China preventing UN action on Libya

JustForLaughs said:

it was a vote. a lot of people had a chance to oppose. it was 10 for, 5 abstain if i recall correctly. this title is retarded.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

What is France worthy of? Russia dared the US over Georgia. PRC dared the US over Taiwan. France has dared whom? ..... Gaddafi [cough cough]. Indeed, Monsieur Sarkozy is the bravest of the brave.

Fortunately, not everyone thinks like Monsieur Sarkozy. He has his own agenda. He wants to be the leader of Europe and grab Libya's oil. This has got absolutely nothing to do with 'saving civilian lives'. In the process of saving a bunch civilians, Sarkozy has managed to kill a bunch of civilians (see quote below), with its 'super accurate' cruise missiles and what not.

Contrary to what you would have us believe, the stand of India, Russia, PRC, Germany and Brazil has been principled. Both sides are armed, thus, cannot take sides. Period. However it takes a while for some to realise this reality.

Click to expand...

Armand2REP said:

While Gaddafi went to cause a "bloodbath" in Benghazi... France had the fortitude to stop it. No civilians dead here, just Gaddafi goons.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Action against Libya begins


Reuters reports that pro-Gaddafi people in Libya are forming human shields despite British PM Cameron's claims that UK's actions are to protect the Libyan people. Libyan TV, says Reuters, showed ambulances carrying victims of this US-Anglo-French invasion. If true, this again vindicates the stand taken by India, Russia, PRC, Germany and Brazil.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Not really. This thread was started before the UNSC vote. It is speculative. So take it easy buddy.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Yes, Gaddafi wanted to do bloodbath in Benghazi and he should have been stopped. The problem I have with this entire thing is that the ceasefire applies only to the pro-Gaddafi forces, when in reality both the sides are armed. Last time I checked Reuters, civilians died due to French air-strikes (I have already posted that news). So when you are saying that no civilians died, I will need to verify the authenticity of that claim. I understand where you are coming from and you want to defend everything France does. Unfortunately for you, the Russia, PRC, India, Germany and Brazil are not seeking to control Libyan oil, so not everyone will agree with your claims.

Click to expand...

Armand2REP said:

That is the caveat of the UN resolution now isn't it. Gaddafi is the bad guy and the rebels are the good guys. That is how France put it and the UNSC accepted it. They had their chance to vote against it so India, Russia, Germany, China, and Brazil all have that to live with their abstention.

Click to expand...

Armand2REP said:

Last time you checked Reuters you must not have checked it well. France attacked the convoy which was on a clear stretch of road and a SAM site at Taruja which is well outside of Tripoli. It is US cruise missiles that were fired at heavily populated areas. I wouldn't be relying on reports from Libyan state TV for a source.

Click to expand...

The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the bombardment.

"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.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Now tell me, you wouldn't trust BBC or the Arab League Secretary General as a source of information, rather everyone should take everything you say as God's truth.

Click to expand...

Armand2REP said:

They are regurgitating Libyan state TV figures hence my point. The French attack on the convoy killed 95 people which is just as many as Gaddafi claims civilians killed. So for him, his troops are civilians.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Just as I expected. Unlike you, BBC isn't deluded and neither is the Arab League, which initially supported the no-fly zone.

Also, Gaddafi has opened his arms depots for the people. So yes, many of pro-Gaddafi fighters are indeed civilians, albeit armed, just like many among the rebels are armed civilians. There are plenty of pictures all over this thread and other threads to prove that, but feel free to counter that with your unsupported claims.

Click to expand...

amitkriit said:

Might is right, USA and allies will kill, while rest of the world will keep watching. There is no point in talking morality.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Thanks Amit.

If you see some of the debates that I have been in in the past couple of days, you will see many people argue without any credible evidence. Check post #271 here: http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?p=249985#post249985

Fun stuff!

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Just as I expected. Unlike you, BBC isn't deluded and neither is the Arab League, which initially supported the no-fly zone.

Click to expand...

Also, Gaddafi has opened his arms depots for the people. So yes, many of pro-Gaddafi fighters are indeed civilians, albeit armed, just like many among the rebels are armed civilians. There are plenty of pictures all over this thread and other threads to prove that, but feel free to counter that with your unsupported claims.

Click to expand...

Armand2REP said:

When BBC quotes figures, they put "as reported by Libyan state television." There is no delusion as they give you the warning that it is bunk before hand. Arab League is sending fighters so they say one thing and support another. That is their politics.



French fighters are not bombing armed civilians with AKs. They are bombing tanks, artillery, mobile SAMs, rocket launchers, military supply vehicles... if people are stupid enough to hang around, that is their problem.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

Firstly, try to inculcate the habit of including links to back up your claims. Plenty of your claims have already been proven wrong and you know that.

Secondly, while I can accept that Libyan TV in itself might be biased, there is absolutely no reason to distrust BBC. While I can see that you are trying to skirt the issue of civilian deaths due to allied bombing, I will bring you back on track and say that it is the Arab league that said that the current attacks are not what this UN resolution was meant to be. Libyan TV has got nothing to do with this. There is no such thing as "as reported by Libyan state television." preceding or in the text I quoted from BBC. Arab League was not quoted by Libyan TV, but by BBC, the link of which I have provided, get that into your head before you come back with your juvenile arguments.

Click to expand...

amitkriit said:

They are in Libya to take out an anti-Nato, anti-USA guy and to install another puppet regime. Control over oil will be added bonus. All these talks about humanity and freedom are just for preparing the tax-payers for the upcoming war (not to convince them, because everything is preplanned). Many of the Arab League nations fighting for "Libyan People" on behalf of USA and allies will never ever give freedom to their own subjects.

As far as civilian deaths are concerned, perhaps USA and allies have killed more civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq than all local regimes/warlords/groups put together. Still nothing can touch them.

Click to expand...

Armand2REP said:

You posted a BBC link with civilian casualty figures? Where??

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

You are at post #195. Have you read post #187? Try not to jump in the middle, or else you will keep asking such questions.

P.S.: Go to the link and read it for yourself. I never claimed to have posted any numbers, and so 'civilian casualty figures' [sic.] is purely your invention.

Click to expand...

Last time I checked Reuters, civilians died due to French air-strikes (I have already posted that news).

Click to expand...

Armand2REP said:

Then what are you complaining about when it doesn't even list casualties? This whole thing is based on your statement...



No civilians died due to French air-strikes and you have nothing that says it was caused by France. Get over yourself.

Click to expand...

pmaitra said:

I referred to Reuters citing Libyan TV stating civilian casualties by the allied assault (this does not prove that French were not responsible for civilian deaths). You countered that by saying Libyan TV cannot be trusted. Hence, I gave you a link to BBC news with a quote from the Arab League. Proves my point of civilian casualties. Period.

Click to expand...