Agorism
04-30-2011, 04:33 PM
Confusion As NATO Struggles To Avoid Cease Fire In Libya
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/04/30/confusion-as-nato-struggles-to-avoid-cease-fire-in-libya/
This weekend, the Libyan government bombed Misrata. NATO bombed Tripoli. Moammar Qaddafi offered a cease fire and negotiations to permanently end the fighting. NATO said there could be no cease fire until the Libyan government stopped attacks that cause civilian deaths.
Did you catch the strange logical glitch in that scenario? Here’s how the Voice of America unreflectively reports the stand off: “The attacks came just hours after the embattled Libyan leader demanded that rebels in the city surrender, and urged NATO to accept a ceasefire and to begin peace negotiations. NATO rejected the offer saying it wanted to see threats to civilians in Libya end.”
Wouldn’t a cease fire automatically guarantee an end to civilian deaths? NATO is saying it won’t accept the Libyan offer of a cease fire because it wants Libya to stop firing. It doesn’t make any sense.
NATO itself has made no pledge to end attacks that could result in the deaths of civilians. Many civilians have died as a result of NATO attacks in Libya. Maybe it would help the situation if NATO made a pledge of no civilian deaths first.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/04/30/confusion-as-nato-struggles-to-avoid-cease-fire-in-libya/
This weekend, the Libyan government bombed Misrata. NATO bombed Tripoli. Moammar Qaddafi offered a cease fire and negotiations to permanently end the fighting. NATO said there could be no cease fire until the Libyan government stopped attacks that cause civilian deaths.
Did you catch the strange logical glitch in that scenario? Here’s how the Voice of America unreflectively reports the stand off: “The attacks came just hours after the embattled Libyan leader demanded that rebels in the city surrender, and urged NATO to accept a ceasefire and to begin peace negotiations. NATO rejected the offer saying it wanted to see threats to civilians in Libya end.”
Wouldn’t a cease fire automatically guarantee an end to civilian deaths? NATO is saying it won’t accept the Libyan offer of a cease fire because it wants Libya to stop firing. It doesn’t make any sense.
NATO itself has made no pledge to end attacks that could result in the deaths of civilians. Many civilians have died as a result of NATO attacks in Libya. Maybe it would help the situation if NATO made a pledge of no civilian deaths first.