The credibility of NATO's war on Libya was questioned by someone from the Main Stream Media, BBC's Matthew Price (13). In an article on BBC (1) on August 20, 2011. On August 16 there was also someone brave enough to ask some questions about NATO's overstepping its mandate during a press conference (14). But let's stick to the questions by Matthew Price. I have taken out a few:
Does Nato believe its strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces have helped the rebel advance?

Nato's mission is to prevent attacks and threats against civilians. Some strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces which were threatening civilians have also made it easier for opposition forces to advance on the ground. But Nato is not the opposition's air force. We are tracking the fighting between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces but we are not involved in the ground battle. Our targets are those forces and installations which present a threat to the civilian population. We are on the side of the Libyan people.

'We are not the opposition's air force' NATO answers. As if they didn't bomb everything that was in between the Nafusa Mountains and the town of Zawiyah in order to pave the way for the Rebels to start their combat in that city. If you only take a look at the following video (2) it might raise doubts about NATO not being the airforce of the Rebels.

In that particular video one the Rebels explains to Lindsey Hilsum what happened in a fight around the refinery of Zawiyah. A few Gaddafi soldiers (called 'blacks' by the Rebel) were in a fight and then eventually tried to flee in a boat, but - as the rebel continues his story - they were bombed by NATO and those that tried to climb on shore were most likely all killed.

In the BBC-interview NATO confirmed that it has - in all those months - not bombed any of the opposition forces, as we can read in the following part:
The Nato mandate is to protect civilians. Have there been instances where rebel forces have put civilian lives at risk, and where Nato had to intervene?

Our mission is to protect civilians in Libya, as the United Nations Security Council mandates. So far, the opposition forces have shown every indication that they are committed to the protection of civilians and respect for human rights. We expect this commitment to continue. Since the start of the operation, Nato has not targeted the military forces of the opposition.

So here we have a war between Rebels and the Libyan Army and NATO is putting forward the suggestion that all the Libyan soldiers were killed because they threatened civilians and not a single Rebel was 'engaged'. This seems to be too ludicrous to be true. What about the slaughter of Tawurgha (3, 9) and what happened to the Green town of Tiji. Perhaps take a look at this compilation by InomineX (7)

There are also reports (4, 5, 6) from refugees from Benghazi & Misrata who talk about atrocities committed by the Rebels, let alone everything that you can find on youtube about the killings of the black people in Benghazi and other east-Libyan cities.

Next time Matthew Price could also question NATO on their enforcing of the weapons embargo on Libya. There are many reports that show that the Rebels get arms from countries like France and especially Qatar, sometimes even being flown into Misrata (8). More on the one-sided enforcement of the weapons embargo see (10, 11).

Now the new approach by NATO is to make sure that all those civilians that support the green Jamahiriya, will suffer from a lack of fuel and electricity. As you can see in (2) they helped the Rebels gain control of the refinery in Zawiyah to make sure that Tripoli gets more and more isolated.

Everything NATO does, is being done to support their infantery on the ground and to weaken their opponent: the Libyan army and all those civilians that carry weapons to defend themselves against the Rebels, but because that is a blatant overstepping of the UN-mandate they need to use this lie about 'protecting civilians' to hide the fact that they are killing anyone who carries a weapon and opposes NATO's infantery (12).