Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Bombing Civilians to Protect them from Bombing

June 1, 2011

The following are a few notable excerpts from a great Canadian article, questioning that nation's continuing role in a "hypocritical" war against Libya.

Time to rethink Canadian involvement in ill-fated Libyan venture
Mon, May 30 - 9:04 PM

During his visit last week to London, President Barack Obama took the opportunity to assert America’s commitment to deposing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. This came in the wake of stepped-up NATO airstrikes in Tripoli that had reportedly killed another 19 civilians inside Gadhafi’s targeted presidential compound.

"Gadhafi and his regime need to understand that there will not be a letup in the pressure we are applying," said Obama. "Ultimately this is going to be a slow, steady process in which we are able to wear down the regime."

...NATO agreed to enforce the "UN Resolution ban on all flights, except for humanitarian aid purposes, in Libyan airspace to make sure that civilians and civilian-populated areas cannot be subjected to air attack." For the record, the previously quoted passage is taken right from the NATO website outlining the current Operation Unified Protector mandate.

So in a twist of logic eerily reminiscent of the famous American Vietnam War quote "We had to destroy the village in order to save it," NATO is launching stepped-up airstrikes against Libyan civilian populated areas in order to protect them from airstrikes. The battlefield tactical confusion of this intervention is mirrored by the complete lack of strategic cohesion on the part of the NATO military alliance.

Considering also the evidence for airstrikes against civilians ever occurring or even being ordered are on Twitter rumors and the word of a few defecting pilots. The threat we're blowing Libya to hell over was a phantom one to begin with.

Adding to the hypocrisy of the NATO position is that, while member nations such as Canada are providing warships to enforce the arms embargo against Libya, the U.S., the United Kingdom, France and Italy are openly increasing their provision of weapons and advisers to the rebel forces.

There is now discussion of both the U.S. and U.K. adding helicopter gunships to support the rebels and to enforce the authorized no-fly zone over Libya. For our part, Canada announced last week that our air force has so far dropped more than 240 laser-guided bombs on Libyan targets in order to protect Libyans from airstrikes.


  1. My country the UK this is a war crime.

  2. This is the one comment (I think) that I never came back and responded to. Ursula is right - all they can do is keeping saying "well, it's Gaddafi's fault, not ours. If he'd just surrendered when the yahoos first started taking over for us, we wouldn't have to bomb command and control, communications, intel, oil, money, food, the future...

    So anyway, I usually respond to comments, so keep 'em coming!


Comments welcome. Stay civil and on or near-topic. If you're at all stumped about how to comment, please see this post.