NATO airstrike kills Gaddafi's son, grandchildren

[newermonkey]

NATO commanders should now be charges with crimes against humanity.

Are you joking?

[PoorSucker]

Are there any proof there was any children present.

I would not believe a statement made by Gaddaffi.

[bangkokeddy]

This is a war crime. I know for a fact that assassination attempts are not part of the UN resolution. NATO therefore are in breach of this resolution. They have deliberately attacked a target that they would have know well had innocent children and civilians sheltering in it. However thier urge to assassinate Ghadaffi got the better of them. They are indeed war criminals and the leaders of the organistation and the member countires that carried out or assisted in this particular attack should be charge accordingly. Innocent children were delibaeratly targeted. Regardless of who is thier Grandfather. They were innocent young children.

You will not find any NATO official who is willing to claim that it was an assassination attempt. NATO doesn't target individuals.

Don't take the BS of some right wing military nuts here at the board who want to paint it that way for official NATO policies.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

You can disagree with someone’s view without name calling.

Some off topic posts have been removed as well.

[puipuitom]

When NATO has aside of a no-fly zone to guarantee, also taken the job to protect the people of Lybia as much as possible out of the air against their dictator, who orders his troopt to use tanks, artillery, mortars and cluster bombs agains the populationof cities, do not be astonished when you get it back too. Do not forget: the estimate casualties under the civilian population is estimated a 10,000.

Oh the Syrians.. have bad luck as.. were not the first and will not be the last. So, die massively, like the Hama massacre of 1982, which has been described as "the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".

All those complainers.. just think.. when a future (Thai) government will force you to leave (Thailand), with giving all your posessions to the (Thais), of course you expect the US Marines to save you ? Remind: the Europeans will discuss, negociate, talk and argue till you are dead. As THIS is what happened until now in Africa....

[flying]

There was no crime. The military compound was a legitimate target.

Thumb through some pictures & note all the military compound equipment you do not see.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gaddafis-youngest-son-killed/2011/04/30/AF6wR0OF_gallery.html#photo=1

[flying]

When NATO has aside of a no-fly zone to guarantee, also taken the job to protect the people of Lybia

Keep your eye on the ball

Rebels in Misrata 'killed by Nato friendly fire'

Thursday 28 April 2011 18.52 BST

Twelve dead and three wounded after rebel unit guarding city's port came under attack

Edited May 1, 2011 by flying

[Richard W]

It sometimes amazes/amuses me that the most fervently christian nation is also the most militarily active. Does their bible have amendments to "Thou shall not kill"?

While the Bible is full of injunctions to kill, I do not recall any "Thou shall not kill". Chapter and verse please.

[transam]

When NATO has aside of a no-fly zone to guarantee, also taken the job to protect the people of Lybia

Keep your eye on the ball

Rebels in Misrata 'killed by Nato friendly fire'

Thursday 28 April 2011 18.52 BST

Twelve dead and three wounded after rebel unit guarding city's port came under attack

In any conflict where arms are used, people are killed or wounded by friendly fire, ANY.

[flying]

In any conflict where arms are used, people are killed or wounded by friendly fire, ANY.

Yes of course but........Isn't it ironic that the reason NATO is there is supposedly to enforce a NO Fly / No Conflict situation.

Would you say mission accomplished then?

[transam]

In any conflict where arms are used, people are killed or wounded by friendly fire, ANY.

Yes of course but........Isn't it ironic that the reason NATO is there is supposedly to enforce a NO Fly / No Conflict situation.

Would you say mission accomplished then?

I think WE don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes, same as in the Balkans genocide, which only came to light to us after it was over.

There are regimes now that deny the holocaust ever happened, even the German civilians at the time could not believe it till they were shown. Wait and see.

[coma]

Gadaffi killing civilians? What do you think is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same thing. These are unusual circumstances where the enemy is not easily identified. Do you think the rebels are all squeaky clean about this?

They are no longer civilians when they join a rebellion, take up arms and fight. Period!!!

[coma]

This is a war crime. I know for a fact that assassination attempts are not part of the UN resolution. NATO therefore are in breach of this resolution. They have deliberately attacked a target that they would have know well had innocent children and civilians sheltering in it. However thier urge to assassinate Ghadaffi got the better of them. They are indeed war criminals and the leaders of the organistation and the member countires that carried out or assisted in this particular attack should be charge accordingly. Innocent children were delibaeratly targeted. Regardless of who is thier Grandfather. They were innocent young children.

You make the claim that the bombing of a military command center was a war crime. Why? What evidence do you have?

On one hand we have the legal experts that review and vet targets vs. your politically motivated opinion.

Nato made clear in advance the compound was a target. It gave prior warnings.

Innocent civilians sheltering? No. There was no need for "innocent" civilians to shelter in the Gaddaffi military compound. No one in that compound was innocent. They are all Gaddaffi loyalists seeking to to kill and maim as many people as they can. Anyone in a military facility used to block the no fly provisions of the UN mandate became a legitimate target. If some of the Gaddaffi progeny met an untimely demise, take it up with Saif and his wife and ask them why they put their children smack dab in the heart of a military target. You might want to read up on war crimes and other details before making accusations.

OK. I will play. You asked me to look up war crimes right ? Your comments on the children disgust me. What about all the children in Iraq that were killed? Guess you

have no sympathy there either. You can throw whatever you like around in defence of NAOT but the fact of the matter is, deliberately targeting civilians is a was crime.Period!! And it does not get anymore precise than this attack.

http://www.wsws.org/...3/law-f27.shtml

http://www.haaretz.c...ration-1.357684

http://www.guardian....riminal-chilcot

[coma]

In any conflict where arms are used, people are killed or wounded by friendly fire, ANY.

Yes of course but........Isn't it ironic that the reason NATO is there is supposedly to enforce a NO Fly / No Conflict situation.

Would you say mission accomplished then?

I guess it would be long odds for us to see Mr Obama on the deck of USS Mesheddunstinc in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, firing off rhetoric under the banner " Mission Accomplished"

Edited May 1, 2011 by coma

[OzMick]

It sometimes amazes/amuses me that the most fervently christian nation is also the most militarily active. Does their bible have amendments to "Thou shall not kill"?

While the Bible is full of injunctions to kill, I do not recall any "Thou shall not kill". Chapter and verse please.

too lazy to google?

Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

King James Version, American Revised Standard, and other Bibles state, "Thou shall not kill". Requires all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life and the ...

Terminology - The Revelation at Sinai - Two texts of the Ten Commandmentsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments - Cached - Similar

took all of 10 seconds. #1 of 856,000

Edited May 1, 2011 by OzMick

[tw25rw]

Kill Gaddafi and the conflict there effectively ends. There is no real Gaddafi ideology to fight for once he's gone.

Gaddafi thought he was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This war against him isn't exactly revenge as a dish served cold, but it's a fitting, if rather late, end.

[Mosha]

Some people here would shed tears at Hitler's death judging by some of the posts

[Ulysses G.]

Gaddafi thought he was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This war against him isn't exactly revenge as a dish served cold, but it's a fitting, if rather late, end.

He was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This is more like kicking someone when he is down just because you can.

[coma]

Kill Gaddafi and the conflict there effectively ends. There is no real Gaddafi ideology to fight for once he's gone.

Gaddafi thought he was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This war against him isn't exactly revenge as a dish served cold, but it's a fitting, if rather late, end.

I don't agree. Unfortunatley some Countries need to be ruled by an iron fist. Particularly Middle Eastern countries. Look at what happened when they killed Saddam Hussein. More people have died in Iraq since then than before.And Iraq is far from out of the woods. So IMO killing Gaddaffi is not the answer. His loyalist, which are obviously numericaly superior to the rebels, will not die with him. And what you will have left is another insurgency which could go on for another 5, 10, or more years. More death. And inevitablythe West will be drawn into it in one way or another.

Maybe we should all leave Libya alone and let them vote with thier rifles and rockets. It would be over one way or another a hell of alot quicker. And the end state would be less casualties. Less money.

[Robby nz]

Dont know how many of the kill Gaddafi supporters have bothered to read th UN resolution.

Give it a try here: http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/116663/20110227/un-resolution-libya-sanctions-original-text-un-resolution-1970-2011.htm

And;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819

After you have read them tell me where in those resolutions it says that the US or NATO should be bombing anything.

In the first resolution:

“Deploring the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including the repression of peaceful demonstrators, expressing deep concern at the deaths of civilians, and rejecting unequivocally the incitement to hostility and violence against the civilian population made from the highest level of the Libyan government,

Now here we have a problem right at the start peaceful demonstrators the rebles are not, they are an armed rebel group attempting to take over the country by force.

Was also interested in this clause:

16. Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Would that be the same sort of armed mercenaries used by the US in Iraq, you know the ones called 'civilian contractors'

I am no fan of Gaddafi but what ever he has done in the past does not justify the targeted killing of his family.

I have read that it has been suggested by reporters on the ground in Libya that members of Hamas and Al-quida are part of the rebel group.

[OzMick]

Gaddafi thought he was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This war against him isn't exactly revenge as a dish served cold, but it's a fitting, if rather late, end.

He was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This is more like kicking someone when he is down just because you can.

"Rehabilitated" is an interesting term for murderous scum who decided to pull his head in after Reagan's pilots missed, just. I still don't remember many world leaders dropping in for a visit, and I really doubt he will be missed, in either sense.

[Ulysses G.]

I agree, but this all just seems like a stupid waste of money to me. Iran would make a lot more sense if one has to go to war again.

[tw25rw]

Gaddafi thought he was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This war against him isn't exactly revenge as a dish served cold, but it's a fitting, if rather late, end.

He was rehabilitated in the eyes of the West. This is more like kicking someone when he is down just because you can.

"Rehabilitated" is an interesting term for murderous scum who decided to pull his head in after Reagan's pilots missed, just. I still don't remember many world leaders dropping in for a visit, and I really doubt he will be missed, in either sense.

He met 2 British PMs, Berlusconi, Putin and Sarkozy to name but 4.

[coma]

If the rebels kill Gaddafi then so be it. The people of Libya would have then spoken for themselves, therefore they have a clear mandate to change the country as they please.. [who know how long it will last ]

Firstly it is not the Wests', UN, UK, USA, NATO etc etc to kill him. However if he is killed by said Co, then the people of Libya have been spoken for by 'outsiders'. They have had thier choice made for them. This is an election by the sword. And one side is being jacked up by Western influence . Remember that Gaddafi still obviously has a large, large support base.If he hadn't he would be LONG gone by now. We just hear mostly stories from the rebels point of view. There are two sides to every story. There are young,innocent women and children living amongst his followers, praying that he will protect them the same. It is not illegal to be Libyan and love Gaddafi. Is it ? Where is the no fly zone for these people ? They are being rained 500lb'rs everyday and night.

[tw25rw]

If the rebels kill Gaddafi then so be it. The people of Libya would have then spoken for themselves, therefore they have a clear mandate to change the country as they please.. [who know how long it will last ]

Firstly it is not the Wests', UN, UK, USA, NATO etc etc to kill him. However if he is killed by said Co, then the people of Libya have been spoken for by 'outsiders'. They have had thier choice made for them. This is an election by the sword. And one side is being jacked up by Western influence .

Is that how democracy works? An armed insurgency is successful so the people have spoken? If Gaddafi crushes the rebels, will that be the Libyan people's will too?

[coma]

If the rebels kill Gaddafi then so be it. The people of Libya would have then spoken for themselves, therefore they have a clear mandate to change the country as they please.. [who know how long it will last ]

Firstly it is not the Wests', UN, UK, USA, NATO etc etc to kill him. However if he is killed by said Co, then the people of Libya have been spoken for by 'outsiders'. They have had thier choice made for them. This is an election by the sword. And one side is being jacked up by Western influence .

Is that how democracy works? An armed insurgency is successful so the people have spoken? If Gaddafi crushes the rebels, will that be the Libyan people's will too?

So be it. It is Libya. Not anywhere else.

[geriatrickid]

I do not understand why there is continued discussion. Bab al Azizya is the headquarters of the Gaddafi regime. It is where the key military decisons are made. There are military barracks and facilities at the location. This makes it a legitimate target. look at the satellite phots. Look at the news footage of the bombed bunker. It was several stories below ground, built of reinforced concrete. The building that was targeted was not a primary purpose residential building.

[coma]

I do not understand why there is continued discussion. Bab al Azizya is the headquarters of the Gaddafi regime. It is where the key military decisons are made. There are military barracks and facilities at the location. This makes it a legitimate target. look at the satellite phots. Look at the news footage of the bombed bunker. It was several stories below ground, built of reinforced concrete. The building that was targeted was not a primary purpose residential building.

Come on!! Gaddafi could be taking a dump in an out house in the middle of the desert and NATO would attack it, call it a military target. Because to NATO, Graddafi is the target

[bangkokeddy]

I do not understand why there is continued discussion. Bab al Azizya is the headquarters of the Gaddafi regime. It is where the key military decisons are made. There are military barracks and facilities at the location. This makes it a legitimate target. look at the satellite phots. Look at the news footage of the bombed bunker. It was several stories below ground, built of reinforced concrete. The building that was targeted was not a primary purpose residential building.

Come on!! Gaddafi could be taking a dump in an out house in the middle of the desert and NATO would attack it, call it a military target. Because to NATO, Graddafi is the target

Assassination of a head of state is illegal under international law, and forbidden by various US presidential orders. On the other hand, the targeted killing of those woven into the enemy chain of command is shrouded in legal ambiguity.

Given the personalistic nature of the regime, and the "all means necessary" clause in UN Resolution 1973, it might be argued that killing Col Muammar Gaddafi and certain members of his family - such as his son Khamis, commander of an elite military brigade - would be permissible, even if it posed a risk to those non-combatants around the regime.

Legality, though, indicates neither legitimacy nor prudence. This strike, and the death of Saif al-Arab, have produced little military result at the greatest diplomatic and symbolic cost to Nato.

Saif al-Arab was, unlike his brothers, not a senior military commander or propagandist. His death is redolent of the 1986 US strike on the same compound.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13252192

[tw25rw]

I do not understand why there is continued discussion. Bab al Azizya is the headquarters of the Gaddafi regime. It is where the key military decisons are made. There are military barracks and facilities at the location. This makes it a legitimate target. look at the satellite phots. Look at the news footage of the bombed bunker. It was several stories below ground, built of reinforced concrete. The building that was targeted was not a primary purpose residential building.

Come on!! Gaddafi could be taking a dump in an out house in the middle of the desert and NATO would attack it, call it a military target. Because to NATO, Graddafi is the target

Well he does command the military..

Whether it's legally right or wrong, I hope they kill the bastard.