Gaddafi's son killed

[nivek]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/30/libya.gadhafi.son.killed/index.html?hpt=T1

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- One of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's sons -- Saif al-Arab Gadhafi -- was killed after a NATO airstrike, a spokesman for Libya's government said Sunday at a press conference.
Moammar Gadhafi and his wife were in their son's house when it was targeted, spokesman Musa Ibrahim said. Both of them are in good health, according to the spokesman.
The victim is one of two Gadhafi sons whose names begin with Saif. The other is Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, who had previously touted reform but has emerged as one of his father's most visible defenders in recent months.

 

[MickeyD]

Rumours are that this was another targeted attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. If true it oversteps the rules of engagement.

Real shame on NATO for killing his grand-children... this is not the way to wage war.

 

[Fazda]

Well if that is true, it's going to do one of two things.

Make the idiot Gaddafi go totally ballistic

OR

Make the idiot Gaddafi finally think of folding

My wager is on the first option.

 

[Fazda]

Real shame on NATO for killing his grand-children... this is not the way to wage war.

How about real shame for Gaddafi to have got his grand children into the mess in the first place. Obviously NATO had no intention of killing anyone except Gaddafi. War is a c ock up whatever way you look at it.

 

[MickeyD]

How about real shame for Gaddafi to have got his grand children into the mess in the first place. Obviously NATO had no intention of killing anyone except Gaddafi. War is a c ock up whatever way you look at it.

I agree with your option 1 above...

In this case NATO targeted Gaddafi's son's house where Gaddafi was either visiting, about to visit or had just left (details are sketchy depending on the source).

 

[Palimino]

Rumours are that this was another targeted attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. If true it oversteps the rules of engagement.

‘The rules of engagement’? Those rules that a countries leaders agree to because they want to keep their carcasses out of harms way? If these twats lives were threatened, we wouldn’t have nearly as many wars. But if thousands of innocents are killed, infrastructure destroyed, misery, disease and hunger are common, the leader twats are not affected. They’re all right so the country can suffer for their egos. They spend their time formulating ‘rules of engagement’ so they can slaughter their populations while being immune from harm.

... this is not the way to wage war.

There is a ‘right’ way to wage war?

 

[LazyLion]

Bomb the entire palace to the ground. Qaddaffi is a murderer... and murderers don't deserve any second chances.

 

[killadoob]

I agree with your option 1 above...

In this case NATO targeted Gaddafi's son's house where Gaddafi was either visiting, about to visit or had just left (details are sketchy depending on the source).

Cnn are claiming it was being used as a military compound. Hit him where it hurts. He took no issues murdering people and they were also perhaps children, lovers etc.

Now they have a great opportunity to nail mugabe and co, drop a bomb on their "military compound"

 

[Ricard]

From the same Government that denied attacking civilians and has promised two ceasefires that were never enacted.

I dont believe any statements coming from them.

 

[J0n0]

There are no rules in war. War is War. Only sad part is that he wasn't there.

 

[czc]

If they had killed Gaddafi fine, as he is their stated "target". This killing of his son can now be used against the NATO coalition.

 

[w1z4rd]

Well if that is true, it's going to do one of two things.

Make the idiot Gaddafi go totally ballistic

OR

Make the idiot Gaddafi finally think of folding

My wager is on the first option.

I dont think Gaddafi cares. At all. He doesnt come across as a caring type of parent. A caring parent would move their kids out of a war zone immediately. I dont think this hurt his feelings but might have hurt his ego.

 

[w1z4rd]

There are no rules in war. War is War. Only sad part is that he wasn't there.

I was just thinking... aaaaw.. they missed him.

 

[boramk]

Wrong Gaddafi NATO!

 

[MickeyD]

Let me state categorically that I do not support Gaddafi in the slightest. Should there be regime change? Yes, but it must be done legitimately and not under the guise of the relevant UN Resolution. Before jumping to conclusions and making emotional comments, have a read:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05916.pdf

6 Can the coalition target Colonel Qaddafi personally?

Differences of interpretation surfaced about the likelihood of an attack on Colonel Qaddafi quite soon after the resolution was passed. On 20 March, Defence Secretary Liam Fox refused to rule out the possible targeting of Colonel Qaddafi. He also implied that the leader was a legitimate target but that attempts would not be made to attack him because of the likelihood of civilian casualties:

Well, there's a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether you would go ahead with targeting. You would have to take into account what might happen to civilians in the area, what might happen in terms of collateral damage, we don't simply – with a gung–ho attitude – start firing off missiles.

Foreign Secretary William Hague also refused to exclude the possibility.

The British military appeared to rule this out categorically. Asked about the possibility of targeting Qaddafi, Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff said:

Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates also cautioned against broadening the terms of the resolution when asked about targeting Qaddafi:

The one thing that there is agreement on are the terms set forth in the Security Council resolution. If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect. I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.

 

[Alan]

Another success for the U.N's 'progressive' war

 

[Palimino]

...broadening the terms of the resolution when asked about targeting Qaddafi:

There is no ‘broadening the terms of the resolution’. It’s meeting those terms exactly. No Qaddafi, no more civilians under threat. Currently, it’s the long way round with lots of needless slaughter. One mangy, murderous life against 1000’s of innocents. Doesn’t make sense.

 

[MickeyD]

There is no ‘broadening the terms of the resolution’. It’s meeting those terms exactly. No Qaddafi, no more civilians under threat. Currently, it’s the long way round with lots of needless slaughter. One mangy, murderous life against 1000’s of innocents. Doesn’t make sense.

A sniper's long range bullet will be more effective as it could be attributed to a "rebel".

 

[BTTB]

Rules of engagement

How about a decent Constitution in Libya that prevents leaders from overstaying their welcome.
While we are about it you can add Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba and a few others to that equation. In this day and age no person should be allowed to serve more than one or two 4 to 5 year terms in office as it always ends up with the dictator taking liberties and running the place like his own fiefdom usually to the detriment of the masses.

 

[MickeyD]

How about a decent Constitution in Libya that prevents leaders from overstaying their welcome.
While we are about it you can add Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba and a few others to that equation. In this day and age no person should be allowed to serve more than one or two 4 to 5 year terms in office as it always ends up with the dictator taking liberties and running the place like his own fiefdom usually to the detriment of the masses.

You can extend that to hundreds of other fiefdoms!

My immediate concern (other than the Libyan general population) is for the Syrians. Why is the UN not stepping in to stop the mass murder of innocent civilians?