They are - but I didn't label them either way.Why aren't the "rebels" in Libya insurgents?
Third time - morals.So what is the criteria for supporting or fighting an insurgency?
I just heard a comment on Question Time which really sums up the hypocrisy of the action in Libya.
In Iraq and Afghanistan we are fighting an insurgency, in Libya we are supporting the rebels.
and if you have to ask why, then well... I don't think you're fit to be arguing the point.another day another arknor libya rant
no it would not because if you bother to read the resolution you wanted to make the war legal unlike your last few wars you would realise it does not call for gaddafi to go.The British, American and French leaders warned it would be an "unconscionable betrayal" were Nato to cut and run with the dictator still in power.
Gaddafi must "go and go for good" before rebuilding of the country could begin, they said - dismissing calls for an immediate ceasefire.
Third time - morals.
Call Hague and ask for more specifics.
another day another troll reporting to mods, if you dont have anything to say on the topics subject dont post its simple
surely its illegal for nato and the countries claiming to be carrying out the UN resolution to not actually be enforcing a no fly zone but using it as an excuse to bomb anything that moves
Er no.by that logic they could cruise missile his mobile phone as an excuse for an assasination
You seem to be struggling with this!Its not morals it just dpeends whether we like who they are fighting or not.
Go back to soviet era afganistan? we certainly helped the insurgents there. Not for moral reasoning but because we were repulsed by the thought of the growth of the communist machine...
moral |ˈmôrəl; ˈmär-|
adjective
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour[\B] and the goodness or badness of human character
including rebels attacks yet they dont and the majority of stuff bombed isnt anywhere near a danger to civilians they are using it as an excuse to bomb all sorts.
soon they will run out of military targets and move on to any form of goverment building so the country can be no longer run.
gaddafis palace was a target because he was aparently using it for communications.
by that logic they could cruise missile his mobile phone as an excuse for an assasination
truly awful how could such a massacre take placeGaddafi's 'Massacre' Condemned By Leaders
The leaders of Britain, the US and France have jointly called on Colonel Gaddafi to go - with reports the Libyan leader's forces have killed eight people with artillery fire.
Seven others are said to have been wounded in the onslaught on the rebel-controlled eastern city of Misratah.

wow i just go over to tyhe skynews website and spot the latest breaking news headline
truly awful how could such a massacre take place![]()
??...hmmmmwow i just go over to tyhe skynews website and spot the latest breaking news headline
truly awful how could such a massacre take place![]()
how come anyone kill by gaddafi forces is always refered to as "people"
is it because the average person will then assume its civilians beeing killed like the propaganda tells us?
because if it were civlians they surely would not be refered to as people?