22

American warplane crashes in eastern Libya

Air strikes continue to divide allies


 

A U.S. warplane crashed near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi on Tuesday following a third consecutive night of air strikes against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. Both crew members ejected from the F-15E Eagle plane and are safe, and there is no indication that the aircraft was shot down by hostile fire. Upon landing safely on the ground with only minor injuries, one pilot was reportedly thanked and hugged by locals for participating in the allied air strikes. Moussa Ibrahim, a Libyan government spokesman, claimed that missile strikes on Monday had caused “numerous” civilian casualties, particularly near Sirte. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said allies were “going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties,” and that air assaults would decrease in the coming days. The Arab League has expressed dismay over the severity of the attacks, which are expected to result in more civilian deaths. A doctor in the city of Misrata has reported 22 deaths following overnight shelling by government forces.

BBC News


 
Filed under:

American warplane crashes in eastern Libya

  1. Gates is not "U.S. Secretary of State", he is US Defence Secretary.

  2. Gates is not "U.S. Secretary of State", he is US Defence Secretary.

  3. The Arab League is dismayed, wait for it, soon Ghaddafi will be a hero of the Arab world and the West will be decried as invaders and crusaders.
    Meanwhile Saudi Arabia helps out a dictator in killing his people and Syria and the other great "humanitarians" in the area shell and shoot their own too. The coalition action in Libya is a screen to divert attention from the murders in other areas. Once the despots are back in place watch them all hate the great Satan again.
    Japan needed our help and actually contribute in a positive manner to life on earth, they would have made a much better subject for our aide, but it appears that we'd rather do the bidding of tyrants.
    Why are we so stupid that we don't learn?

  4. Notwithstanding the Saudi/Syria point, which moves the whole thing to the height of hypocrisy, I do think we responded to a cry for help.

    What I cannot understand is how a decision to enforce a no-fly zone (which I strongly support) immediately–immediately! turns into "kill Ghadaffi, strike anything that moves, or stays still" kind of mission. One day later musing about troops on the ground? It doesn't always have to be all or nothing. In fact, it probably rarely is. Why is it impossible to give our military an order that says, "go this far, and no farther" ?

  5. Notwithstanding the Saudi/Syria point, which moves the whole thing to the height of hypocrisy, I do think we responded to a cry for help.

    What I cannot understand is how a decision to enforce a no-fly zone (which I strongly support) immediately–immediately! turns into "kill Ghadaffi, strike anything that moves, or stays still" kind of mission. One day later musing about troops on the ground? It doesn't always have to be all or nothing. In fact, it probably rarely is. Why is it impossible to give our military an order that says, "go this far, and no farther" ?

    • You can do that, They are called rules of engagement. But the West hates Ghaddafi, with some justification, and has jumped on this Arab League request with great gusto. Settling scores in a justified conflict is great news for our leaders.
      However our leaders forget the past and are just playing into the hands of the thugs and despots who form the Arab League. Why aren't the League sending their forces in to placate the madman? Saudi Arabia is rich and has a large air-force and tanks and stuff. Oh yes wait a minute, they are using their mighty forces to support another tyrant who likes to kill his own people in Bahrain.
      This will come back to haunt us and meanwhile a friend like Japan doesn't get the help that we "morally" owe them. We'd rather spend billions doing the bidding of lunatics who are not much different than Ghaddafi.

      • You're right that the only reason there is military action from the west in Libya is because of the Arab League's support.
        And that's because without their support getting involved in the area is an awful idea. There is no doubt that the west is not happy about what's going on in Bahrain but there isn't anything they can do about it, because if they got involved it would rapidly descend in chaos.

        • I don't believe the West is unhappy about the actions of the other thugs in the area. They constantly say that it is unwise to comment on the internal affairs of the other nations for the other countries.
          Libya is a special case because of past events and it is pay back on Ghaddafi. While this smokescreen is ongoing the other tyrants can sort out their own disputes in relative obscurity, safe from scrutiny. This region has offered the world nothing but horror, conflict, religious intolerance etc for time immemorial. And that shows no sign of abating.

          • Just because they aren't commenting on what's going on in Barharain doesn't mean they like it.
            You can be certain that no one in western governments is happy about instability in the area (for whatever reasons, that doesn't really matter). And I don't think anyone is happy about protesters getting shot and the west also knows that governments crack downs usually result in more instability in the long-run even if the protests are quelled, it's just delaying the inevitable.

            On what evidence are you basing an assertion like "the west doesn't care about the Arab League cracking down on protests in the middle east"?

          • I can't find the bit in quotations in my posts. What I said was,"I don't believe the West is unhappy about the actions of the other thugs in the area." Why do I think this:

            Primarily, the lack of even words against such actions in Saudi Arabia and platitudes towards outrages in other areas. The US's "wait and see" response to Mubarak/Egypt can be contrasted with the reaction to Libya and compared to the crickets heard about Bahrain.

            The history of the West supporting the Gulf states no matter what they do against the West and who they fund to do it. Demand for oil turns many an eye away from their activities.

            It has been Western policy to support the dictators in the past and traditionally policy only changes when it has to and then only at the very last moment. In the Middle East government crackdowns usually result in the creation of new governments that are equally as thuggish and repressive. But they will bring a period of stability in the short term and in financial terms that is a start.

            The chosen target for repercussions speaks volumes. Ghaddafi is not popular in the League and the West has been looking to settle scores for a while now.

            The speed at which the League gave it's blessing to the action. For a great deal of the last quarter of a century the West has been regarded as the enemy at least in public, but wham that's all forgotten in an instant.

            Lots of evidence indicates that the West want to punch Ghaddafi's nose but do not want to rock the boat elsewhere and piss off the folk who control the oil. Ghaddafi was never one of "theirs," the others are too important.

  6. You can do that, They are called rules of engagement. But the West hates Ghaddafi, with some justification, and has jumped on this Arab League request with great gusto. Settling scores in a justified conflict is great news for our leaders.
    However our leaders forget the past and are just playing into the hands of the thugs and despots who form the Arab League. Why aren't the League sending their forces in to placate the madman? Saudi Arabia is rich and has a large air-force and tanks and stuff. Oh yes wait a minute, they are using their mighty forces to support another tyrant who likes to kill his own people in Bahrain.
    This will come back to haunt us and meanwhile a friend like Japan doesn't get the help that we "morally" owe them. We'd rather spend billions doing the bidding of lunatics who are not much different than Ghaddafi.

  7. It is confusing to me that these "freedom fighters" we are supporting in Libya are apparently the same "terrorists" that the USA were fighting in Iraq. I guess peons like me were never meant to understand the workings of the world at the International level!

  8. It is confusing to me that these "freedom fighters" we are supporting in Libya are apparently the same "terrorists" that the USA were fighting in Iraq. I guess peons like me were never meant to understand the workings of the world at the International level!

    • This has been only sane comment so far. Listening to gentle mothers supporting bombing of the innocent Libyan infants thousands miles away from their homes in order to establish "Democracy" is terrible testimony how degenerate human beings can become in their self righteousness. It puts almost unbearable shame on the face of humanity.

  9. You're right that the only reason there is military action from the west in Libya is because of the Arab League's support.
    And that's because without their support getting involved in the area is an awful idea. There is no doubt that the west is not happy about what's going on in Bahrain but there isn't anything they can do about it, because if they got involved it would rapidly descend in chaos.

  10. I don't believe the West is unhappy about the actions of the other thugs in the area. They constantly say that it is unwise to comment on the internal affairs of the other nations for the other countries.
    Libya is a special case because of past events and it is pay back on Ghaddafi. While this smokescreen is ongoing the other tyrants can sort out their own disputes in relative obscurity, safe from scrutiny. This region has offered the world nothing but horror, conflict, religious intolerance etc for time immemorial. And that shows no sign of abating.

  11. Just because they aren't commenting on what's going on in Barharain doesn't mean they like it.
    You can be certain that no one in western governments is happy about instability in the area (for whatever reasons, that doesn't really matter). And I don't think anyone is happy about protesters getting shot and the west also knows that governments crack downs usually result in more instability in the long-run even if the protests are quelled, it's just delaying the inevitable.

    On what evidence are you basing an assertion like "the west doesn't care about the Arab League cracking down on protests in the middle east"?

  12. I can't find the bit in quotations in my posts. What I said was,"I don't believe the West is unhappy about the actions of the other thugs in the area." Why do I think this:

    Primarily, the lack of even words against such actions in Saudi Arabia and platitudes towards outrages in other areas. The US's "wait and see" response to Mubarak/Egypt can be contrasted with the reaction to Libya and compared to the crickets heard about Bahrain.

    The history of the West supporting the Gulf states no matter what they do against the West and who they fund to do it. Demand for oil turns many an eye away from their activities.

    It has been Western policy to support the dictators in the past and traditionally policy only changes when it has to and then only at the very last moment. In the Middle East government crackdowns usually result in the creation of new governments that are equally as thuggish and repressive. But they will bring a period of stability in the short term and in financial terms that is a start.

    The chosen target for repercussions speaks volumes. Ghaddafi is not popular in the League and the West has been looking to settle scores for a while now.

    The speed at which the League gave it's blessing to the action. For a great deal of the last quarter of a century the West has been regarded as the enemy at least in public, but wham that's all forgotten in an instant.

    Lots of evidence indicates that the West want to punch Ghaddafi's nose but do not want to rock the boat elsewhere and piss off the folk who control the oil. Ghaddafi was never one of "theirs," the others are too important.

  13. This has been only sane comment so far. Listening to gentle mothers supporting bombing of the innocent Libyan infants thousands miles away from their homes in order to establish "Democracy" is terrible testimony how degenerate human beings can become in their self righteousness. It puts almost unbearable shame on the face of humanity.

  14. The truth remains that in africa at large not Libya alone, but all of the so called presidents in their self styled life of selfishness they have never thought of handing over power in peace or Democratically apart from South Africa alone where I have seen this happening in peace.
    Oh my thanks goes over to HIS EXCELLENCE MR. NELSON MANDELA, The great AFRICAN Father.

  15. The truth remains that in africa at large not Libya alone, but all of the so called presidents in their self styled life of selfishness they have never thought of handing over power in peace or Democratically apart from South Africa alone where I have seen this happening in peace.
    Oh my thanks goes over to HIS EXCELLENCE MR. NELSON MANDELA, The great AFRICAN Father.

  16. we hope no war,the world need peace

    Dear friends, do you want to have some different

    things? Whether you want to give your relatives and

    friends, take a few different exotic gifts? Whether you

    want to buy some cheap benefits of thing? So please,

    let us begin now!

    Click on our website
    wholesalekk

    Will bring you different surprise

Sign in to comment.