madmax Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 *cough*A rebel fighter jet has been seen bursting into flames and crashing after possibly being shot down over the rebel strongheld of Benghazi. People can be heard cheering in the background of video footage which shows the plane, believed to be a Russian-built MIG-23, as it spirals to the ground in flames. The pilot is seen ejecting from the plane moments before it crashes into buildings and bursts into a ball of fire. At first it was thought this was victory over Gaddafi's forces, but rebels later confirmed it was their own warplane that was shot down. *cough* http://news.msn.co.nz/glanceview/154584/fighter-jet-shot-down-over-libya.glance DOH!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 One newspaper said that there were 7 CF-188s in Italy. This seems to confirm that: http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=24248&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 How many civilians (rebels) are trained in operating a military fighter craft like a MIG? The MIG that was shot down was not operated by rebels. but it's irrelevant that plane that was shot down weeks after the initial street protests the situation has changed since then...it's well know some libyan military has defected to the opposition two pilots did so early on flying to malta when they were ordered to attack demonstrators... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) You ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait til the coalition arms every Libyan rebel with rapid fire machine guns and grenades. There is an arms embargo. Canada is now officially flying misions but they have been classed as "escort" duty. That is gaurding other nations fighter jets --- I aplaud the DND for only wasting the jet fuel and flight hours and not the missiles. Edited March 21, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Canada is now officially flying misions but they have been classed as "escort" duty. That is gaurding other nations fighter jets --- No, that's simply been our mission for today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) No, that's simply been our mission for today. Ah checkin to see if there are any air defences left eh. Clasic Canadian ceremonial slaughter. What more is there in a no fly zone? Fighting an air war against ground forces is not a no fly zone. Has nato gone feeble? Targetting tanks in Mistira on the opposite side of Libya as Bengaszi is not protecting civilians in Benghazi. Likewise bombing oil facilities is not "protecting civilians". Especially when the fuel fuels cities. This seems more like the indiscriminate slaughter of all Libyian military infrastructure or convertable infrastructure - this is a far cry from the UN resolution. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54936 The and Qatar part really gets me. (it sent as many jets as Canada) Edited March 22, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Again, WTF? BTW, 1973 doesn't only authorized a no fly zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Again, WTF? BTW, 1973 doesn't only authorized a no fly zone. I think you are mistaken. Without ground forces how do you expect to protect civilians. You are nuts if your answer is missile strikes and cluster bombs A lot more would be resolved by setting up refuge camps and delivering leaflets stating go to the border of egypt or altgeria or to the south to be received at UN refugee camps. That is the only way civilians are going to be protected. Bombing a compound normally housing 40+ civilians ain't going to 'prevent civlians deaths' Laucnhing a war of shock and awe by targetting civilian support isn't going to prevent civilian deaths. If you study the history of use of air deployed weapons you will see launching missles is not safe for civlians and collatoral damage is the norm, not an exception. A no fly zone is suppose to mean - no planes fly. Not all military infrastructure is destroyed. and anything that can be used by the military 1973 ONLY states a no fly zone no other specific language is given to indicate anything else. 1973 does not provide for unrestricted war. "Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution; THE NO FLY ZONE ALLOWANCES EXPLAINED No fly zone6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians; 7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorisation conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8; 8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above, 9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary over-flight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above; 10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights; 11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations; 12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above; Edited March 22, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 I think you are mistaken. No, you're mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) No, you're mistaken. No you are mitaken. You can shoot down planes that fly but you can't shoot planes on the ground. Imposing a no fly zone as per the resolution does not provide for attacking ground based sights as that waa not allowed. It is an illegal act to attack targets not identified. They are illegal acts of war. The proper proces would be. It would need to be shot down with a missile if a palne flew. That is it. that is all it allows. Or other non aircraft means .. since ONLY humanitarian flights are allowed when cleared. NOT MILITARY AIRCRAFT ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians; 7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorisation conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8; 8) Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States NOTE THE ARAB STATES MUST CONSENT SO ALL AIR OPERATIONS ARE DEAD. and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above, The Arab Leuge calls the shots on this and they have voiced against the conduct of the operation so far. SO IT HAS TO END. Amr Moussa, called for an immediate halt to the military action and for talks. How does this statement meet with 1973 rather than an illegal act of war? Gortney said, reiterating that the United States military was more concerned with weakening the Libyan state's military capacity. The US military should either 1. be concerned with implementing "safe areas" or 2. "imposing a no fly zone" not weakening libya's military capacity. # USA Today ADM. WILLIAM GORTNEY, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF BRIEFS THE PRESS In Britain, the government appeared increasingly at odds with its defence chiefs over whether Muammar Gaddafi was a legitimate military target. This isn't about Libya's people, it is about Jews. Edited March 22, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 There is an arms embargo. It would not do to allow Gaddafi and his henchmen from procuring armaments they can use to massacre Libyan civilians. That said, there are reports Egypt is shipping arms to the rebels. War is messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 The Libyan civil war propoganda machines on both sides cannot be trusted. Many stories start iwth "Unconfirmed Reports and Unconfirmed sources" stating "unconfirmed facts" as facts... As soon as its confirmed, it goes from Rumour to fact. Can't argue with that madmax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) No, you're mistaken. No you are mistaken. You can shoot down planes that fly but you can't shoot planes on the ground. Imposing a no fly zone as per the resolution does not provide for attacking ground based sites as that was not allowed. It is an illegal act to attack targets not identified. They are illegal acts of war. The proper proces would be. It would need to be shot down with a missile if a plane flew (such as happened to the rebels) or a helicopter etc. That is it. that is all it allows. Or other non aircraft means .. since ONLY humanitarian flights are allowed when cleared. NOT MILITARY AIRCRAFT ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians; 7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorisation conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8; 8) Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States NOTE THE ARAB STATES MUST CONSENT SO ALL AIR OPERATIONS ARE DEAD. and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above, The Arab League calls the shots on this and they have voiced against the conduct of the operation so far. SO IT HAS TO END. Amr Moussa, called for an immediate halt to the military action and for talks. How does this statement meet with 1973 rather than an illegal act of war? Gortney said, reiterating that the United States military was more concerned with weakening the Libyan state's military capacity. The US military should either 1. be concerned with implementing "safe areas" or 2. "imposing a no fly zone" not weakening libya's military capacity. # USA Today ADM. WILLIAM GORTNEY, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF BRIEFS THE PRESS In Britain, the government appeared increasingly at odds with its defence chiefs over whether Muammar Gaddafi was a legitimate military target. Downing Street appeared to side with the view of the defence secretary, Liam Fox, that the Libyan leader was a legitimate target This isn't about Libya's people, it is about Jews. large part of the world – including India, Brazil and much of Africa – is against this operation. Arab countries did not want the Atlantic alliance in charge.Nato members met in Brussels... but had failed to resolve an impasse compounded by Turkish objections to the intervention force. Sarkozy strikes were not aimed at ousting Col Gadafy but said they were likely to last “a little while”. It is funny how each member of this air raids has a different intent. US to weaken Libya's military but Gaddafi isn't a target. Britain who says that Gaddafi is a target France who just wants to bomb for a bit but Gaddafi can stay. So far Canada's role is to protect British/French and US fighters I have no idea what Qatar plans to do. Maybe its just to protect emirites humanitarian flights.. who knows? Apparently though.. it is on still.... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0322/1224292772970.html Its funny how people seem to ignore the fact that the rebels are in photographs that violate the rules of war. Such as in a ferrari jacket or other irregular clothing that violates the geneva convention on uniforminity of combatants... this would make it imposible for gaddafi's forces to discern between civilians and combatants. IT CONSTITUTES A WAR CRIME BY THE REBELS. (whoever the dickhead is that keeps editing my posts you should have your hands cut off - I'll see to it when I get the chance too) Edited March 22, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 You're still mistaken. The resolution allowed everything short of boots on the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 You're still mistaken. The resolution allowed everything short of boots on the ground. Read the resolution not Obama's press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 No you are mitaken. You can shoot down planes that fly but you can't shoot planes on the ground. Imposing a no fly zone as per the resolution does not provide for attacking ground based sites as that waa not allowed. It is an illegal act to attack targets not identified. They are illegal acts of war. actually it was laid out well ahead of time before the UN approval, runways,air defense, command and control, military aircraft, would all be targeted to establish a no-fly zone...apparently everybody but you knew this, pay attention... The Arab League calls the shots on this and they have voiced against the conduct of the operation so far. SO IT HAS TO END.keep up dude the arab league fully backs the operation, just because the spokesman of the league gets cold feet does not mean the operation has lost support, the guy was posturing for personal political points...and the Arb league does not trump the UN resolution... How does this statement meet with 1973 rather than an illegal act of war?The US military should either 1. be concerned with implementing "safe areas" or 2. "imposing a no fly zone" not weakening libya's military capacity. it's within the requirements of the 1973..."safe areas"-no civilian area need be under the threat of attack, no tanks or artillery threatening bombardment-done..."no fly zone"-done, that permits the suppression of all potential threats from the ground, planes, SAM's, AAThis isn't about Libya's people, it is about Jews. I think the palestinians are the most shit upon people of the ME thanks to zionism but Libya has nothing to do with "jews"...It is funny how each member of this air raids has a different intent.US to weaken Libya's military but Gaddafi isn't a target. Britain who says that Gaddafi is a target France who just wants to bomb for a bit but Gaddafi can stay. So far Canada's role is to protect British/French and US fighters every nation has agreed to the same method, what each nation hopes to see happen differs isn't unusual it's also irrelevant...Its funny how people seem to ignore the fact that the rebels are in photographs that violate the rules of war. Such as in a ferrari jacket or other irregular clothing that violates the geneva convention on uniforminity of combatants...this would make it imposible for gaddafi's forces to discern between civilians and combatants. IT CONSTITUTES A WAR CRIME BY THE REBELS. that's because they are civilians...geez get real here do you think there's a neighbourhood military outfitter in each town that has a of complete supply of military uniforms on the shelves just in case a group of people decide to form their own army...wow, what weird logic...picture this scenario...a dictator begins slaughtering opposition political parties but those people cannot take up arms to protect themselves because they don't have matching uniforms because that would make them criminals ...ya let's take all those criminal civilians to the world court and throw them in prison for life for dressing inappropriately... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjre Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 keep up dude the arab league fully backs the operation, just because the spokesman of the league gets cold feet does not mean the operation has lost support, the guy was posturing for personal political points...and the Arb league does not trump the UN resolution... The western culture is cheating. The agreement was talking about no-fly zone instead of air struck the country and people there. If it is for attack, why use misleading "no-fly zone" for the agreement. No honest western politician exist. All are cheaters and liars. Just like various Canadian contracts, with large paragraphs of small font when ask others to sign it when customer buy a product or service. And the misleading contents are in large font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 The western culture is cheating. The agreement was talking about no-fly zone instead of air struck the country and people there. If it is for attack, why use misleading "no-fly zone" for the agreement. No honest western politician exist. All are cheaters and liars. You weren't paying attention. from the start, they said that ground attacks to take out air defences would happen. Don't blame politicians if you can't be bothered to follow the news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) "Like other fighters, he said he was expecting an allied airstrike on Gaddafi’s tanks and rocket launchers on the perimeter of the city. Adil al-Hasi, a rebel commander, said he was given orders not to send his men into battle until allied jets had struck Gaddafi’s forces." This seems to indicate the allied attacks were preengineered before cell communications were cut off early into the issue. "U.S. jet crashes shotdown in Libya" http://www.metro.co.uk/news/858770-us-f-15-jet-crashes-in-libya-but-plane-not-shot-down Looks like feet have been on the ground. If the planes can't make it to the right places how do you expect the missiles to. Defence officials arn't releasing statistics on the bombing runs or collatoral deaths due to strikes hitting populated areas or missing targets. Or maybe the US is just being obtuse.. "it was an old f-15 better buy these new planes we are making.. the old ones are failing due to mechanical failures." Edited March 22, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 No you are mitaken. You can shoot down planes that fly but you can't shoot planes on the ground. Imposing a no fly zone as per the resolution does not provide for attacking ground based sites as that waa not allowed. It is an illegal act to attack targets not identified. They are illegal acts of war. Really? Who declared war? NOTE THE ARAB STATES MUST CONSENT SO ALL AIR OPERATIONS ARE DEAD. Since when is race involved? Did Arab states wait for anyone's approval before attacking Israel? The US military should either 1. be concerned with implementing "safe areas" or 2. "imposing a no fly zone" not weakening libya's military capacity.. So why did Chretien's and Clinton's forces (to use the same terminology) weaken Serbian military capacity. Not only that but attacking Serbian civilian targets including passenger train full of people, embassy etc. Its funny how people seem to ignore the fact that the rebels are in photographs that violate the rules of war. Such as in a ferrari jacket or other irregular clothing that violates the geneva convention on uniforminity of combatants... But unlike palestinians, these rebels "carry arms openly" as define under Geneva convention. this would make it imposible for gaddafi's forces to discern between civilians and combatants. IT CONSTITUTES A WAR CRIME BY THE REBELS. The war crimes were started by Khadafi, Castro, Mao and Saddam, killing demonstrators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Really? Who declared war? Exactly. They are illegal acts of war. Since when is race involved? Did Arab states wait for anyone's approval before attacking Israel? Israel is illegitimate, and broke the Transjordan arangement, and illegally immigrated breaking the rules of the mandate of the Balfour Act. They were claiming land that wasn't theirs. Even Abraham did this same thing saying "god gave it to him", you are forgetting other people lived there first. Abraham invaded that land, as the Greeks, Romans and Arabs. The whole thingw was just to piss off Arabs and to shelve off the Jew who kept on getting masacred and persecuted - something that all West European countries did for a 1000 years before. This antisematism dates back to the issue of Jews not being Christian. They wanted to move all the Jews to the middle east - those jews wern't from there. They were German and French and Polish and American NOT Jordanian. How would you feel if suddently the chinese took over half of Canada because their ancestors the native americans lived here. So why did Chretien's and Clinton's forces (to use the same terminology) weaken Serbian military capacity. Not only that but attacking Serbian civilian targets including passenger train full of people, embassy etc. To commit genocide against Yugoslavia. It countered the objectives of Nato becaue it was a socialist state that was once allied to the USSR. It was to weaken Russia (USSR) and to bring them into NATO's power (EU) (To conquer them) But unlike palestinians, these rebels "carry arms openly" as define under Geneva convention. Moot. They are hiding. The war crimes were started by Khadafi, Castro, Mao and Saddam, killing demonstrators. Kent State, Red River, French Revolution. It was an insurrection tied in with a pan arab movement that saw murders and looting. It was not just a protest, it was a violent overthrow. Some countries don't use rubber bullets - they were told by the government NOT TO PROTEST WHERE THEY DID. IT WAS A NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN. -- I do need to clarify the Jews do have a right to exist, but they don't have the right to take other peoples land, and to break the law, and to murder. Moses cleared up God's earlier errors - though shalt not steal, thall shalt not kill. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Good jews wouldn't have the problem israel has today due to being on other peoples land they killed for. I dont' recall god saying "take the transjordan lands you want" The bible even says god wills isreal to be destroyed - what does that say? Edited March 22, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Exactly. They are illegal acts of war. Like occupation of Tibet. Israel is illegitimate Says Hitler? They were claiming land that wasn't theirs. Arabs did. David's Kingdon was much bigger than Israel today, and Betlehem was Holy city many centuries before Islam even existed. HOW did it become "Moslem holy place" Nomadic Arabs were gradually seeping into Jewish lands, not unlike Germans into "sudetenland", "East Prussia" (even tried that with Balkans) and later just declared it "theirs". A reason they had be moved out permanenly, except those who don't make such claims. Same has to be done with "palestinians". Who correctly identified themself as Jordanians, Egyptians (as Yasar Arafat) and Syrians less than 50 years ago. How would you feel if suddently the chinese took over half of Canada because their ancestors the native americans lived here. 1) You have evidence Chinese lived here? 2) How long ago? 3) Which part of Europe belongs to Neanderthal? To commit genocide against Yugoslavia. No, only Serbia. Or as general Lewis Mckenzie put it "we took the wrong side". Moot. They are hiding. If that was the case they would use camouflage like other armies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjre Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Like occupation of Tibet. Like occupation of North America and South America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 No, only Serbia. Or as general Lewis Mckenzie put it "we took the wrong side". cite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 I do need to clarify the Jews do have a right to exist.... That's mighty white of you...I recognize Canada's right to exist as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.