1. If the term "civilian" is to have any meaning in the internal Libyan conflict it can only refer to someone who is not an insurrectionist. Compare the IRA. Notice the word "Army" in their name?

2. Gadaffi's threats (at least as far as I read) were only against those not yielding to his advancing troops.

3. The troops were legitimately deployed against rebels - whichever side you prefer, and I probably prefer the rebels but preference is not the point, legitimacy is).

4. That deployment was internal to Libya and posed no threat to any external politic.

5.   For the UN to assume jurisdiction over such an internal matter is iffy at best. It wasn't a threatened genocide and the UN has ignored enough genocides over the years to constitute precedent.

6. I have not seen (that doesn't mean there isn't any, just that I haven't seen it) any threat of civilian (as I defined it) massacre.

7. So there was no pressing reason to enforce a "no-fly" zone anyway (other than a desire to interfere).

8. Gadaffi's missile sites around Tripoli were not apt for use for any massacre of civilians in Benghazi.

9. They had not been deployed against any foreign aircraft or other targets.

10. Thus the "Allied" assault can only have been a pre-emptive strike (not legitimate under international law) on an internal mission in a sovereign state (not legitimate under international law) as a matter of interference in internal politics (not legitimate under international law).

11. The position might have been different if there were a declared war or steps by Libya to launch an undeclared war - but there is no sign of any such.

This is colonialist aggression.