NATO acknowledges civilian casualties in Tripoli strike

[tabatha]

NATO acknowledges civilian casualties in Tripoli strike

Naples – NATO says that a military missile site was the intended target of air strikes in Tripoli last night. However, it appears that one weapon did not strike the intended target and that there may have been a weapons system failure which may have caused a number of civilian casualties.

“NATO regrets the loss of innocent civilian lives and takes great care in conducting strikes against a regime determined to use violence against its own citizens,” said Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, Commander of Operation Unified Protector. “Although we are still determining the specifics of this event, indications are that a weapons system failure may have caused this incident,” he added.

This campaign has conducted over 11,500 sorties and every mission is planned and executed with tremendous care to avoid civilian casualties. NATO remains fully committed to this operation.

NATO’s operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR is being conducted under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. This mandate authorizes NATO to use all necessary measures to protect the civilian population of Libya. The Qadhafi regime could stop all this fighting by complying with the international community’s demands.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_75639.htm

Feels a little like the Anthony Wiener story, where everyone had Breitbart wrong (because he's a bad guy) - but he was correct for once.

----------- At least there is this now on record:

libyanproud libyanandproud
ibyanproud libyanandproud
@jfjbowen even moussa Ibrahim admitted it was the first time civilians casualties by NATO ! We still appreciate NATO involvement


There are a few things to point out:

NATO
a) Has flown over 11,500 sorties
b) Even "Moussa Ibrahim admitted it was the first time civilians casualties by NATO"
c) It was an accident. Everything points to a weapons failure - no smoke, strange angle of entry. These were misconstrued as being something from Gaddafi.
d) NATO's actions have been to save civilian lives.

GADAFFI
a) Has INTENTIONALLY killed over 13,000 people and counting. (Does that include FFs and other deaths? - one does not know).
b) Gaddafi has not apologized for any deaths.
c) ALL of Gaddafi's actions have been to kill civilians (and others).

[Canuckistanian]

1. Yeah right

11,500 sorties. And all of the targets were PERFECTLY chosen. Only a few "missile failures" to spoil that PERFECT record.

Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

[tabatha]

2. Please provide proof of your assertions.

I think the left wing is supposed to deal in facts not wishful thinking.

You may have missed this:

"moussa Ibrahim admitted it was the first time civilians casualties by NATO"

You do know who Moussa Ibrahim is? He is the spokesperson of the Gaddafi regime, and if anyone would be happy to list NATO failures he would.

[Bosonic]

3. it was the first time civilians casualties by NATO ???

So what's this? chopped liver??

Libya: coalition air strike 'kills seven civilians'

Dr Suleiman Refardi said that the incident happened on Wednesday in the village of Zawia el Argobe, near Brega, when the air strike hit an ammunition truck in a pro-Gaddafi convoy and damaged two houses. According to the doctor, the dead were four girls aged between 12 and 16 and three youths aged between 14 and 20.

The doctor said that villagers considered the casualties a "sacrifice and a price worth paying" for stopping Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's troops from taking back rebel-held territory. Zawia el Argobe is nine miles from Brega, where rebels forces are massed.

MORE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8422271/Libya-coalition-air-strike-kills-seven-civilians.html

Annoyingly, you have already been told http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=995704&mesg_id=996092">this, and acknowledged it. Now it is conveniently forgotten...

[Distant Observer]

5. They only acknowledge the killings of civilians when it is overwhelmingly obvious

[Distant Observer]

4. In every one of these Air campaigns the claim of "precision strikes" has been found false

And of course the self-righteous killers from afar are always demanding proof from the people they are bombing that civilians REALLY are being killed.

It is monstrous.

Somehow it is moral if the all powerful, all righteous Westerner kills people in mass, as long as the long distance killing is focused on poor soldiers who have already been denied any capability of defending themselves and are sitting like fish in a barrel at the mercy of Western missiles.

[Distant Observer]

6. Start a war and then blame the victim for the killings -- N. America, S. America, Africa, Australia

.. etc etc.

The list goes on of the continents and peoples that Europeans have decimated while continuously asserting self-righteousness. And it goes on and on. It is always the enemy who is responsible for the deaths even as they are being massacred by overwhelmingly superior arms.

Keep it up. It is so beautiful.

[lib2DaBone]

7. CBS Radio News had sound Bite from British NATO Commander....

..He said: "Yes.. we made a mistake. We did kill women and children. We are not perfect.. we do make mistakes.. so sorry".

Killing women and children is just a little "oopsie". And to think that this only costs U.S,. Taxpayers $700 Million per day. What a bargain!

[Prometheus Bound]

8. May 31: Spokesman Moussa Ibrahim says 718 civilians killed, 4067 wounded, 433 seriously..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13611132

Therefore, NATO item (b) in the OP appears to be nonsense, posted with no link.

[Distant Observer]

9. Oh No! We always tell the truth. The enemy always lies -- unless they go in the middle of the bombs

to prove otherwise.

Just ask the Vietnamese, the Iraqi's, the native Americans, the Australian Aborigines . .

[Igel]

10. The J Bowen blip seems to have vanished.

I'd note that a lot of the twitter chatter (as well as other bloggy sources) cited all kinds of 'proof' that the casualties

a. never happened because the building could not have been inhabited, therefore wasn't inhabited;

b. was "friendly fire" by Qaddhafi forces, either because of eyewitnesses that saw the missile or because the souk involved was a hot-bed of anti-Qaddhafi activity (employing the ever-reliable "cui bono?" strategy).

Both lines of ersatz reasoning cited incontrovertible--mostly because anybody who'd try to controvert it would be disgraced, shamed, and run out of town on a rail--evidence that was fairly quickly proven utterly false.

Your points under "GADDAFI" are a bit strange.

(a), the number of deaths seem to be the total death count, making a number of assumptions that are just that and relying crucially on the utter reliability of the "rebels."

(b) No, Gaddhafi hasn't apologized for any deaths. As far as he's concerned, if not for the uprising there'd be no fighting, so the entire responsibility are on those who changed the status quo.

(c) The terminology makes any kind of reasoning impossible: Either we say "civilians and others", which may mean no civilians and lots of others (or lots of civilians and no other), or we define civilians to include those armed, uniformed, organized civilians fighting under organized military command in civilian offensive operations. By that token, we sent an extra 100k civilian fighters to Afghanistan as part of the surge, and defeated Hitler with a civilian force. Not that the newspapers are very clear to say "Gaddfhai-allied forces" because a lot of the "forces" that NATO's been bombing are paramilitary; in a world that must be starkly military (narrowly defined) or civilian, paramilitaries are civilian. At least as civilian as the rebels' forces. This means that NATO has only engaged in actions to target civilians and others. (Clean up the terminology and things don't get any better.)