War in Cities: NATO Slams Libya Forces for Being Inconvenient to Bomb
Allegations of 'Human Shields' Based on Clashes Being Inside Cities
Libya is geographically a very large nation, with more territory than Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam combined. At the same time, it is a comparatively compact nation, with the population clustered along the coast and mostly in major cities.
This has left NATO in an awkward position in its efforts to bomb Gadhafian military forces engaged in combat, as with the two sides fighting over a handful of disputed cities, those forces are inevitably near large populations of civilians. Which has led to NATO charging that the military is deliberately using “human shields” in the war.
The complaints however, center around Gadhafi’s tanks in Misrata being “dispersed” across the city and inside the city, where the fighting is and where the population is. Though the allegation of human shields sounds dramatic, all it really means is that NATO is mad the tanks aren’t all clustered together in the desert, making them sitting ducks for air strikes.
This has made the Libyan rebels angry, because NATO is reluctant to carpet bomb cities on their behalf. Whether the NATO grousing is an attempt to explain the complaints or to prepare the public for impending civilian killings, however, remains to be seen.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Centrifuge Glitch Fuels Latest Iran Scare Stories - May 25th, 2012
- Iraq MPs Push Return to Saddam-Era Conscription Laws - May 25th, 2012
- US Negotiator on Iran to 'Reaffirm Our Unshakeable Commitment to Israel' - May 25th, 2012
- UN: Syria Bombings Likely by 'Established Terrorist Groups' - May 25th, 2012
- Military to Avoid Embarrassing Pictures by Banning Photography - May 25th, 2012
JLS
April 6th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
"Though the allegation of human shields sounds dramatic, all it really means is that NATO is mad the tanks aren’t all clustered together in the desert, making them sitting ducks for air strikes."
Lines like this are why you are the freakin' man Jason!
Robert Shule
April 7th, 2011 at 12:05 am
U.S. allied air forces have always been out bombing civilian populations in attempts to justify themselves ever since world war II since air forces were created. Time and time again in the past as is now in Libya, as was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam, Germany, etc. etc. it has only been demonstrated that air power bombing doesn't really work. Having a large bombing air force has always been a sham construed mainly by large defense corporations for the purposes of selling large expensive weapon systems to governments. Drones, bombers, air craft carriers, missile systems kill a lot of people, but don't provide much actual battle force value.
Joseph Zrnchik
April 7th, 2011 at 2:30 am
So now NATO is going to slaughter the civilians they are trying to save from Gadaffi!
End the warfare/welfare state.
Day of Rage in Washington D.C. on 6/30/11 http://beforeitsnews.com/story/462/358/Day_of_Rag…
The American Revolution Has Begun http://beforeitsnews.com/story/499/546/The_Americ…
Spartacus1583
April 7th, 2011 at 10:46 am
All modern warfare "warriors" are cowards, especially the brave, brave American soldiers. They fired over 100,000 rounds per "insurgent" killed. And if they get any real fire returned they just cry and call in the helicopters and launch missiles that destroys everything around, the "collateral damage". Our military has 60 ton tanks against 1985 Toyota pickup trucks with a machine gun in the back. But out brave brave soldiers give the old " OO-Rah" crap like their fighting German Panzer tanks. And then we have the biggest coward no honor weasels around. That would be the pilots of the DRONES. You want to be a real man go get a sword and shield and go fight like a man.
thedissenter
April 7th, 2011 at 11:50 am
NATO a/k/a the US reluctant to carpet bomb? Wow! That's a first.
John_Muhammad
April 7th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
And Stalin ordered that no civilians were to be allowed to evacuate from Stalingrad, on the grounds that the Red Army would fight harder knowing it was defending women and children. Yet Stalin wasn't accused of using them as 'human shields' and he went on to hand the Germans one of their worst defeats of WW2.
'Human shields' or 'collateral damage'? Either way, Little Suzy grows up missing an arm or a leg, and Little Timmy grows up thinking of nothing but the day when he'll big enough to hold an AK and get some payback. What about Mommy or Daddy? Well, kids, they just might not be home tonight- you know how hard it is to distinguish a terrorist from a couple shopping in the market in broad daylight, and those drone-launched missiles are awfully hard to recall once they're fired.
John_Muhammad
April 7th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
My solution to war is this: Designate a spot on the earth as the Designated Battle Zone, available to all who want to go to war. Each nation sends its army there and lines up on each side of the field. No weapons except for knives. Then each side strips- bare naked- no uniforms, nothing to identify who The Bad Guy is. Then blow the whistle and let them have at it.
Now, how brave do you think those soldiers are going to be when they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in order to kill the enemy- or even survive- they are going to have to get IN THAT GUY'S FACE and kill him before he does the same to them? How brave are they going to be when they know they are very likely to come off the field- if at all- with horrible wounds?
At the very most advanced, arm each side with smoothbore Brown Bess muskets and line them up to maneuver and bang away at each other in good old 18th century style.
Either way, the point is that you SEE the men you are fighting and you have to have the nerve to stand your ground and actually go at it with him- they're not just some dot on a screen to be eliminated.
David
April 7th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Didn't the British make the same complaint during the American Revolution? The colonists were hiding behind trees and shooting at the British troops instead of standing out in the open. It just wasn't fair!