In Libya, Nato killing children to protect children

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Pappilo

Banned
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
233
Car
Legsus
I thought it was meant to be a humanitarian mission :dk:. Now 'NATO' is targetting Gadaffi himself and in the process kills one of his sons and grandchildren. I have no sympathy for Gadaffi but surely NATO is no different from a group of deranged terrorists who bomb a crowded train in rush hour in order to achieve their twisted goals. And please do not give me the UN mandate rubbish. The UN is just a tool for the most powerful countries in the west. At the UN, 1 veto vote = 64 or more.


Libya says Gadhafi's son killed in airstrike, vows death to 'invaders' - CNN.com

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- The Libyan government said Sunday that ruler Moammar Gadhafi's son and his three grandchildren died in a NATO airstrike, and vowed to retaliate with death to "invaders" in the nation.
Gadhafi and his wife were in their son's house when it was targeted, but they were in good health, government spokesman Musa Ibrahim told journalists.
In addition to Saif al-Arab Gadhafi, three of the ruler's grandchildren also died in the attack, he said.
CNN could not independently confirm the reports.
Saif al-Arab Gadhafi is one of two sons whose names begin with Saif. The 29-year-old is the sixth of his eight biological children.
 
Collateral Damage

"unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces."

Inevitable outcome. It is nearly impossible to engage in any form of prolonged military intervention that involves deploying thing that go bang without having such misery attached.
 
Gadaffi can end this now by standing down, which despite his blinkers is what the majority of the Libyan people want. The longer this goes on, the more civilians who will die simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If Gadaffi cared about the safety of his family, he would not be sharing house-space with them in what NATO regard to be a "known command-and-control building".
 
I bet he now regrets dropping his nuclear weapons program...
 
Perhaps he will now have some insight into how the families of the passengers on Pan-Am 103 must have felt .......

pots and kettles come to mind .
 
In the twisted world of International Law it is fine to incinerate conscript soldiers cowering in their vehicles until the cows come home but not the men who sent them!
 
Screw Gadhafi, he plays the dead relatives card whilst not giving a toss about his own countrymen or the hundreds of foreign dead killed by the terrorists he funded. Are you saying his family is more important than them?
 
As already posted collateral damage but just remember like child soldiers his kids have every chance of growing up to be the vicious dictator just like their dad.

I have friends serving in these conflicts and what do you do when confronted with a 12 year old with an sub machine gun? You do as you have been trained to do, kill or be killed as simple as that. If he thought anything about his kids they would be miles away now in another country but the fact they are not shows what a vicious b*stard he really is

Maybe taking out his kids now has done the future residents of Libya a favour?
 
Throughout modern history evil despots have sheltered behind women and children. Gadaffi is no exception. Remember this is the guy who sanctioning the tank shelling and sniper fire of civilian areas and hospitals of Misrata [ reminiscent of the seige of Sarajevo where heavily armed criminals targeted innocent civilians for months] not much talk of "selective strikes" there.
 
Putting pressure on Gadaffy was never going to be comfortable.
 
We are all entitled to our opinions but I am well disgusted by comments on here trying to justify the murder of innocent children.

Perhaps he will now have some insight into how the families of the passengers on Pan-Am 103 must have felt .......

pots and kettles come to mind .


An eye for an eye! So are you suggesting that it is justified for a guy whose distant relative was killed by a US drone in Pakistan to strap himself with a bomb and blow up a crowded Subway train in New York just so the American government may have some insight into how he feels.

This isnt a war! the UN didnt sanction a war (not that I believe in the UN) but they didnt sanction a war. It was meant to be an humanitarian mission to protect the 'people' of Libya. This was achieved by stopping the Libyan army from entering Benghazi. The NATO mission has now changed to regime change and completely outside UN mandate. NATO are directly assisting rebels by providing air cover.

Why are the dicators in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia invited to the royal wedding while NATO tries to assasinate the one in Libya? Double standards.
 
We are all entitled to our opinions but I am well disgusted by comments on here trying to justify the murder of innocent children.
...

Why are the dicators in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia invited to the royal wedding while NATO tries to assasinate the one in Libya? Double standards.

They are not conducting a war, they are concentrating on strategic military targets. As has already been pointed out, Gadaffi has a choice as to whether to house his nearest and dearest in such places.

As for Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, they are different situations and our relationship and history with those countries are quite different. It's foolish to try to lump them all into the same argument.
 
I think the difference is in percentages of oil produced, amount of weapons bought, schools attended, and knowing your place.

I was initially tempted to mention semtex, Lockerbie, WPC YF, but then wondered about AlQuida funding and decided these may not matter quite as much as I think they should.
 
They are not conducting a war, they are concentrating on strategic military targets. As has already been pointed out, Gadaffi has a choice as to whether to house his nearest and dearest in such places.

As for Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, they are different situations and our relationship and history with those countries are quite different. It's foolish to try to lump them all into the same argument.

How are they different situations? Are they not dictators? Do they not oppress their own people. How are they any different from Gadaffi. Are you admitting that what really matters is the wests interests and not really the interests of the people of these countries? It is foolish that you believe some dictators are friends and some are enemies. All dictators are the same and thats that.
 
How are they different situations? Are they not dictators? Do they not oppress their own people. How are they any different from Gadaffi. Are you admitting that what really matters is the wests interests and not really the interests of the people of these countries? It is foolish that you believe some dictators are friends and some are enemies. All dictators are the same and thats that.

They are different situations because we can use diplomatic influence to bring about change in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Gadaffi is a mad-dog who will listen to no-one.
 
Pappilo, You seem to have a lot of huff and puff but no answers to the problem, what would your solution be?
 
Pappilo, You seem to have a lot of huff and puff but no answers to the problem, what would your solution be?

Did I ever claim to be diplomat or peacemaker? I may not have answers to all the problems in the world but I know whats wrong when I see it. It is easy to put on your rose tinted spectacles and sit in the comfort of your home in the west while men, women and children on both sides of the fence in Libya get killed. Has Nato's bombardment of Libya really saved lives? We can argue that till kingdom comes.


War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh

War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
 
I am liking this debate. Just a plea - PLEASE don't let it descend into a slanging match.

I am of the "take the man out" school of thought. I'm sure there are specialist squads in the UK or US who are more than capable. Morally correct? - Nope. Will it save lives - Yup. Does the end justify the means? Debate
 
War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh

War! huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all

Frankie says RELAX!

Seriously, if that's your assessment of the situation we may as well end the debate here.
 
Oh dear... the might is right argument bothers me no end. Punitive measures which are in and of themselves concerned with making someone else pay dearly for offending one's own sense of high dudgeon, are not an appropriate tool to teach the supposed miscreant the error of their ways.

Education cannot be rooted in killing those (along with the term collateral damage which appears to have its genesis by way of warmongers making an easy and dismissive excuse for innocent lives lost) who do not believe in precisely what we believe and hold dear. This is no different to the worst of the worst, who richly deserve our opprobrium for their foul and unspeakable deeds.

I find it curious that we did not shout "foul!" (apropos Gaddafi) when the execrable Tony Blair was cuddling up to him. Nor did we object to selling Saddam Hussein weaponry designed to kill and maim because back then... our imperialism wanted to see a war between Iran and Iraq and we bet on the winning side... by arming them. As for the Al Yamama arms deal, Jonathan Aitken (he of the 'Sword of Truth speech) resulting in the largest sale of British arms ever... to the corrupt Saudi Regime... what can one make of such double standards?

The Americans bombed Libya previously... from bases here in the UK. Does anyone here remember the six days war? I can recall a government spokesman being asked about the weapons we sold to the Israelis. He admitted that we did sell them tanks but said it was ok because we did not sell them any spare parts to keep them operational.

Is it any wonder that we have groups of misguided individuals all over the world who want to inflict damage on us here. We were once the most aggressive of nations bar none. Sadly, we still appear to be. I well remember the crowing in the toilet paper, which sadly passes for our intellectual comment in our national press, after Thatcher ordered the sinking of the Belgrano.

The very worst sort of jingoistic ranting was to be seen talking about 'Argies' in way that was calculated to dehumanise the so-called enemy and prevent normal people from complaining about the wholesale and unnecessary slaughter of humans who were leaving the theatre of war when the Belgrano was sunk.

What have we learned from our past history of a propensity to violence at the drop of a hat? SFA! :dk:

If I die in war, I become a hero and if I choose to live in peace, I wont be remembered. If our government wants to make war, I have no objection. I just require the warmongers in the cabinet and the government to do the fighting themselves. It is an act of extreme cowardice to ask others to fight on their behalf because nothing will satisfy people who are cowards save that the enemy are vanquished at absolutely no cost to themselves or their comfortable way of life.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom