I also explained why he is an idiot.

Incidendentally, American and other forces are enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, not "bombing it". And I didn't even say whether I supported that action.

Then go and vote for a Bush-like candidate next year.

Bush increased aid to Africa and spoke up about Darfur. He was beginning to do the right thing.

Obama went back to the old strategy of sending aid primarily to white people.

I am already doing a little bit:

http://www.damanga.org/newsroom/press_releases/2009/letter_to_damanga_friends_and_supporters.html

Not enough, because I am neither a good person nor an idealist.

I am just doing more than the anti-America crowd. The morality of the country is your morality, not somebody else's. You have to change, not other people.

You are talking about opposition and "the people" as if any of that was needed. It is not. We don't need an opposition to oppressive western governments, least of all the American government, because western governments are not the problem. They are merely too stupid and short-sighted to be the solution.

We live in a world where it is a scandal if a white Gazan isn't allowed to cross the border into Israel to kill people but everything is fine if hundreds of thousands of Africans are killed by the allies of the Gazan who happen to be allowed to cross the border into Darfur.

And what is the solution? "The people" must be the "opposition" to some government. How does that help?

Bombing military installations is not a "human rights violation". The Bishop is lying. If he is not an idiot, he is a liar.

Leauki - Viva la revolution! Until Americans look inward for a lot of their answers, they will continue to blame everyone else for the ulterior motives and actions of the USG … of which most people are clueless. Are you implying that you are a bad person? I agree ideology is little more today than someone else’s direction … sort of like theology where outside the loop views, opinions and questions are not tolerated or even acknowledged as anything besides hypocrisy or some conspiracy or other, go figure.. Cannot argue against the bible any more you can the USG‘s profane ideology because it is not allowed???

The vilest anti-American crowd is the USG and the neo-politicians that control it as evidenced by their disregard for the will of the people.

News articles indicate that you are incorrect.

Check this out:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-clinton-no-fly-zone-means-bombing-libya-sites-031711/

The first few lines are:

Clinton: No-fly zone means bombing Libya sites

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya would require bombing targets inside the country, and a deputy acknowledged that Moammar Gadhafi’s forces were making huge gains against the opposition.

Clinton gave her assessment during a visit to Tunisia and ahead of a planned U.N. vote, making clear the risk of possible military intervention as world powers considered broader steps to protect civilians and pressure the Libyan leader.

.......................................

Here is part of another story from the AP..

AP – A British RAF Tornado takes off from RAF Marham, England, Sunday, March, 20, 2011. The U.N. Security …

By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – Sun Mar 20, 7:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The U.S. on Sunday claimed initial success two days into an assault on Libya that included some of the heaviest firepower in the American arsenal — long-range bombers designed for the Cold War — but American officials said Sunday it was too early to define the international military campaign's endgame.

The top U.S. military officer suggested that Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi might stay in power in spite of the military assault aimed at protecting civilians, calling into question the larger objective of an end to Gadhafi's erratic 42-year rule. Other top U.S. officials have suggested that a weakened and isolated Gadhafi could be ripe for a coup.

A second wave of attacks, mainly from American fighters and bombers, targeted Libyan ground forces and air defenses, following an opening barrage Saturday of sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. expects to turn control of the mission over to a coalition — probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO — "in a matter of days."

"We judge these strikes to have been very effective in significantly degrading the regime's air defense capability," Gortney said. "We believe his forces are under significant stress and suffering from both isolation and a good deal of confusion."

Gortney's assessment suggested that further strikes on the scale of Saturday's heavy assault with sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles may not be needed, although he did not rule out further attacks.

 

The systems targeted most closely were Libya's SA-5 surface-to-air missiles, Russian-made weaponry that could pose a threat to allied aircraft many miles off the Libyan coastline. Libya has a range of other air defense weaponry, including portable surface-to-air missiles that are more difficult to eliminate by bombing.

Sunday's attacks, carried out by a range of U.S. aircraft — including Air Force B-2 stealth bombers as well as Marine Harrier jets flying from an amphibious assault ship in the Mediterranean — demonstrated the predominance of U.S. firepower in the international coalition. By striking Libyan ground forces, coalition forces also showed that they are going beyond the most frequently discussed goal of establishing a no-fly zone over the country.

A military official said the B-2s flew 25 hours in a round trip from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and dropped 45 2,000-pound bombs.

U.S. missiles and warplanes were clearly in the lead Saturday and Sunday, but Gates said the plan remains for the U.S. to step back once the threat from the Libyan military is reduced.

Libya's claims of civilians among the dead from the strikes appeared to make Arab countries nervous, after the Arab League took the unprecedented step of calling for a no-fly zone. On Sunday, Arab League chief Amr Moussa criticized the missile strikes, saying they went beyond what the Arab body had supported.

"What happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives," Moussa told reporters in Cairo. "What we want is civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians."

................................................

So it seems that the good archbishop knows what he is talking about....Libya hasbeen/ is being bombed.

Lula posted:

Quoting Leauki, reply 103

The archbishop stated: "If there are violations of human rights, I cannot use the same method to stop them. As a Christian I have to use peaceful methods, first of all dialogue."

Quoting Leauki, reply 103

Bombing military installations is not a "human rights violation". The Bishop is lying. If he is not an idiot, he is a liar.

It's clearly not only military bases that are being bombed....civilians are being killed too.

The archbishop hasn't lied about anything.  He would like the conflict in Libya resolved using "peaceful methods" beginning with dialogue. not by vengeance for vengeance or eye for an eye methods.

Ok. So you think I'm manipulating the archbishop's words, while I think I was trying to explain what "same methods" are as opposed to "peaceful methods". 

I pointed out that "same methods" are vengeance for vengeance (or as you say, an eye for an eye) methods.

Bottom line is that "same methods" here is employing violence for violence.

No rest assured I wasn't making the claim that the Archbishop was promoting war. He is in fact promoting just the opposite.

Sickens is such a strong term.  So I guess you really care.  Which is more than I can say for myself.  You may want to go back and reread my response as Ms. Narcissist, I never mentioned you.  I mentioned a cancer on America.  Should the shoe fit, you are more than welcome to wear it.  But do not accuse me of being your prince charming shodding your shoeless sole.

When you stop thinking the world is all about "U-U-U-U', come back and be more rational.  Until such time, go buzz someone who cares about what you think, feel, or don't think and feel.

Au Contraire, they are bombing it.  The only similarity about this no fly zone being administered by France, GB and the USA and a real no fly zone is the use of airplanes.  In a "no fly zone" you do not bomb targets unless they are shooting at you - and Ghadhafy's compound was not doing that. (Neither were his tanks, but  I guess a supersonic jet fighter has to be afraid of a subsonic ground to ground projectile?)

Well, they were supposed to institute a no-fly zone, not bomb the country. But I am not involved in that. I supported the invasion of Iraq but that was because I knew who the bad guy was (Saddam) and who the good guys were (the Kurds). I cannot say that I know that Gaddafi is worse than the rebels. Three things speak for the rebels though: They use the flag of royal Libya, they are supported by Berber (native) tribes and Gaddafi is a known terrorist supporter.

Either way, bombing military targets is no human rights violation and if that Bishop claims that they are he is either an idiot or a liar or both.

What exactly is the opposite of promoting war?

I don't know if Gaddafi uses human shields. Most like him do. Hitting human shields is no human rights violation either. I don't believe that US or other forces are purposefully hitting anything but military targets. If the Bishop wants to make that accusation he should say it out loud.

Who wouldn't like to resolve the conflict in Libya using "peaceful methods"? The problem is that "peaceful methods" don't work very well with people like Gaddafi (or the rebels for that matter). The Bishop has merely decided not to take the risk of doing anything. It's easy to call for "peace" when others do the fighting that protects you from war.

Leauki posts:

Lula posts:

DrG posts:

Leauki posts:

This isn't about you or your support of or involvement. Why can't you see that you made a claim the forces were not bombing Libya and that claim is incorrect? End of story. 

 "If"?

here is the Archbishop's quote:

Here the  "violations of human rights" was not about bombing military targets.

You might note that the news article also included that the bishops held an episcopal meeting:

The commission meeting, which ended Wednesday in Tunisia, gathered bishops of Maghreb with others from France and Spain.

The final declaration of the participants emphasized the plight of migrants fleeing the conflict zones, while also affirming that "no one can control the consequences of armed intervention that also affect innocent victims."

Here's today's news about the bombing of Libya and the archbishop:

Bombing of Libya is driving thousands of civilian from homes, bishop reports

  May 10, 2011

The apostolic vicar of Tripoli, who has consistently denounced the NATO air strikes in Libya, reports that the bombing is causing a massive exodus of refugees.

"The Libyans are afraid, every day thousands of people leave for Egypt and Tunisia, where refugee camps have been set up,” Bishop Giovanni Martinelli told the AsiaNews service. “Yesterday more than 30,000 people fled to Tunisia alone.”

Bishop Martinelli has issued numerous pleas for an end to the bombing campaign and the beginning of negotiations to settle Libya's future.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Bishop of Tripoli: Libyans are fleeing the war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees (AsiaNews)

Already seen. The end of the story happened before your involvement, as usual.

To demonstrate that the Bishop is telling the truth you refer to other statements the Bishop has made backing up his claims?

Isn't the traditional method to find another source that confirms the first rather than just showing that the first source agrees with itself?

I was not getting into your debate with Lula, just contending the no fly as that is a great point of vexation for me.  I know why they call it that - so the progressives can support it without looking like the true hypocrites they are (ala iraq).  but that is not what vexes me.  As it is the natural tendency of progressives to lie even when the truth will do.

The vexation is with the Media going along with the charade.  I should not be, since that again is the natural tendency of the ministers of propaganda, yet I still have those rose colored glasses on.

I get your point. Nevertheless, I doubt that NATO (or Arab League) forces intentionally fire at civilian targets (unless Gaddafi's troops hide next to them as does happen). Whether or not one agrees with what the US and others are doing in Libya, bombing military targets is not a human rights violation. (It is, however, a violation of Libya's souvereinty, because the west and the Arab League have recognised Gaddafi as the rightful ruler of Libya even though that in itself was also a crime.)

Promoting peace by peaceful means.

Evidently not, for you attempt  oneupsmanship by poking at me with this nonsense.

And this point is one of major importance.  

Going back to the last paragraph of the AsiaNews.It article from 4/26/11  #92 post.

The point that the bombings have been authorized by the UN was thrown out to the archbishop and he asserted that "the United Nations, NATO and the European Union do not have "the moral authority to decide to bomb."

THe archbishop's point is one of major importance as well.