NATO is still trying to come to terms with the 72 civilians it killed last year in the Libyan Civil War, having come full circle from a blanket denial that it ever happened to now insisting that the attacks were all against “military targets.”
NATO has come under enormous criticism for stonewalling the investigations into the deaths, and for refusing to provide any reason why they were bombing civilian neighborhoods, in some cases seemingly at random. Confidential reports showed that NATO often had no idea what they were bombing.
Today’s comments don’t attempt to explain how blocks of civilian homes were “military targets,” but simply wave away the concern by declaring it as a fact, and then insisting that NATO “did everything possible to minimize risks to civilians.”
Human Rights Watch actually credited NATO for its efforts to “minimize” the number of civilians it killed in the attacks, but said that at some point NATO really ought to launch an actual investigation of the killings to explain how they happened. NATO has repeatedly refused to investigate the deaths.
I view this 'fake' "issue" as absurdity on top of absurdity…
Yes… I do think that it should be investigated why 'NATO' was bombing targets that didn't even meet their (NATO's self-defined) already flawed and ambiguous/conveniently flexible 'criteria' of a "military target" to begin with…
Some of that aside for the moment: I do find it interesting what seems to count as actual "civilian deaths" caused by NATO is 'convenient' (to say the least) in the first place.
Hypothetically, let's say: 'NATO' fired 100 or so strike sorties into the New Orleans levees…. If the actual explosions/blasts of the "shorties" colliding with the levees don't directly kill anyone, then there are no (0–ZERO) "civilian casualties and/or deaths" caused by the NATO 'strikes'–at least as far as "civilian casualties/deaths" seem to be counted and defined by "NATO" at present…even if the subsequent flooding kills 50,000 or so "innocent civilians"… the "count" is still 0–zero. This is convenient indeed….and complete crap…
I do want to mention that it is apparently now "illegal" to say anything positive reminiscent of the "Gaddafi" regime, which HRW has also mentioned recently, so this is obviously proof positive of a step forward in the direction of "freedom"; if not, at the very least. a step 'forward' in the direction of "freedom of speech"…
Also, an individual who is more or less unaffiliated with the larger conflict in general, and simply protecting his family and private property seems to not fall into the "civilian" category by "NATO" standards… This is perfectly 'understandable'…
In the end: I wouldn't be surprised if this entire 'fake' "issue" is concluded by both parties ('HRW' and 'NATO') "agreeing to disagree", with a side note everyone "agrees" doing 'nothing' (NATO that is) in Libya would have caused more than 72 "civilian deaths"…so this is a "fake/non-issue" anyway…and nothing to be 'concerned' about…
as I can remember this was one episode in one day of the heavy bombing wich last more than 2 months – the number of civilian deaths is far higher.
72? NATO and it´s mercenaries turned every town held by the occupation resistance and the popular "regime" into rubble, flattened it out with atomic waste and it struggles with an insane figure nowhere near the tens of thousands directly killed by its bombs. Murderers!
Regarding the horrific count of civillian deaths, NATO became a criminal accomplice to the US/Israel illegal assault on Libya with the indifferent expectation of a psychopath.
I am sure the back door investigation will determine that we got the gold so why is there a problem with 72 dead? They probably would have been suicide bombers so we got them first. Hey we are NATO AKA old colonial power and we have been keeping the middle east in peace of over 100 years. Some would not agree but hey it is NATO who answers to only a higher authority: Israel
Where is the mention of the town of Tawergha that was home to 40,000 to 41,000 civilians?
NATO helped the insurgents of Misrata take the city around August 2011. NATO helped these insurgents despite an insurgent leader saying that there will no longer be Tawergha. Will NATO be held accountable for providing support to a group that threaten to commit ethnic cleansing and (who with NATO's air support) committed ethnic cleaning (or should it be called genocide?)?
‘NATO defends civilian death’ is a lot better than their original position of denying it outright. It’s one step in the right direction. Various sources talk about thousands killed. Let’s get NATO’s tally now that they have accepted guilt.