Just what exactly do you think you are doing in Libya? Did anyone elect you? Did you heed the Libyan Government's call for a democratic election? Since when is attacking civilians with US Apache helicopters in your Rules of Engagement? How do you explain the wanton strafing of civilian structures with military hardware?
Why are you taking sides in an internal conflict which as you know very well, is against international law? UNSC Resolution 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965, containing the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States was backed up by Resolutions 31/91 of 14 December 1976, 32/153 of 19 December 1977, 33/74 of 15 December 1978, 34/101 of 14 December 1979 and 35/159 of 12 December 1980 on non-interference in the internal affairs of States. Why then is NATO actively engaged in supporting armed groups of youths, many of whom are not even Libyan?
Why is NATO using armed force to aid terrorist mercenaries shipped in from Egypt and Tunes against Libyan civilians?
Why did the Libyan uprising start on the frontiers and not in the capital city, Tripoli? Why is the vast majority of the capital city firmly behind Colonel Gaddafi? Why are most Libyans in other parts of the country taking a stand with the Government and against the groups of thugs you support with your military hardware?
Why do you support people who commit atrocities? Why do the people of the towns they "liberate" fight them off with guns? Why are they hated across Libya?
Why is NATO strafing civilians and civilian structures with military hardware, against Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court which states clearly that one criterion for indictment for war crimes is:
"Attack or bombardment, by whatever means, against undefended cities, towns, villages, buildings or houses".
Another clause of the same Article 3 could also be invoked:
"Massive destruction of cities, towns or villages or destruction not justified by military necessity".
The attack on Libya's water supply network on Friday July 22 and the attack on the factory making pipes for the supply system on Saturday July 23 in al-Brega were not covered under "military necessity" in which case, under Article 3, this was an act of wanton destruction of civilian structures with military hardware. This renders NATO liable for trial by its own court, the ICC at The Hague;
Why is NATO aiding terrorists which by the definition of its own member states are on the list of proscribed terrorist groups?
There is evidence that armed groups fighting inside Libya include the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which according to the British Government: "The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa'ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu'ammar Qadhafi" and for which reason is on the Home Office list of proscribed terrorist groups (1);
Why did NATO not aid the UNSC to reach a peaceful solution to this problem, something which the Libyan Government has been trying to achieve from the beginning? Under the UN Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33, member states must "seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".
Did NATO do this in the case of Libya? No, it used a false flag event, namely the massacre of civilians by "rebel" forces (the allegations must be investigated).
Why did NATO not convene the Military Staff Committee of the UNSC? Under the UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 46: "Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee". Such committee was never convened.
This is a violation of the UN Charter rendering Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) void, as indeed is the response by NATO;
Chapter VII, Article 51 refers to the right of States to defend themselves against armed insurgency:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security"
in which case NATO had no reason to attack the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Why is NATO continuing to arm the terrorist elements in Libya, why is NATO placing boots on the ground, why are NATO forces making raids on the Libyan coastline, why are French contingents in the western mountains, why is the French Foreign Legion involved in the fighting, why is NATO not inspecting vessels ferrying weapons to the terrorist elements, all of these in direct contradiction of the terms on UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011)?
Why is NATO committing war crimes in its attempts to murder individuals? Without any formal declaration of war, NATO's strikes against civilian structures come outside any possible conditions imposed by rules of engagement, in which case the armed attack against a civilian residence occasioning the murder of Muammar al-Qathafi's son Saif al-Arab al-Qathafi and three of his grandchildren would occasion a case for prosecution; furthermore other strikes against structures where Muammar al-Qathafi was alleged to have been would constitute cases for prosecution for attempted murder;
Why is NATO violating the terms of the Geneva Conventions in Libya? Violation of the Geneva Conventions by NATO: Under the Geneva Convention IV, Article 3 (a): "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds:"
Armed attacks with military hardware against civilian structures occasioning murder, grievous bodily harm of actual bodily harm render NATO liable under this clause.
NATO does not represent the collective will of humankind, NATO is a criminal organization which commits murder and attacks civilians arming terrorists and involving itself in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, all against international law, NATO violates the UN Charter, NATO violates the UNSC Resolutions, NATO violates the Geneva Conventions. NATO therefore does not have the right to represent anybody; it is no more than the military wing of the lobbies which control the policies of its member states.
We did not vote for NATO, we do not want NATO. Either NATO listens to the collective will of humanity or else it will suffer the consequences of its actions. You can only spit in the wind for so long. No future development inside Libya will free NATO from prosecution for the crimes mentioned above and whatever development there may be, NATO will not "win" anything in this conflict. How can you "win" a game on an uneven playing field with three times as many players?
(1) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/ proscribed-terror-groups/proscribed-groups?view=Binary ...
Persons to be included in legal processes for indictment:
Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Denmark) NATO Secretary-General; Charles Bouchard (Canada), Commander of Operations; Nicolas Sarkozy, Édouard Guillaud (France); Rinaldo Veri, Commander Allied Maritime Command (Italy); David Cameron, Sir Stuart Peach (UK); Barack Obama, Carter Ham, Sam Locklear (USA); Harald Sunde (Norway), Abdullah II (Jordan); Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani (Qatar), Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan (UAE); Sverker Goranson (Sweden) and the Defence Ministers Pieter de Crem (Belgium), Anuy Angelov (Bulgaria), Gitte Lillelund Bech (Denmark); Panos Beglitis (Greece); Hans Hillen (Netherlands); Gabriel Oprea (Romania);Carme Chacón Piqueras (Spain); Ismet Yilmaz (Turkey).
The Americans came to realise that they would have to either leave the region or weaken their presence there. It is Russia that is filling the vacuum now