SA calls for immediate ceasefire in Libya.

So it is fine to kill some civilians because qaddafi is doing it?

Eish

Seems reasonable i guess.

May 2011NATO air strikes have killed at least 52 Afghans over the past 24 hours, including 32 civilians and 20 members of the police.
Libyan state television reported that Nato air strikes killed 13 people in

So they have killed roughly 70 odd innocents in the last 3 days. How many civilians have terorists killed in the last 3 days? I guess if they have killed as many then it is fine.
 
Last edited:
President Jacob Zuma's talks in Tripoli failed to advance an African Union peace plan.
Click to expand...

As if that numbnut would've achieved anything. Was just window dressing.
"Eish I tried. Now let's stop at KFC on our way back."
 
killadoob said:
I wonder if all those civilians nato killed could be considered a war crime? Not to mention all those rebels they killed as well by mistake as usual. Killing innocent people is fine as long as you do it by mistake it seems :D

O shyte we just killed 13 of the rebels!!!!!!!
O shyte bomb gone wrong 13 civilians dead!!!!

Don't worry chaps it was an accident now get your bombs ready for another possible mistake!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Armies kill their own forces/civilians quite often. I guess that means they are intentionally trying to destroy themselves, using an incredibly indirect and retarded method, couldn't just be an accident.
 
killadoob said:
So it is fine to kill some civilians because qaddafi is doing it?
Click to expand...

You seem to have some struggle with understanding the two concepts "deliberate" versus "accidental"
"tens" versus "thousands"
No matter though, you seem to struggle with a lot of these concepts. :rolleyes:
 
Garyvdh said:
You seem to have some struggle with understanding the two concepts "deliberate" versus "accidental"
"tens" versus "thousands"
No matter though, you seem to struggle with a lot of these concepts. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The concept is fairly simple:

We will drop these bombs and yes there is a very good chance innocents will die but we can call it a mistake and it will be acceptable.

I have not missed that concept, i just don't agree with killing innocent civilians because you can claim it was an accident.
 
Garyvdh said:
Ja, let's focus on the handful of accidental killings rather than the thousands murdered deliberately by this crackpot.

Brilliant thinking there. :rolleyes: And typical diversionary attempt to deflect from the real issue.

I guess you will also be advocating that leave Ratko Mladic alone as well. I mean he only murdered about 8000 Muslims in Serbia. Nothing to worry about, right?
Click to expand...

So is this supposed to be some kind of revenge killings? Why is Gadaffi himself not dead yet??
 
killadoob said:
I wonder if all those civilians nato killed could be considered a war crime? Not to mention all those rebels they killed as well by mistake as usual. Killing innocent people is fine as long as you do it by mistake it seems :D

O shyte we just killed 13 of the rebels!!!!!!!
O shyte bomb gone wrong 13 civilians dead!!!!

Don't worry chaps it was an accident now get your bombs ready for another possible mistake!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, let rather sit back and wait for Gaddafi to kill all the civilians, much easier:erm:
 
People seem to operate on logical fallacies in MyBB.

Scenario: Hero vows to defeat villain in war, during said war, one civilian is killed, hero is now also a villain.
 
boramk said:
People seem to operate on logical fallacies in MyBB.

Scenario: Hero vows to defeat villain in war, during said war, one civilian is killed, hero is now also a villain.
Click to expand...

Well if he knowingly killed a civilian to get to the villain then surely the hero is on the same level as the villain and not a hero at all.
 
boramk said:
I'm sure NATO knowingly killed civilians :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When you drop a bomb close to civilians i think it is fairly obvious what could happen. When you night raid a place i think again it's fairly obvious there will be civilian casualties but this is fine because they are better than innocent killing qaddafi. He has killed so many so a few innocents here or there is not a big deal, qaddafi is doing it so it should be fine. You cannot avoid civilian deaths when you drop a bomb in a civilian area which would have to mean you knew the bomb could kill civilians.
 
boramk said:
I'm sure NATO knowingly killed civilians :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What the trolls are inferring is that NATO wilfully and deliberately targeted civilians, just like their hero brother leader Gadhafi.

Wonder why the ANC goons don't use the same 'quiet diplomacy' Zim approach in this case, because Gadhafi bought them.
 
I'm sorry killa, where you there?
Do you have the intel?
Do you know the top guy who made the order?

Name me a war where civilians weren't killed.
 
e reiterate our call for immediate ceasefire that is verifiable and encourage the warring parties to begin a dialogue to a democratic transition,...
We strongly still believe that there is no solution for the Libyan problem that will come militarily but only with political dialogue," she added.
Click to expand...

I agree here, military regime change has never worked and generally leads to continuing conflict.
 
boramk said:
I'm sorry killa, where you there?
Do you have the intel?
Do you know the top guy who made the order?

Name me a war where civilians weren't killed.
Click to expand...

Yet you say qaddafi is bad for killing civilians but not nato. Seems a bit unfair to me that qaddafi can't kill civilians because as you rightly point out civilians die during war but nato can kill civilians.

How come nato and the US can kill civilians but qaddafi cannot?

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/201134161217430734.html

That is fine right because it's war?

I would imagine if qaddafi was attacking the rebels and 50 civilians got nailed you guys would be up in arms about him killing civilians. Let nato do it and well that is acceptable.
 
killadoob said:
Yet you say qaddafi is bad for killing civilians but not nato. Seems a bit unfair to me that qaddafi can't kill civilians because as you rightly point out civilians die during war but nato can kill civilians.
Click to expand...

What a simplistic view, everyone but you seems to know that Qaddafi targeted his own people including civilians by the hundreds by bombarding complete towns to waste whereas the NATO forces do not do the same. I presume not everyone keeps abreast of the real facts, only what suits them, so some conveniently forgot what the freak did and why this war started.
 
Fail.

What is NATO's aim?
What is Gadaffi's aim?

Oh wait, you'd prefer if NATO didn't get involved at all and have Gadaffi slaughter everyone in rebel cities. I'm sure Italy and France and Spain are also cool with the deluge of refugees coming in.
 
boramk said:
Fail.

What is NATO's aim?
What is Gadaffi's aim?

Oh wait, you'd prefer if NATO didn't get involved at all and have Gadaffi slaughter everyone in rebel cities. I'm sure Italy and France and Spain are also cool with the deluge of refugees coming in.
Click to expand...

You are right mega qaddafi was killing civilians because he never knew who was a rebel, so he killed everyone. That is how war works. Remember in vietnam the US army would destroy entire villages to get the bad guys. War bud it just depends on your view as to whether that is fine or not.

Borak good question bud:

What is the nato's aim? What exactly apart from civil war have they achieved with this bombing?

http://rt.com/news/gaddafi-peace-opposition-zuma/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X