To Bomb or not to Bomb: is bombing of

Yes. If you are to consider the consensus of a mostly NATO led Security Council of the UN. A few days ago it considered that the situation in Libya was getting out of hand and Gaddhafi's forces were pushing the frontiers of the Rebel forces backwards. It seems, most people in the international community wanted to see a third “Jasmine Revolution” unfold in the deserts of Libya, but were hugely disappointed when it didn't unfold completely.
When Libya started its offensive movement that so damnably killed many militia of the Rebel forces in the Port city of Ras Lanuf, it became imperative for the international community to do something, and the move to enforce a “No-fly zone” was a welcome one for people who like peaceful protests. Being from the country of Mahatma Gandhi, I am welcome to dissent, because it brings forward viewpoints which remain largely unavailable to people who shun protests, like Gaddhafi.
One must be aware what a “No-fly zone” is: it is an area demarcated through geographical boundaries where flying, of any kind, isn't allowed. It does not, in any case means an area where you are free to bomb. If the mandate was to completely annhilate the standing aircraft machinery of the Libyan Armed Forces, then the bombings should have been restricted to this purpose only. But, the bombings have revoked the belief of the people in the world at large that these were only intended for enforcing the “no-fly zone” or a ceasefire in the brief civil war. However targets in the city have also been bombed, the justification being that these were military strongholds. Sadly, these justification were presented to the world many times before, along with one or the other invented excuses to get deliberation in countries which don't conform to the foreign policy of the NATO countries.
These excuses have been many, including the famous hoax of WMDs in Iraq, which subsequently resulted into the Iraq war, which made former President of the United States of America G.W.Bush a favourite with shoe throwers. In fact, that particular incident sparked something of a revolution in protests. Invading Iraq on the pretext of human rights abuse and possession of WMDs only triggered massive opportunity for the Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba and other condemnable terrorist groups to recruit young,dissident, frustrated and brain-washed men, and possibly even women.
The West, and from that I mean the NATO, must beware of their own immediate actions in the aftermath of a step-down of Muammar Gaddhafi, who, after all, is a moderate Muslim. If the Mediterranean Sea is empty of these scandalous groups, it is largely due to the vigilance and efficiency of the nations that border it. However, if extremist groups gather power and support in the wake of popular uprisings, it going to be hard for the world to face the next 20 years without a major conflict spreading out and engulfing it in flames. I would rather have 100 Muammar Gaddhafi’s on Earth, than a single Osama bin Laden.
Everyone clearly remembers what happened in Afghanistan, and the international community must ensure that a similar situation does not develop in Northern Africa.