Bani Walid: NATO commits massacre in the name of democracy
Posted: 2011/09/15
From: Source
Commentary from Thomas Mathew
Thomas Mathew writes from London: "Pardon my French, but has NATO gone f..king nuts in Libya, whacking people in the name of democracy? We are now witnessing a massacre from the air in Bani Walid, with a population of 100,000 people.
The rebels had given the people in Bani Walid an ultimatum some time ago: surrender, or we move in. Obviously, no one had surrendered, simply because for them it would be like committing suicide. And now the rebels have started their assault, and the city's terrified population, the very one that NATO is supposed to protect, is now the target of bombings and shellings.
This is about as far from what the UN Security Council resolution on Libya has sanctioned as it gets. (By the way, don't you just love how that creep Ban Ki Moon and his sidekicks are keeping quiet about the mayhem in Libya?). Do you want me to remind you what UN resolution 1973 said? No, well I'll still do it, for the sake of proving that trigger happy NATO generals have lost their marbles completely, along with their political masters.
Here's what the UN document says, in its most relevant parts:
(The UN) Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.
The part about 'protecting civilians and civilian populated areas' doesn't mention any armed rebels or militias or anyone else involved in the fighting. And you probably also noticed the bit about 'excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory'.
But there's more. The resolution says in paragraph 13 that makes the current situation looking like it got out of control:
Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections.
So there you have it: all arms shipments to Libya are banned by the UN and no foreign troops are allowed on its soil. And yet, we are told by NATO, that as the resolution states that all necessary measures can be taken to protect the civilians, the rest is not really all that important. So arms are delivered to the rebels and NATO's special forces are operating on the ground in Libya. Not to mention that that the boys from CIA have been there for months.
And you know what else is important in the UN resolution 1973? It contains no mention of so-called regime change. None at all. Not a hint. It does mention 'facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution', yes. But not a word about 'regime change'.
So what we are seeing now is basically NATO doing whatever it pleases in Libya. So how's it 'better than Gaddafi'?"
