Why write a comment "I disagree but let me agree with what you said"

I said that the UN resolution was about protecting civilians?

The point is that NATO partook in actions past just protecting civilians

No, you claimed that

Don't act as if this is my opinion. This was the opinion of the head of the UN mission in Lybia. He is the one you are trying to tell is wrong. I am just telling you his statements

No. You've repeatedly misrepresented his statements in completely dishonest ways without any sense of shame.

Let's see what the NATO spokesperson has to say

"OANA LUNGESCU: Remember under UNSCR 1973 there are no ground operations."

So not only are you disagreeing with the UN mission to Lybia, you are disagreeing with NATO now?

I am sorry but a one-sentence answer from a NATO spokesperson two weeks into the operation without clear definitions of their terms is not particularly useful for understanding anything. Particularly when the question asked in the transcript you cite is described as "inaudible." Its also not particularly clear whether the spokesperson means that UNSCR 1973 forbids ground operations or that NATO's mission under UNSCR 1973 does not involve ground operations. NATO wasn't engaged in ground operations in Libya at the time and one of the only confirmed instances of ground forces in Libya was to rescue a downed pilot which is not at all what anyone would consider an "occupying force" under UNSCR 1973.

"I don't like what he says so it's not relevant"

He was the head of the UN mission to Lybia. What he says is very relevant if you are trying to claim the UN supported NATOs actions and yet the head of the UN mission says that what NATO did was not in agreement with the UN mandate

Its not "I don't like it so its not relevant" its not relevant because nothing in that statement contradicts anything I said nor does it support your position. It does not state it was unlawful or acted contrary to UNSCR 1973. He stated that NATO's targetting shifted but even if it shifted, it does not mean it was not within the scope of UNSCR 1973's mandate. Therefore it can be dismissed as a completely irrelevant quote that does nothing for your argument irrespective of his credentials.

The mandate was about protecting civilians. NATO bombing government forces in support of the rebels and having forces on the ground go against the mandate. As NATO themselves have said.

A) No, it does not say either of those things. It says that they can take whatever actions necessary (except for occupying the country) to protect civilians. If that meant supporting the rebels then nothing in the text forbids it (nor did the statement from Ian Martin state otherwise which is again why bringing up his quote is irrelevant).

B) You've not actually demonstrated that NATO said that, you've only provided an ambiguous statement to a partially inaudible question and expect me to accept it without any inquiry as to what it actually meant.

Let me again quote the same head of the UN mission in Lybia

"since the special forces operations and other military assistance were not officially declared, their legality has been little debated."

This is not a statement that their use was unlawful nor does it provide any support for them being used in the forbidden capacity as occupation forces.

"Missions were ‘deliberately concealed’ from the UN Security Council"

This statement isn't even specifically directed at NATO but on general breaches of the arms embargo independent of NATOs actions. Why bring it up other than to mislead given this topic is squarely about NATO. It also glosses over how UNSCR 1973 specifically says that any actions notwithstanding UNSCR 1970 (2011), which set up the arms embargo in the first place, meant to protect civilians was permissible which creates a potential legal grey area to allow for disregard of the original embargo if it was in pursuit of the objective of UNSCR 1973 and it should have been better written if they didn't want issues.

"It is impossible to believe that there would have been the necessary votes in the Security Council, let alone the withholding of vetoes by Russia and China, if the full extent of the military campaign had been foreseen"

This is his retrospective assessment over 11 years after the fact and entirely based on an ex-post facto rationalizing.