40 civilians dead in Tripoli strikes-Vatican official

[Bosonic]

Source: Reuters

ROME, March 31 (Reuters) - At least 40 civilians have been killed in air strikes by Western forces on Tripoli, the top Vatican official in the Libyan capital told a Catholic news agency on Thursday, quoting witnesses.

Read more: http://af.reuters.com/article/algeriaNews/idAFLDE72U12E20110331

[pampango]

1. Actually a balanced report from the Vatican rep. - Thanks.

"It's true that the bombardments seem pretty much on target, but it is also true that when they hit military targets, which are in the middle of civilian neighbourhoods, the population is also involved," Martinelli said.

"Yesterday I said that bombardments had hit, albeit indirectly, some hospitals. To be precise, one of these hospitals is in Mizda," he said, mentioning a town about 145 km (90 miles) southwest of the capital.

Martinelli said living conditions in the Libyan capital were getting more difficult by the day, while on the ground a military stalemate appeared to be taking hold.

"That is why I say that a diplomatic solution is the principal way to put an end to the spilling of blood among Libyans, offering Gaddafi a dignified exit," he said."

[David__77]

5. Wow so he's saying they're bombing civilian neighborhoods?

Right in the middle of them... shameful.

[pampango]

10. Probably why the safest place to put your tank or artillery is next to an apartment

building, a school or a hospital.

I have an opinion as to which side tries to avoid civilian casualties more than the other, but neither side does as well as it should.

[David__77]

14. To me, it doesn't matter so much which side is doing a better job.

I'm a US citizen, and I believe my responsibility is to oppose US crimes abroad. I don't think the US (and we don't know if this was a US bombing - but it was at least bound up with the US-led NATO) should be excusing itself by pointing to others. For a number of reasons, I oppose US intervention in Libya. The Gaddafi will subsume its military forces and assets in civilian areas as much as possible to shield them from air strikes, of course. The relevant question for NATO military planners is to decide to what extent they should risk Libyan civilian losses. I say that any risk is too much risk.

[pampango]

18. I agree with you. The risk involved in striking military targets (even accurately) in civilian areas

is too great. That is why I said that NATO should do a better job and avoid. It may be frustrating for NATO to have to avoid military targets placed in civilian areas but, as you indicate, those should be the "rules of war" that NATO follows whether the other side does or not.

[joshcryer]

20. Same, they appeared to be avoiding civilian targets entirely before.

Refused to hit Ajdabiya when the tanks were in the city, etc. This is disappointing, but expected. We'll see how the Libyan government plays it.

[ixion]

2. I said that civilian casualties would be the outcome of our liberation

and lookie there, I was right, as sad as that makes me. :(

[indimuse]

3. Well there you go all you PRO WAR peeps!

THIS IS just the beginning! Makes me F&*%King pissed! THIS WAR IS ILLEGAL! PERIOD!

[Javaman]

16. Check out comment #12.

sickening.

[olegramps]

30. Is it legal for to slaughter peaceful protesters to protect a tyrant?

I remember from my school days how France came to the rebellious Colonialists aid in their struggle against a king who claimed divine authority over his subjects. Just another tyrant who didn't hesitate to kill his subjects to enslave them. By the way just how many peaceful protesters has Gaddafi killed?

[atreides1]

34. It must be

The Ohio National Guard did it at Kent State...and no one was held accountable for those deaths!

Eight guardsmen were indicted, but the judge dimissed the charges.

So it must be legal, it just depends on who does it!!!

[daleo]

51. The French king was fighting the British king via the American colonies

And the French king was overthrown by his starving, overtaxed peasants a few years later.

The French monarchy of the day made the British monarchy of the day look like pussycats. Great powers do things for their own interests, not out of sentiment - and usually a lot of money is made in the process by important people.

[timo]

4. yup

when you go throwing bombs,bullets and and shit like that around people end up dead, but at least it wasnt a massacre....cuz obama does NOT like massacres!!!!

[David__77]

6. Obama's legacy to the world.

Nobel Peace Prize-winning brilliance.

[indimuse]

7. KNR!

nobody seems to care around here!






IF this was BUSH!

[dipsydoodle]

8. Presumably when this is confirmed to be true

NATO will report itself to the ICC.

[David__77]

9. Well, not NATO, but maybe its commanders or fighters.

...

[pampango]

11. IF this is confirmed (not another Gaddafi-fabrication) then the ICC should

investigate both sides - which is something they should do in every conflict anyway.

[joshcryer]

17. Indeed, and if it is true you can expect them to trot out western reporters.

And the western reporters need to vet it, because we may just now be finding the first of the disappeared people.

[dipsydoodle]

26. They did actually say they would do that

from the outset.

[CJvR]

13. Why?

Why would NATO do that?
Why should NATO do that?

[dipsydoodle]

37. All that matters is what NATO may have done

If it subsequently turns out they did so then they come under the umbrella of war crimes.

The ICC doesn't take sides they made that clear from the start of this debacle - civilian deaths are civilian deaths.

[CJvR]

40. "civilian deaths are civilian deaths"

But just killing civilians isn't a warcrime, as you should know. They have to be intentionally targeted for it to become a warcrime. Are you arguing that NATO have gone Bomber Harris on Tripoli?

[dipsydoodle]

41. That's what clever about the insurgents

They wear civvies so they can say that civilians are being targeted.

Aside from that .....leading to civilian deaths is probably sufficient.

[CJvR]

45. No.

"Aside from that .....leading to civilian deaths is probably sufficient."
No, not for it to be even remotely considered a war crime. You are even allowed to open fire at hospitals according to the treaties regarding the conduct of war under some conditions. You need to prove actual intent or very gross negligence in order for you to even have a minor shot at getting a warcrime conviction. It would be alot simpler to get a conviction if the fighting was against an opponent who actually respected the rules of warfare and didn't hide behind the international presscorp when there was an airstrike inbound.

Regarding insurgents, the rules clearly labels them as combatants not civilians. There is a grey area when the peaceful protests became armed insurrection but that was weeks ago.

[CJvR]

12. Yawn!!!

Water is wet...

Is anyone actually surprised at this? You cant bomb a country, particulary not where your targets hide behind civilians, without accidentaly killing some civilians. The important question is what do less damage? The occational stray bomb or Mad Dog's vengeance on Libya if he isn't stopped.

[Javaman]

15. The dead civilians agree with you...

What's a few civilians dead as long as they are not you, right?

Is this really DU?

[CJvR]

27. You think...

...you can fight a tyrany like Gaddafi's without casualties? You are delusional. Perhaps you think the Libyans should wait nicely for Gaddafi to die of natural causes and hope the next dictator in the succession is kinder? (Doesn't seem to work for the Norks btw.) Sometimes there are no good solutions, only various degree of bad.

The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi, and he massacred them in response. Now we can either stand by and watch this and do nothing or we can do something to help Libya be rid of Gaddafi - and accept the likely unfortunate consequences of that action.

[Javaman]

33. War is war...

and as a pacifist, I don't approve of it's reason, need or use regardless of the circumstances.

So have fun tying yourself into pretzels explaining away civilian deaths.

[CJvR]

38. Have fun yourself. :-)

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/growfcomic.php?date=20090927

[Javaman]

46. I do, while you can continue to explain away civilian deaths as

necessary.

One day you will understand, but frankly, it will be too late for you by then.

[CJvR]

49. Not necessary - unfortunate!

There is absolutely no NEED to kill civilians, that should be obvious to anyone - even you.

[Javaman]

53. LOLOL

Right and try taking your pound of flesh without shedding a drop of blood.

I just love when people such as yourself, try as you might, to twist tighter and tighter to claim ridiculous things to support your position.

We are done. You have nothing.

Good day.

[provis99]

47. you can fight Gadaffi without casualties.

Assassination is neat and tidy and affects only Gadaffi; the air force dropping bombs all over the place won't kill Gadaffi, but it will cause civilian casualties. I call it 3rd degree murder: Depraved Indifference to Human Life.

[CJvR]

48. I wouldn't mind that...

...at all. But if the asset to pull off a successful assassination isn't there and it might take a long time to get it into place then what?

"Depraved Indifference to Human Life" - I think that is sort of built into war automatically, and for that reason hardly illegal under the rules of war. As long as you limit yourself to military targets and try your best to hit them and nothing else you are operating within the rules of warfare.

[joshcryer]

19. I'm waiting for family members to name their dead.

Yes that sounds really sick, but they did this THREE TIMES now and THREE TIMES the dead were unnamed, no one claimed them, and it was a total setup job.

I do think it's very possible, and as someone pointed out here, likely, that it's civilians, but I will wait and see. Someone here pointed out that it's just statistics, as the number of targets dwindle the likelihood that innocent people are at a given target goes up.

[ixion]

29. Your dismissal of this is disturbing... and you might feel differently

if it were YOUR neighborhood being 'liberated'.

[ronnie624]

32. The answer to your "important" question:

All the dictators in the Middle East combined for the last century, have not done as much damage or killed as many civilians as the U.S. government in the last two decades.

The United States is the quintessential rogue state.

[CJvR]

39. So...

...the world should step aside and give the poor dictators a chance to catch up?

[Catherina]

21. 40+ dead in one attack. Unacceptable. These are war crimes.

"The so-called humanitarian raids have killed dozens of civilian victims in some neighbourhoods of Tripoli," said Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli.

"I have collected several witness accounts from reliable people. In particular, in the Buslim neighbourhood, due to the bombardments, a civilian building collapsed, causing the death of 40 people," he told Fides, the news agency of the Vatican missionary arm.

[tcaudilllg]

22. Obama is just choosing who lives and who dies.

[Godhumor]

23. Not discounting anything else, but the Vatican rep wants to offer Gaddafi a dignified exit?

What the hell is a dignified exit (exile, negotiating to never be persecuted, etc.)?

[joshcryer]

24. Dignified = immunity, money, power.

[Godhumor]

25. Then how can this be considered anything other than more Gaddafi shilling? n/t

[davidthegnome]

28. Good question

Still... there has been talk of the mad dog Gaddafi for more than twenty years. In all of that time, one attempt was made (by the US, to my knowledge) to bring him down, which turned out to be a disaster.

With all our resources, with our military power, our CIA, our secret service, our agencies I don't even know exist - we can't kill one single lunatic? Something smells fishy. If we wanted him dead that badly, we've had any number of opportunities to take him out. We knew all along what sort of man he was, we knew all along of his hatred for the west and his madness - his hunger for power. Yet rather than destroying him, the western world sold him weapons, purchased oil produced in his Country, dealt with him on a number of occasions. We extended a helping hand - the mad dog may be mad, but we've been giving him steak!

Now, after all this time, revolution breaks out in Libya and suddenly it is internationally televised. We are bombarded with images of the mad dog and the crimes he is committing, when we knew all along he had been doing terrible things for many years. When we knew he was a supporter of terrorists and radical regimes that despise the ground we walk on.

Gaddafi is one mad dog in a world full of them. There are cruel, violent, even insane dictators all over the place - there are Nations where thousands and even millions have died and are dying in battles and wars of absolute insanity. Why is the international community directly involved only in this one? No, the Libyan people aren't the only ones who have asked for - even begged for our help. For some reason though, the media picked up on their cries for help.

I don't want civilian deaths anymore than anyone else. I think Gaddafi should be stopped, I think we should crush his regime. At what cost though? Why the hell didn't we do something sooner? Why the hell isn't this brave coalition already involved in stopping even greater disasters and crimes than those taking place in Libya?

I am neither for nor against our military action here - I don't truly know enough to make that moral call. I will say though - something smells damned fishy.


(edited for spelling - oops)

[olegramps]

31. Like the dignified exit that the Vatican arranged for SS officers are WWII?

Sorry , but I am a bit skeptical about the Vatican's veiled intentions when their statement doesn't include a condemnation of Gaddafi's brutal regime. Reminds me of the Church's wishy-washy handleing of the Nazis when they welcomed Hitler's invasion of Austria with the tolling of church bells.

[Godhumor]

35. Agree, completely. Using "dignified" exit means trying to present Gaddafi in the best light possible

A definite agenda to be had.

[Turborama]

36. If this is true, why didn't Moussa Ibrahim mention it in the regime's press conference just now?

I watched the whole thing and no mention of it whatsoever.

Why isn't Gadaffi making hay with this?

Why haven't his propaganda machine taken the reporters to the scene?

Libyan officials have taken foreign reporters to the sites of what they say were Western air strikes on Tripoli, but evidence of civilian casualties has been inconclusive.

I'll believe it when it's not a report from a third party and we see tangible evidence.

[joshcryer]

50. Yep, I came home today expecting 20+ threads on this and video and all that.

I'm not buying it. The Vatican isn't exactly a source to be trusted.

[ProgressIn2008]

42. Are the warmongers in DC so damn stupid that they didn't anticipate this? Civilian deaths?

Don't we have enough stories like this coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan right now? Shall we haul out the drones?

Shame.

[WatsonT]

43. Well at least Gaddafi didn't kill them

then it would have been a tragedy.

We've saved these people, permanently, from Gaddafi's murderous regime!

[Baclava]

44. "Winning the hearts and minds"

(Vietnam) - "Hearts and Minds campaigns typically refer to liberal-democratic Western governments' attempts to effect regime change in a foreign state"

[Glimmer of Hope]

52. When will it end....