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

reply to post by moonpie86


It was never a possibility that they would let Gaddafi live. His people support him, and as long as he is alive the people would not allow the new corporate puppet government to be shoved down their throats. Nothing he could have done would have kept him alive. Killing him was always on the agenda.

reply to post by wonderworld

Divide and conquer is right and the propaganda is meant to divide us here, as well. Remember divided we fall.

Is that what all these dogs celebrating the killing of children are doing?

Well that makes sense, I suppose we should ignore them, but I do admit it gets to me at times.

effing disinfo agents

reply to post by wonderworld


Exactly how is it a breach of the Geneva Conventions and a War crime?

Strong words, better back them up.

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.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by wonderworld

 

Exactly how is it a breach of the Geneva Conventions and a War crime?

Strong words, better back them up.

Does the Geneva Convention allow for the assassination of civilians?
And is it even relevant when war has not been declared?

Reply to post by wonderworld

Take it from someone who has served at the sharp end of every conflict the UK has been involved with for the last 20 years and will again soon, that your fluffy world is never going to happen. I wish it would, but it wont as long as you idiots keep our own "despotic dynasties" in power. When you finally man up we will back you, but until then do not think you have no blood on your hands because your vote put me in theatre. Your x on the ballot pulled the trigger.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by JohnGeeTee
reply to post by wonderworld

 

So what do you think of the post I was referring to? An image of a fictional character from a movie and a comic? Human beings have died tonight. Innocents. It ok to shout "BULLSEYE" and show cartoon characters to celebrate that but not ok to criticise the post.

The last thing anyone that has anything resembling a brain would find tonight's events and that post in particular and that is funny. Rambo and Captain America used to promote and celebrate America's involvement in this? Are you serious?

No one is going to argue with your premise, but come on, seperate your rational thoughts from emotions.

On the one hand I can sit here and feel both infuriated and helpless at the actions of the CIA and the agenda of my government in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War. On the other I can sit here and laugh out loud at that picture of rambo and captain America.

Pro Western leader? This guy has been anti western for decades. He has directed attacks against our closest allies. We fired a cruise missile through his bedroom window in the 80's...

You don't raise a virtually unarmed army of rebels that can take and hold entire cities only with the addition of some airstrikes in a nation in which "the vast majority support" a leader.

Do you guys ever consider that all sides use propaganda?

Do you think people lie because they American or NATO, or do you think people lie because they are human?

Originally posted by Skerrako


Is that what all these dogs celebrating the killing of children are doing?

Well that makes sense, I suppose we should ignore them, but I do admit it gets to me at times.

effing disinfo agents

It gets to me too, but that is what they are here to do. Sway opinion, or get those whose opinions cant be swayed to lose it and get post banned.

Im beyond sad for those children. And all of the people.

War is war, but i hate kids getting hurt and innocent people, no matter what side their on.

All this fighting and killing by NATO and others because of Gaddafi suppressing a supposed uprising by the people of Libya in the name of freedom.

Shame we (NATO etc.) didn't get involved in Zimbabwe's problems when Robert Mugabe was killing many of his own people and suppressing the revolution there a few years back.

OH WAIT! Silly me, i forgot, Zimbabwe has nothing to offer us in terms of useful resources and its not an ideal location for any near future strategic strikes against Russia, China and Iran. God I'm a stupid noob!. ; )

This is once again all down to money and further progression of a one world government run by banks etc.

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by wonderworld

 

Divide and conquer is right and the propaganda is meant to divide us here, as well. Remember divided we fall.

Is that what all these dogs celebrating the killing of children are doing?

Well that makes sense, I suppose we should ignore them, but I do admit it gets to me at times.

effing disinfo agents

Well, actually it doesnt make sense. I'm only guessing these guys shooting their guns in celebration after killing the kids had no clue they were in the location at the time, but who knows. Their minds are strictly on the mission that they are ordered to do. Succeeding comes with a price that they will live with the rest of their lives. Many come home and commit suicide after. I wouldnt want to be in their shoes.

reply to post by backinblack


Is this an "assasination" though?

I also do not believe it covers it, to be honest. It does cover the need to protect civilians and non-combatants during the time of war, but doesn't say killing them "accidentally" during combat is a crime, as it is accepted that this happens in war, unless it can be shown no regard was placed for their welfare during the fight.

The 4th Convention and the later 1977 Protocol II relate to how non-combatants or non participating military personell should be treated if captured, injured or otherwise not part of the fight, but not if they are otherwise taking part in the fight, such as could be claimed if this strike was aimed at taking out C3 abilities.

I think to try and claim the Geneva conventions have been breached here is totally unfounded. It isn't even worthy of being called a long shot.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I agree with you that Gaddafi was always intended to be killed, from the start. Even if they kill him the war will go on.

Originally posted by dontdrinkthewater


On the one hand I can sit here and feel both infuriated and helpless at the actions of the CIA and the agenda of my government in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War. On the other I can sit here and laugh out loud at that picture of rambo and captain America.

I cant. Its not funny.

Human beings are dead and dying and its not something to joke about. Its not a TV show. Its not a movie. You know part of the reason Americans can laugh about this is that most of you are totally divorced from the possibility that what is happening to them could happen to you.

If you could empathize with them, imagine yourself, afraid, grief stricken because your family is dead and dying, your home destroyed, your country in ruis, you could not laugh at this.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


You beat me too that one.

For the second time today I say. It's remarkable now some people see history. Alas it's not always the John Wayne nor Richard Burton version.

I'm so tempted to say Captain America version but I won't.

The Washington Post report quotes Libyian officials as saying Gaddhafi was talking to his son and playing with the children at the time of the blast, but was unharmed.


How many of you have been in sight of even a 500 lb. bomb?

Something is fishy imo.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


But when Gaddafi has his opponents arrested and executed on Libyan TV, or has political prisoners massacred en masse at Abu Salim in 1996, you don't mind?

Seems some here have extreme double standards and hold the west to much higher obligations than the people you are arguing for. Gaddafi is not a saint, has killed thousands during his rule and contrary to what you some other oddjobs are claiming, he does not enjoy popular support.

What could happen now that the International law has apparently been broken in regards to these attacks?

Quote from Mussa Ibrahim via Scotsman.com :

"This was a direct operation to assasssinate the leader of this country."

Mussa claimed that Nato had broken international law in the alleged attack.

He said: "This is not permitted under international law. This is not permitted by any moral code or principle.

"We have again and again declared that we are ready for negotiation, ready for road maps for peace, ready for political transition...ready for referendum.

"The West does not care to test our statements. They only care to rob us of our wealth."

Anyone know what could happen now in terms of action or legality etc.

reply to post by JohnGeeTee


The Captain America version would be great.

Super soldier projects, Weapon X, Gamma bombs, and alien Norse gods.

Actually sounds like ATS.

reply to post by Fiberx


Indeed. Especially as Iranian media carried a story weeks ago claiming this particular son had defected to the rebels along with his brigade of troops.. Whether there is truth to that is one thing, but it isn't coming from a Western "propoganda" mouthpiece that's for sure. Then he turns up dead at his fathers house after an alledged air strike? And now you're saying that Gaddafi survives the blast but others in the room did not?

Fishy indeed.