The Libya Crisis (military intervention started on march 19, 2011)

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Gaddafi survives air strikes, son killed - government
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7270JP20110501

Maybe they think, if they reallt tried to kill Gaddafi, than eliminating him might safe them the trouble to send ground troups.

Any appearance of an assassination attempt against Gaddafi is likely to lead to accusations that the British- and French-led strikes are overstepping the provisions of the U.N. resolution to protect civilians.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a long-time ally of Gaddafi, called it attempted murder.

"There is no doubt the order was given to kill Gaddafi. It doesn't matter who else is killed, kill Gaddafi ... a murder, this is a murder," he said in Caracas.

Konstantin Kosachev, head of the international affairs committee in the lower house of Russia's parliament, told Interfax: "More and more facts indicate that the purpose of the anti-Libyan coalition is to physically destroy Gaddafi."

He called on the Western coalition to undertake a prompt evaluation of its actions.

One has really to wonder if the Coalition is trying to emulate Tsahal (eliminating leaders with cruise missiles and guided bombs), just without the whole self-defense stuff, and even doing it within an UN resolution.

But IIRC, in his grand days, when he was supporting all kinds of terrorists groups, didn't the US already tried to eliminate him via bombing?

On a side note, I wonder if he is gonna take it personal, and start putting contracts on some of his former "friends" (or maybe security services are already quite busy).

[Seitsuki]

Hasn't NATO been insisting that they struck a known military compound and weren't targeting Gaffadi expressly? Both sides will be fighting hard in the war for public opinion as well (a front that seems to be just as important these days). Let's wait for confirmation on casualties and such before speculating further

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Hasn't NATO been insisting that they struck a known military compound and weren't targeting Gaffadi expressly? Both sides will be fighting hard in the war for public opinion as well (a front that seems to be just as important these days). Let's wait for confirmation on casualties and such before speculating further

I don't think they can be certain where Gadaffi is. If they can nailed down his location he would already be dead. The goal is to soften the defences so the rebels can go in.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Gaddafi survives air strikes, son killed - government
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7270JP20110501

Maybe they think, if they reallt tried to kill Gaddafi, than eliminating him might safe them the trouble to send ground troups.

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Hasn't NATO been insisting that they struck a known military compound and weren't targeting Gaffadi expressly? Both sides will be fighting hard in the war for public opinion as well (a front that seems to be just as important these days). Let's wait for confirmation on casualties and such before speculating further

They plan to strike a military compound but "accidentally" and kill Gaffadi's son ( i could not care less about this guys), and the three kids instead? And the rebel spent all night to celebrate such deed....?


I knows war have nothing to do with morality. But it's just getting uglier and uglier... That remind me of that line about 'bad peace is still better than good war'

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

They plan to strike a military compound but "accidentally" and kill Gaffadi's son ( i could not care less about this guys), and the three kids instead? And the rebel spent all night to celebrate such deed....?


I knows war have nothing to do with morality. But it's just getting uglier and uglier...

You think the Rebels haven't lost sons of their own to Gadaffi? They are fighting for their children too.

Gadaffi bombed his own cities. How many children did you think died in them?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

They plan to strike a military compound but "accidentally" and kill Gaffadi's son ( i could not care less about this guys), and the three kids instead? And the rebel spent all night to celebrate such deed....?

I knows war have nothing to do with morality. But it's just getting uglier and uglier... That remind me of that line about 'bad peace is still better than good war'

Considering the fact that Gaddafi killed many parents and probably their children too, those three kids are just another statistic added to the bodycount. And you could probably understand why the rebels celebrated because Gaddafi's grandchildren are still benefitting off the oppression of the Libyan middle and lower class.

I find it ridiculous that it "wasn't within any moral code" to kill Gaddafi's child and grandchildren, or assassinate him, but it is absolutely moral for Gaddafi to conduct the Lockerbie bombing or have Yvonne Fletcher killed? And to arm the provisional IRA and Hamas against Israeli civilians? So why shouldn't his son and grandchildren be treated as another statistic in this civil war, just like how innocent people have died indirectly by his hand?

This is another case of "what goes round, comes round". It is going to happen sooner or later.

Originally Posted by JMvS

On a side note, I wonder if he is gonna take it personal, and start putting contracts on some of his former "friends" (or maybe security services are already quite busy).

Not yet anyway. I haven't been mobilised; Libyan sends crude carriers and oil businessmen (read : Gaddafi's cronies running nationalised oil) past my country on a regular basis.

[ganbaru]

Gaddafi, as the chief of the libyan gouvernement, is the chief of the army, no ? if so, would it make it a military target as well ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Gaddafi, as the chief of the libyan gouvernement, is the chief of the army, no ? if so, would it make it a military target as well ?

He is supposedly the supreme commander of the Libyan armed forces if I am not wrong. You could call Libya a military-anarchy - Gaddafi runs his stuff through the iron fist of his army.

[TheForsaken]

Lol you guys are absolutely biased against Gaddafi

If you hate him so much because of his crimes so you should hate the ones who bombed and killed those three children too.
And if you see that the Western army did nothing wrong then Gaddafi wasn't wrong either when he killed off the rebels.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by TheForsaken

Lol you guys are absolutely biased against Gaddafi

If you hate him so much because of his crimes so you should hate the ones who bombed and killed those three children too.
And if you see that the Western army did nothing wrong then Gaddafi wasn't wrong either when he killed off the rebels.

Who said anything about hating him? He lived by the sword, so now he will die by the sword. Gadaffi knows the rules of the game. And since he didn't spare the children of his enemies, he shouldn't expect his own children to be safe.

Really, Gadaffi didn't kill MY family, so I have no reason to hate him. But I know there are quite a few people in Libyia who did lose family members to him. And now he will receive the consequences of his own actions.

[FatPianoBoy]

ITT: Children are the property of their parents and have no lives of their own.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

ITT: Children are the property of their parents and have no lives of their own.

If he wanted to send his children overseas for protection, he could have. Unlike the dead children of the Rebels, Gadaffi's kids are not stuck in the country out of necessity.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TheForsaken

Lol you guys are absolutely biased against Gaddafi

If you hate him so much because of his crimes so you should hate the ones who bombed and killed those three children too.
And if you see that the Western army did nothing wrong then Gaddafi wasn't wrong either when he killed off the rebels.

Where did you get that from?

[FatPianoBoy]

Mainly it just bothers me that people are trying to justify it by saying that Ghaddafi deserved to lose his own family without taking into account how involved there were personally in anything he did. They weren't his house or private yacht or something.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

Mainly it just bothers me that people are trying to justify it by saying that Ghaddafi deserved to lose his own family without taking into account how involved there were personally in anything he did. They weren't his house or private yacht or something.

Like I said, "what goes round, comes round". It may not affect you directly, but anything bad you do can affect the people around you too. Especially those who are the closest.

Maybe if fate does really exist, taking away his child and grandchildren could probably be a way of making him feel the suffering he has caused when he killed the parents of the rebel faction. After all, suffering is no doubt more painful than death.

That being said, is philosophy. The world works in mysterious ways - if we were to put it into the context of Abrahamic religion, it would be "What God hath given, God hath taken away.".

[ganbaru]

Scepticism surrounds 'Gaddafi son's death'
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...482047680.html
If his son's death is really a lie...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

Mainly it just bothers me that people are trying to justify it by saying that Ghaddafi deserved to lose his own family without taking into account how involved there were personally in anything he did. They weren't his house or private yacht or something.

If Gadaffi was a better ruler he wouldn't HAVE any Rebels to fight. And if he didn't bomb his own cities then the UN would have no excuse to show up.

All this could have ended at any time. Had he stood down swiftly or just leave the country, we know there would have been no bombing. Egypt and Tunisia showed this. But once the bullets start firing (and he started the gunfire first), his family would be in danger as a matter of course. We all make choices. And we all have to live with the consequences.

[Flinch]

But if you look at it from his view, that would mean giving up 40 years of your life for what? A few dissidents? He chose to fight for what he believes is right (though I can't honestly agree with his views, I can't judge him for fighting for them), as would any person. Would you run away from something like that after you ruled for 40 years, or would you try and keep your place at the top?

[FatPianoBoy]

You guys are so far from the point I was trying to make that I don't think I care enough to put in the effort required to explain it.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

You guys are so far from the point I was trying to make that I don't think I care enough to put in the effort required to explain it.

Your loss.

No, no innocent people ever deserve to die. And certainly not innocent children. But Gadaffi didn't care about that when he dropped bombs in his own cities. And now the Rebels demand vengeance.

But if you look at it from his view, that would mean giving up 40 years of your life for what? A few dissidents? He chose to fight for what he believes is right (though I can't honestly agree with his views, I can't judge him for fighting for them), as would any person. Would you run away from something like that after you ruled for 40 years, or would you try and keep your place at the top?

Oh, I certainly am not saying he should or should not do anything. It is his life. But he must also have known his family is now affected because of him. If he thinks the safety of his grandchildren is less important than him holding on to power, that is the choice he had to live with.