Sunday, 1 May 2011

A Bad Precedent

The killing of Gadaffis son and grandchildren in the attack on their Tripoli home compound by NATO is not just a war crime, it is a precedent that threatens a new form of warfare.

To designate a house filled with children as a 'Command and Control Centre' because a politician lives in that property, and then too bomb it with jet fighters and kill children living in that house whilst targeting that political leader, means that the definition of a civilian and military target have now been merged.

That is a dangerous precedent, for it is the same sort of perverted logic as that used by Islamist terrorists - for they too see no difference between civilian and military targets.

Whatever politicians and generals ordered and authorised the bombing of Gaddafis home compound will now be liable for prosecution in the International Criminal Court - and rightfully so.

The UN resolution did not authorise attacks on civilian properties, it authorises attacks only on military targets.

Home compounds are not 'command and control centres' - any more than David Camerons house is a 'command and control centre' just because he may have a mobile phone, land line and lap top in that house.

These are targeted assassinations - they are illegal.

Add to Technorati Favorites


ulsterpatriot said...

Absolutely spot on mate. I'm no fan of Gaddafi but this is clearly a political assassination attempt. Gaddafi refused to be swayed by international interfering in his Country's affairs so now his entire family have become ligitimate targets. Bloody disgrace. Russia normally call these things right. It will be interesting to hear their take on this.

Adrian P said...

I'm sure this has gone on before too, in Iraq, well we know it has, look at the apache helicopter cockpit vids released where Gung Ho crews simply blast away at any one.
The attitude of some in the armed forces appears to be, these are third worlders, they don't matter.
This is why National survival and defence is so important, when it comes down to it, it is a very cruel world, I could write a book about what has happened to me, the world is so corrupt, with everyone taking advantage, the rule of law is paramount, there are minimum standards that all must obey otherwise it all falls apart and our so called human evolution over the millenia is worthless.
I find it hard to believe this is Great Britain in the 21st Century.
We have effectively taken sides here, this is not a humanitarian protection, we have taken sides and we are involved in yet another agressive war against a relatively minor nation, I note we are not attacking China or Russia.
Our world has been taken over by murderous, souless, monsters, trouble is, while most might say this is wrong, they cannot do this my answer is why not, what are YOU going to do about it.
They can do what they like because without a general strike, without at least a million people on the streets, they can do what they like.
This is why, I wonder if it might not be possible for Natonalist groups to take the innitiative and contact all the disparate groups out there like the stop the war coalition, no2id lawful rebellion and say, where you have a demo or an action, nationalists will add to your numbers attending only as ordinary members of the public, otherwise we have groups like the stop the wars coalition organising petitions, protests etc for a noble cause but are too few in number to be effective.

If this was an RAF Mission, then for the first time I say, shame on you guys.

Adrian said...

Allied war crimes


General Patton

Anonymous said...

yet the British government expelled the Libyan ambassador to the UK because the Libyan government "had failed to protect national embassies" after attacks by Libyan Gadaffi supporters.
Therefore the UK government inadvertently does recognise that Gadaffi is the legitimate ruler of Libya.
How is it that Britain and NATO can slaughter little kids in their homes as a legitimate military target, bomb kids school for the disabled and bomb other civilian infrastructures and still be seen as the good guys and not brought before the UN. Yet Gadaffi's forces are fighting jihadists who are fighting to overthrow the legitimate Gadaffi regime. The same libyan rebel jihadists who HAVE fought US troops in Iraq and have fought the Algerian government.
And we are helping the jihadists, we are aiding and abetting jihadists, Islamic extremists by paying our taxes and supporting this war by voting in the big 3.
I hope that somehow Gadaffi clings to power and gets the support of China and Russia to defend Libya and so ends NATO/NAZI's imperialist expansionism.

Anonymous said...

the UN/NWO etal are killers.

and mean while look osma bid laden as been announced Dead er yeterday..

Oh ho convienient for king o bom ya...hes just kicking off his re election campaign post 'his' birth certficate last week

Anonymous said...

Substitute 'Libya' for 'Germany', and 'second' for 'third':-

"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."
- Winston Churchill

gatesofvienna said...

Agree it fills me with shame!!
Soldiers of the NWO don't get my support anymore.

The world has accepted it without realizing the implications if the war against Gaddafi’s Libya is allowed to succeed in forced regime change. At issue is not whether or not Gaddafi is good or evil.

The Libya campaign represents the attempt to force application of a dangerous new concept into the norms of accepted international law.

In effect, via the instrument of a controlled NATO propaganda barrage, the US government with no verifiable proof claimed Gaddafi's air force slaughtered innocent civilians. That in turn has been the basis on which Amr Moussa and members of the Arab League bowed down before heavy Washington pressure to give Washington and London the quasi-legal fig leaf it needed. That unproven slaughter of allegedly innocent civilians was why a "humanitarian" war was necessary. On that basis, we might ask why not put a no-fly NATO bombardment operation as well on Bahrain, or Yemen, or Syria? Who decides the criteria in this new terrain of Responsibility to Protect?

There has been no serious effort on the side of Washington or London or Paris to negotiate a ceasefire inside Libya, no effort to find a compromise as in other countries. This is the marvelous flexibility of the new doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. Washington gets to define who is responsible for what. National sovereignty becomes a relic.

Back in 2004 George Soros authored a little-noted article in Foreign Policy magazine on the notion of national sovereignty. He wrote,

"Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times when society consisted of rulers and subjects, not citizens. It became the cornerstone of international relations with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648...Today, though not all nation-states are democratically accountable to their citizens, the principle of sovereignty stands in the way of outside intervention in the internal affairs of nation-states. But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments. If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified." 5

Responsibility to Protect

The coup represented by the NATO intervention into events in Libya has been years in assiduous preparation. The first to publicize the concept, “The Responsibility to Protect,” was Gareth Evans, a former Australian Foreign Minister and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

In 2002, one year before the illegal US-UK aggression against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Evans published a seminal paper in Foreign Affairs, the elite foreign policy journal of the New York Council on Foreign Relations.6

In his article Evans called for the debate on whether or not to intervene into a given country on human rights grounds, even if the events are strictly internal to that country, to be "reframed not as an argument about the 'right to intervene' but about the 'responsibility to protect.' "7

That clever linguistic "reframing" created a necessary blurring of lines of the original UN Charter Principle of sovereign equality of states, of Article 2, Section 1 of the Charter.


Our constitution clearly forbids' our attacking a country when it has not attacked Britain.

Now they ignore that too!