NATO admits mistakenly striking Libyan opposition forces

CNN ^ | June 18, 2011 | CNN Wire Staff

[Berlin_Freeper]

In its statement, NATO said that "a column of military vehicles, including tanks," were spotted Thursday around al-Brega where Gadhafi forces "had recently been operating." During what it called "a particularly complex and fluid battle scenario," leaders in the military alliance ordered a strike after determining these vehicles posed "a threat to civilians."

[Psalm 144]

Cool. Works for me.

[Paperdoll]

Bring our boys and aircraft home!!!

[Farmer Dean]

And to think that these guys were actually going to have to fight the Russians if WW3 broke out.

[Cheetahcat]

Good start,that is how you kill a billion of them,a few at a time.

[Jet Jaguar]

Whoops.

[P-Marlowe]

They could not possibly have injured anyone since we are not engaged in “hostilities”.

[John W]

[Tallguy]

Which will happen on occaision when ‘friendly’ ground forces are not accompanied by a forward air controller. Sometimes it even happens when the ARE with a FAC. I’m guessing NATO pilots only have a vague idea as to exactly where the so-called frontlines are, making close air support next to impossible.

[xjcsa]

Meh...either way.

[Vendome]

Comedy of errors with real lives.

How come the left isn’t screaming about these innocents dying?

[Slings and Arrows]

Interesting parallel there, given that Alfred Nobel started by blowing s*** up.

[hinckley buzzard]

Considering that the original stated purpose of NATO intervention was to protect the lives of the rebels against Quaddafi, that explanation won't wash.

This is failure in the making.

[darkside321]

Well works for me.
Didn´t Nato say they want to protect civillians?
And a rebel with a gun is no civillian.
But of course since we play air force for the rebels (because this is what we do) i guess Nato regrets it.

[Tallguy]

It ‘washes’ if the stated purpose of our Libyan-intervention (humanitarian) is a bunch of BS — which it is. The reason for the intervention is the security of the oil fields. Once the rebellion started our European allies have done what they have done repeatedly in the past where Africa is concerned — throw in with the side most likely to be able to guarantee safe extraction of the mineral resources.

The irony is that Republican administrations are always harried by the “No Blood for Oil” slogan. But this is truly a case for it.

[240B]

That's because you can't equip a camel or a donkey with IFF.

Boy! We sure are protecting those ‘civilians’ against getting slaughtered aren't we?

[darkside321]

It ‘washes’ if the stated purpose of our Libyan-intervention (humanitarian) is a bunch of BS — which it is. The reason for the intervention is the security of the oil fields. Once the rebellion started our European allies have done what they have done repeatedly in the past where Africa is concerned — throw in with the side most likely to be able to guarantee safe extraction of the mineral resources.

The irony is that Republican administrations are always harried by the “No Blood for Oil” slogan. But this is truly a case for it.

---

Good observation.
But now comes the ultimate “bluff”
Only “half of europe” supported this.
This means in other words regardless who wins “we” will get our oil.
If nato wins the rebels will sell it to britain, france...
If gadaffi wins he will sell it to germany (because they didn´t vote for the bombing).
But anyway europe will get its oil.
Because after its bought the EU can (and will do) transfer it so everyone gets his fair share of the oil.

[FreeMaine]

NATO admits mistakenly striking Libyan opposition forces

Oh well, kind of like Bosnia/Serbia. Yawnnnnn.

[Iron Munro]

Bosnia Deja-Vu

[wildbill]

Well, I’m sure the bombing was done without any hostility.