians who by NATO definition aren't innocent because they still support the government!

Those of you who support this war, what do you think will happen to those who supported the government if the rebels win...do you honestly believe that the rebel forces will be so benevolent and not seek vengeance against their former enemies?

It will just be another example of the oppressed becoming the oppressor!

[EFerrari]

5. Or the oppressed simply having one oppressor traded for another.

NATO is bombing coast guard ships that are also used for search and rescue. Nice going there!

[Kurska]

7. Haha, Gadaffi is packing refugees onto dingies and setting them to sea.

Not conducting search and rescue, Gadaffi is far to busy mining the only humanitarian supply entrance to misrata to care about the people he is forcing to sea.

[EFerrari]

9. Yes, Gaddafi is ubiquitous and he is El Diablo, I know.

[Igel]

13. Yes, the dinghy.

One of them, AFAIK.

Which has morphed from being a question mark to being an assault on the ships carrying humanitarian aid. Presumably the mannequins would steer them to the boats. Or maybe it was assumed that seeing what might be people in the ships, the humanitarian workers would immediately put their boats on a collision course.

Much more likely that they were traps: See mannequins, think they're people, and then try to rescue them. BOOM! Then you're less likely to rescue the next boat you see carrying actual refugees. And that would get NATO more bad press, although the bad press it got for not having rescued a few shiploads of refugees seems to have sunk to the bottom of the ocean faster than the refugees' corpses.

In other words, the spin that the NATO folk put on the dinghy incident is too ludicrous to be believed except by those who really, really want to believe.

Now, the ships carrying aid apparently had armed soldiers on board. I have to wonder if they were actually naval vessels, even though we're also told that naval vessels can only have a military purpose, they can never have any humanitarian purpose. Even though naval vessels after the Indonesian tsunami were on the scene first, carrying humanitarian aid and medical staff, and later carried reconstruction supplies. But they were naval vessels.

I'd also note that the ships that NATO destroyed wasn't the kind of ship that the explosives and the mannequin was on. In other words, NATO said, "We have this threat posed by this kind of maritime vessel. To counter that threat, we will destroy an entirely different kind of vessel. We can use the dinghy as a pretext to destroy vessels that, so far, haven't done anything hostile or threatened any civilian. And since everybody really, really wants to believe us, nobody will question it."

I don't like Qaddhafi. Never have liked Qaddhafi. As a young Alex P. Keaton wannabe I disliked Qaddhafi (and Mugabe) the first time I heard anything about them, and never saw anything to alter my opinion about Qaddhafi (or Mugabe). But the way the information has been distorted and twisted in order to justify a bombing campaign for the sheer purpose of being on the right side of history; to avoid casting aspersions on the integrity of the rebels, who we didn't know and who have gone on record as having lied (and been forgiven at once); to make sure that small countries don't doubt the full meaning and weight of Obama's, Sarkozy's, and Cameron's speech when they say "jump!" is more than I can stomach.

[joshcryer]

17. Yes, NATO has been reluctant to stop aid shipments with rebels on board.

They know that's happening, and yes they should stop it, however, we see how Misrata is fairing after the siege and all in all I consider it a good thing that the rebels were allowed to get in. Since most of the refugees went to Benghazi NATO probably considered it an even trade, let rebels in to fight in Misrata, refugees get protected in Benghazi. It's fairly impossible to stop aid ships with rebels.

But I completely disagree with your characterization of the dummies, it falls in line with Gaddafi's force on the port of Misrata.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. Trick question: The rebels will not win

If they celebrate in Tripoli, it's because NATO won their war.

The rebels are and have been militarily incompetent, untrained, uncoordinated. They are enthusiastic amateurs who would get creamed in any real fight with Qaddafi's forces. They march into an area cleared by NATO air power, and pose as victors.

If the rebels "win", NATO will be stuck, protecting them from other more organized groups who would steal their lunch money.

:hi:

[Fool Count]

11. Exactly. There is no way in hell the rebels would take Tripoli

without help from NATO ground troops. And even if they did, there is no way in hell they would hold on
to power for more than 48 hours without a full scale NATO occupation of Libya. Not only are they incompetent,
untrained and uncoordinated, they are also too few and lacking sufficient popular support to rule the country
on their own. Outright rebel victory cannot realistically be the endgame NATO is looking for in Libya. Other
than partitioning the country, the best NATO could hope for is for Qaddafi family to abdicate and leave the country
opening up an opportunity for some kind of arrangement between the remaining loyalist forces in Tripoli and
the rebels in Benghazi, with some sort of new federalist constitution (think Bosnia) and democratic elections
under UN supervision. In reality this solution could even be implemented with Qaddafi still in power in the West.
His departure is only needed to save NATO's face. Bombing the hell out of civilian infrastructure is just NATO's
way of convincing Qaddafi "to do the right thing" for the sake of his country and spare his citizens more NATO-
inflicted death and misery.

[joshcryer]

18. Good.

[dipsydoodle]

10. So that whatever the ourcome

someone can sell them new ones. Same applies to the planes. :sarcasm:

[laundry_queen]

15. I think this is why...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/12/canadian-sailors-libya.html

[joshcryer]

20. Easy answer: running out of targets. Hard answer: to stop any potential seiges of Misrata.

Both are the right answer.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Recommend. Thanks to EFerrari.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[reggie the dog]

12. to think, i was swiming in the same sea just yesterday

but on its north side... it seemed so calm.

i saw high flying war planes going faster than sound today here in the extreme southeast of france, they were heading south east out to sea....

[al bupp]

14. Twitter report from Tripoli

#Tripoli call: "Spoke to one Navy General, He said the night the Navy base got bombed by Nato, The Navy Soldiers were all celebrating from joy, crying and clapping from joy. The Way they got hit too was just too perfect and on target. no one got hurt. no injured no harm at all. Some of the soldiers got in trouble for celebrating but they all ok"

http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/Libya17Feb/~OZ7kD

[makhno]

16. Too perfect ...

... sums up "revolutionary youth" tweets from a country with supposed communications controls pretty well.

Perfect, maybe a tad too much.

[joshcryer]

19. It's been two months, now communications are getting out and they are reasonably accurate.

Obviously the mainstream media is reluctant to confirm the reports or even report on them because they get kicked out of Rixos as soom as they do.