Nato refuses to apologise for strike on Libya rebels

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News 8 April 2011 Last updated at 11:45

Nato has refused to apologise for a "friendly fire" attack on rebel tanks in eastern Libya that killed at least four people.

Rear Adm Russ Harding said that, until Thursday's incident, Nato had not been aware that rebel troops had started to use tanks.

"Our job is to protect civilians," he told a news conference.

Rebel forces reacted with anger at the air strike on their tanks near the eastern town of Ajdabiya.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13010170

[Countdown_3_2_1]

1. So now, no matter who wins the civil war, the victors will hate NATO and the West.

Isn't war great?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Sure. Why should THIS mideast war be any different?

I doubt if we're loved much in Iraq or Afghanistan.

If we are, I'm just not feeling it.

:hi:

[strategery blunder]

2. NATO "not being aware" is bullshit.

Hell, AJE has reported multiple times on rebels capturing what heavy equipment gets left behind whenever Gaddafi forces retreat.

Including tanks.

Captured equipment gets used against the enemy. Duh.

At some point, NATO is going to have to establish communications with the rebels, and I don't mean with the TNC--I mean the kinds of battlefield communications that identify a possible target as friendly. That NATO has so far refused to do this is folly. I somehow doubt the rebels are going to take a newly captured tank and blast a hospital with it.

[ixion]

3. Hey, we're just doin' some good 'ol fashioned liberatin'

if they can't get out of the way, that's their problem. :sarcasm:

[dipsydoodle]

4. Libyan rebels plead for more things to fire wildly into the air

Anti-Gaddafi fighters are running ‘dangerously low’ of the bullets they need to fire wildly into the sky for the television cameras, according to reports.

And leaders of the makeshift army are demanding the immediate end of the worldwide arms embargo on Libya in order to ship in tons more ammunition to be fired at random out of the windows of saloon cars and off the back of pickup trucks.

“We are brave fighters, we make an end of that evil slug Gaddafi,” shouted veteran insurgent Ibrahim Rugrug, jubilantly driving his 1994 Toyota Hilux at high speed away from the advancing government forces.

“But without bullets, there is no defiant shooting into the air. And without defiant shooting into the air, there is no war.”

http://newsthump.com/2011/04/01/libyan-rebels-plead-for-more-things-to-fire-wildly-into-the-air/

[Nihil]

6. *cough*

:spank:

[Hugabear]

7. Hearts and minds, people. Hearts and minds.

Just doing what we do best, which is killing people.

[bhikkhu]

8. NATO apologized yesterday

and promised to investigate the incident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/world/africa/09libya.html

The OP headline is misleading.

[Hugabear]

9. Funny, I read the article in your link and don't see any NATO apology

I see this: and after some confusion eventually apologized for the accident.

But I don't see anywhere in the article where there's an actual apology, at least nobody is quoted as apologizing. The closest is the British foreign secretary saying "I think when something like this happens, it doesn’t cost anything to apologize."

In fact, the article quotes the NATO air commander, Rear Adm. Russell Harding, as saying "I am not apologizing"

Am I missing something here?

[dipsydoodle]

11. Off topic

I do like your avatar.

Hasta La Victoria Siempre.

:hi:

[dipsydoodle]

10. Your own link doesn't say that. and the OP wasn't misleading

Your link says NATO acknowledged on FRIDAY they were responsible and after some confusion eventually apologised.

Just means your link must post date in TIME only today the BBC link which was time and and date stamped.

I could of course be wrong if today isn't Friday. If today is in fact Saturday then of course yes - it happened yesterday.

edit to add : subsequent to me posting the BBC link they changed their own header to : Libya: Nato 'regrets' loss of life from Ajdabiya strike and added a video which is of course their perogative.

It still doesn't mention an actual apology.

[bhikkhu]

14. Fair enough...regret isn't quite the same

What I was looking at before was statements from "rebel spokesmen" in Benghazi. I think they may be more interested in keeping things smoothed over than anything else.

[joshcryer]

16. I believe the spokesman was twisting the truth on that one.

Simply on the basis that he needs the rebels to keep fighting and accept NATO intervention (65-70% of Gaddafi's heavy assets are still on the field).

It's a minute workaround. Keep the battles outside of the cities, Gaddafi's troops will stop advancing on cities. Simple stuff.

They should've kept Bin Jawad before.

[AllTooEasy]

12. NATO can't so shit right without the US. I'm sick and tired of ...

...the US having to be the police force of the world. I hate war, but I have genocides more. NATO without the US is a useless policing force. Lybian rebels might as well surrender now and pray for Qaddafi's mercy.

I don't see how anyone, Liberal or Conservative, Black or White, capitalist or socialist can view NATO with respect.

[David__77]

13. Why would they apologize?

Their mission is to prevent offensives on populated areas, right?

[joshcryer]

15. It looks like what we were speculating on was true.

I think I deserve props for predicting this. :hi:

[joshcryer]

17. This is the post I'm referring to, btw:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=840398&mesg_id=840611

[boppers]

18. It took a while for Yugoslavia to get it, too.

We are there to protect civilians, not to reinforce a side in war. If you get in a tank, you are a target. Period.