Nato strike 'kills Saif al-Arab Gaddafi', Libya says

Originally posted by abaraikenshi

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
reply to post by Itop1

 

Ah well, next time they might just get Gadaffi. I don't see why Nato are waiting so long and using so many resources trying to "legally" make this silly man leave and yet more and more of the Libyan citizens are being slaughtered.

Ah well, next time "they" might get you. Dont scream when you find that someone has slipped an explosive devise under your ars...- Human life is cheap. Its people like you, with comments like yours, that make it cheap.

Comments make life cheap? Sentences make life cheap? I guess the 1st Amendment makes life cheap. Damn it!

The only life you have the insight and knowledge of to call cheap, is none but your own.

So it is.
Why then are we calling to murder someone we dont realy know?

So during the American Civil War it would have been justified for all of Europe to send armies in and wipe out all yankee scum from the face of the earth?

Originally posted by BattleFieldPredator
Damnnn.. Missed... Oh well, there is always tomorrow

Yeah that is one lucky dude... they missed him last time too..

Gaddafi's bombed home at Bab Al Azizia, Libya, 1987.

The attacks failed to kill Gaddafi. Forewarned by a telephone call, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his family rushed out of their residence in the Bab al-Azizia compound moments before the bombs dropped.

Operation Eldarodo Canyon



Three strikes and your out?

What the hell are they doing over there?

Incinerating children, and women? To target Gaddafi, right.

Yea, needless murder is so worth it. Nevermind the fact that western countries kept Mr. Gaddafi propped up for decades, but now I guess that all changes and NATO/France is willing to be indiscriminate when it comes to bombing locations with women and children.

Good job guys, good job.

Maybe if they stop mutilating children, we might be able to get out of this mess without initiating a full world war. Maybe NATO ought to think on that one, but knowing how this has all been setup, it's been the plan all along.

Originally posted by BattleFieldPredator
Reply to post by Skerrako

 

If this is true, and we only have their word for it, then i stand by it. This family have got very rich off the backs of the blood and screams of normal libyan families for decades. Where was your angst for those families? Kids? This is long awaited karma on this scum family. A family who would kill and brutalize their own countrymen to stay in power rather than leave when the people tell them to go? No sympathy. Karma is indeed a biatch!

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

if your statement and stance is anything to go by,then the bush family are fukd ...

Originally posted by Itop1

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
Gadaffi is a good and brave man, and the cowerds that attack him, are nothing more then pig sh*t, compared to him.

Hes a terrorist that has killed thousands in his time, given bombs and funding to the IRA and planted the lockerbie bomber, hes also been killing his own people with bombs and tanks, his own soldiers have even admitted that, what kind of "man" is this?? i call this more like an animal, along with the other animals that can justify killing people and going to war, ie NATO.. there all a bunch of ruthless twats.

"war is not about whos right or wrong, its about whos left at the end"

The day we can live in a world of peace, without mindless killing and greed, that is the day when you will see a world of brave men and women.

the day the world is rid of the warmongering zionists..who run america and the UK,and the corporations.we will have peace on earth.

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
This is what pisses me off about these "operations" ... #1 , I don't agree with Gaddafi's family being killed... but I do understand WHY it was done. I'm not a fan of "collateral damage" or civilian casualties , I'm not an "End justifies the means" guy either... that being said here's the game, that everyone plays but nobody talks about.

Why don't we just assasinate him? the quick and easy is , we're not allowed to.... BUT , If he just HAPPENS to be in a building that we drop a Paveway into or put a tomahawk through the front door of and by chance he were to sustain injuries that were incompatible with life during said Raytheon induced explosion... we can always say... "Oops, we didn't know he was there with his family, or the HUMINT we received did not place him there at that time" Plausible deniability.

Not that I agree with it, but if its gotta be done, do it old school... a Single 160gr Boat tail in the T... put the word out there... If you play games..... we will kill you. No need for all of the civilian casualties, and damaged infrastructure.. BUT that'll never happen... Because that boat tail costs $1.87 and your average price of a Tomahawk is $1,000,000 (Give or take $400,000 depending on model) ... The military industrial complex won't run if we don't use up our weapons silly

So far we've used up about $130,000,000 worth of Raytheon's Finest in this "non war". Maybe that and the AWESOME TAX BREAKS THEY GET will keep Raytheon, GE, General Dynamics, Northrop and the rest of the weapons manufacturers in the black until armageddon.

Don't forget, In times of peace, these guys make less money... we can only store so many weapons and show so many on paper during each fiscal year... If the Pentagon doesn't spend all of their money, defense spending would get reduced...Use it or lose it. So.... During times we are not actually at war, we'll be in operations somewhere , fighting a war on something... dropping bombs on poor people. I wonder when the CEO's watch the footage on CNN if they hear the Cha-Ching!! , of a cash register everytime they see an explosion?

So you like people to be murderd, "the quick an easy way". Prepare for this hen to come back to your home and lay its egg right into your lap. With statements like this you loosen up the moral that sais "You shall not kill"..

edit on 1-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)

Look, you non english comprehending condesending holier-than-thou presumptuous half wit twit...

#1 You missed the ENTIRE message I was trying to convey...

#2 nowhere in that post did I say I like people to be murdered "the quick and easy way" what I said was, "Why don't we just assasinate him? the quick and easy is , we're not allowed to" The "quick and easy" reffered to the "quick and easy" explaination as to "Why don't we just assasinate him?" and the quick and easy explaination is "we're not allowed to"

#3 Really Dude... "Prepare for this hen to come back to your home and lay its egg right into your lap"
Why would that happen, and and if it did I'd be delighted, not only would I have breakfast, I'd also have dinner! I believe the Idiom you were looking for was "When the chickens come home to roost" although, I don't see how it would apply to that scenario.

Look, I'm having a bit of a go at you because you obviously have never been in a situation where good intentions, love & Light & good vibrations couldn't fix the situation...

Fact is there is evil in this world,
Fact is these men don't understand reason only force.
Fact is you need people to stand up and take action to deal with these men

Look at Hitler, do you really think he could have been stopped by anything other than overwhelming force? What I'm saying is the government needs to call a spade a spade, ok you want the guy dead? Kill him!... there is no need to kill all of the civilians, and waste all of the money and resources that go with war. Simply place some Tier 1 assets in theater and let them earn their pay. I'd love for the world to be the rainbow utopia you picture it to be in your head, I promise you.... If you've been the places I have.... you would quickly change from an Idealist to a Realist.

Disgusted with this if the following is true it makes a further mockery of the action by the west:

Mr Ibrahim accused the international coalition conducting strikes over Libya of not wanting peace. "We have again and again declared that we are ready for negotiation, ready for road maps for peace, ready for political transitional periods, ready for elections, ready for a referendum. "The West does not care to test our statements. They only care to rob us of our freedom, our wealth, which is oil, and our right to decide our future as Libyans."

from bbc story

Cameron was on Andrew Marr's show this morning and said it was justified within the UN mandate because it was a 'command centre' or words to that effect. In other words they can take out tanks, missile sites, and all war based infrastructure and that this counted as a command post.

Is this legally correct? Is it effectively then wherever Gaddafi physically is that becomes a command post? Was Gaddafi surrounding himself with family as a human shield or was this a step too far by the UN mandated forces.

My instinct says this a war crime and an atrocity, I do not have the legal knowledge to know the point of law, anyone confirm the legality of this specific strike.

Also is it true when the Libyans are saying they want to negotitate peace and elections?

Originally posted by TheMaverick

Originally posted by Itop1

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
Gadaffi is a good and brave man, and the cowerds that attack him, are nothing more then pig sh*t, compared to him.

Hes a terrorist that has killed thousands in his time, given bombs and funding to the IRA and planted the lockerbie bomber, hes also been killing his own people with bombs and tanks, his own soldiers have even admitted that, what kind of "man" is this?? i call this more like an animal, along with the other animals that can justify killing people and going to war, ie NATO.. there all a bunch of ruthless twats.

"war is not about whos right or wrong, its about whos left at the end"

The day we can live in a world of peace, without mindless killing and greed, that is the day when you will see a world of brave men and women.

the day the world is rid of the warmongering zionists..who run america and the UK,and the corporations.we will have peace on earth.

No word more true was ever spoken!

reply to post by Itop1


good riddance.

get daddy next.

I'll await a new thread if/when the killing of Saif al-Arab Gadhafi is confirmed by others than Libyan government...

For now, it is not probable at all!
Didn't he join the protesters; which one is it??

While waitng for a confirmation; watch this:

I get sick by all the small minded people in this world is all I can say...

Originally posted by BattleFieldPredator
Reply to post by Vitchilo

 

The media hipe huh? Go visit lockerbie and say that. Or maybe a trip to mezerahta to share that view and lets time how long your head stays on

.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Don't forget to add the misery caused by IRA bombs in shopping centres and Gaddafi's funding (money and arms) of that organisation.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by stumason

 

They don't, actually. They only fly the old flag because it is a national flag that isn't tainted by Gaddafi. I would also like you to substantiate your claims of abuses being worse under King Idris than Gaddafi.

the living conditions were low under King Idris , high unemployment rate were under King Idris oh and the fact that King Idris wanted to install a american base in libya during 50s?


These rebels aren't rebels they are hired mercenaries and oversea terrorists just like how america used the terrorists in bosnia.

The whole of eastern Libya is paid mercenaries? You are having a freaking laugh. Nobody can be that stupid surely? This taking blind belief in nonsensical conspiracies way way beyond the extreme......

reply to post by malcr


Paid Mercenaries or not, why do most of the rebels have really long beards, and (more importantly), prayer bumps ?
en.wikipedia.org...

By just looking at the pictures of the rebels, I can tell they are by the very least very religious muslims, if not extremists, you make out the rest.

Also a bit off topic but related; In Egypt whenever I saw pictures of rebels invading the secret police headquarters, they had long beards and prayer bumps.

Here:
www.youtube.com...
It's a crappy video but you can see glimpses of their faces here and there.

The more time passes, the more I start to believe that the next North Africa / Middle-East will be an anti American one (Egypt already denied the US access to their bases to launch strikes on Libya, that's a bad start, and they are warming relationships with Iran, which has pissed off the Emirates).
Here:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

And this:
www.thenational.ae...
Even though they deny it, it is true, my relatives were unable to obtain a travel visa to U.A.E because of this.

My point: You be the judge, a dictatorship which is western friendly, or extremist rebels (Iran friendly). Either way, the people LOSE.

reply to post by nakiel

I see clearly which side of the propaganda war you have joined. You have even repeated the same video clips as being different "targets" and omitted to tell the whole story. Exactly in line with basic propaganda methods.

The history of Gaddafi is well known. Some people take the trouble to read and understand others will ignore it so than can look at themselves in the mirror whilst supporting him.....

I am curious though what did Gaddafi do for you?

So here we have terrorists (NATO) killing terrorists (US puppets).

What a waste of a *fake* PhD...

I bet he is not even dead but this is a scam to get him out of the limelight and no longer an active target.

Nice one Gadaffi.

reply to post by Itop1


Some here on ATS might find this hard to swallow but what the hell was Gaddafi thinking. If I was in his position and had a force as powerful of NATO after me I would not go near my children or grand-children unless it was in the safety of a nuclear resistant underground bunker. It is not as though he did not know they were coming after him. The previous bombings on his compound are proof of this.

He has no one else to blame but himself for his incredibly stupid and selfish action of putting his family in danger. Very tragic it happened but Gaddafi did put his family in that unsafe position!

I can tell you about the legality of that strike - it's all perfectly legal. Why? Because there are no resources on the west to even begin wasting time to analyse it for one simple reason: goal of this military operation which is to eliminate (read: murder) Gaddafi and his regime. All the international laws, rules of war, Geneva conventions and other such crap are only there to help evade moral implications and provide a facade over blatant genocide and legalize murder. For example, there can and will NEVER be a international criminal tribunal for the United States - point of those laws is to protect interests the west and destroy others under pretext of this comical "international law". People questioning legality of actions done by Nato is like a hamster questioning legality of scientist performing experiments on it. All you can do is talk on internet forums or write books about it, like Carla Del Ponte did for example, to show how ridiculous her own court in Hague is.

Let's look at very recent history:

It’s no different with respect to President Bush’s war on Iraq and the resulting occupation, which has killed or maimed tens of thousands of Iraqi people, including countless children. (The Pentagon has long had a policy of not keeping count of the number of Iraqi people, including children, it kills.) In the minds of U.S. officials, the deaths and maiming of all those Iraqi people, including the children, while perhaps unfortunate “collateral damage,” have, in fact, been worth it.
Some would argue that such “collateral damage” is just an unfortunate byproduct of war. War is brutal. People get killed in war. That argument, however, misses an important point: U.S. military forces have no right, legal or moral, even to be in Iraq killing anyone. Why? Because neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States. The Iraqi people had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington. Thus, this was an optional war against Iraq, one that President Bush and his military forces did not have to wage.
The attack on Iraq was akin to, say, attacking Bolivia or Mongolia, after 9/11. Those countries also had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and so it would have been illegal and immoral for President Bush to have ordered an invasion and occupation of those countries as well. To belabor the obvious, the fact that some people attacked the United States on 9/11 didn’t give the United States the right to attack countries that didn’t have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

* Evading the Moral Implications of the Iraq War

The primary goal of that war was to murder Saddam with all his supporters and gain control over his territory. Was it legal you ask yourselves? Well you should really ask yourselves "was it right" instead because it doesn't matter if it's legal or not - it will happen again and again regardless. Everything's the same as it was in "dark ages", criminals are the same - they just simply improved there methods.

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by moonpie86

 

Youre right it says Libyan rebels believe Mr Gaddafi's offer is a "dirty game", and NATO agrees the offer lacks credibility. "We need to see actions, not words,"

How can anyone show possitive actions during an all out war? Wow! Dont get me wrong I do not like Gaddafi but if he's up to talking we owe him that much, then throw him in the slammer not kill his Grand-Kids.

Before you start tying your knickers in a knot over all this, can you at least wait until it has been confirmed that his grandchildren are dead?
For all that is known this could be a load of BS released by the Libyan government in an attempt at swaying support for Gaddafi.