I didn’t hear any mentioned but caught only a partial report.
Libyans burn UK, Italy missions after NATO strike
– highlights mine.
And yet, some still look at this growing bloody mess and dare say all is well.
Will they ever learn?
:::sigh:::
Umm. Excuse me?
It would be pretty hard to hush it up – obviously the attackers knew about it. They probably even have pictures of the attack that could be leaked.
You know. His wife.
Is there any particular reason that you assume Qaddaffi’s wife is a bitch?
Just a hunch. No doubt she’s probably just Dolly Domestic.
It’s not entirely clear – do you think NATO should be doing more, or less, to get Gaddafi out?
It would be practically impossible to use such pictures to prove any particular person was killed, wouldn’t it? They would only prove the site was bombed.
That’s just the point – there’s nothing “clear” about NATO’s mission…other than the obvious mission creep & targeted attempts @ killing Gaddafi. It’s also highly disingenuous of them to try to deny he is being targeted directly; a lame attempt to cover their asses vis-a-vis the limited scope of the UN resolution. What was supposed to be a humanitarian intervention is turning into yet another “allied” killing field.
In short, state your objectives clearly, get them done & get the fuck out. None of which is likely to happen any time soon. Meanwhile murdering kids with drones is not likely to raise sympathy for NATO’s efforts in Libya.
So now BBC is reporting a bank or some banks have uncovered a bunch of money in the system that belongs to Ka-Daffy, Mubarak and the ex-Tunisian leader. Ka-Daffy’s share alone is US$400 million. All of it is now frozen.
For the record, I should state that I feel that the killing of Saif Al-Arab Gaddaffi was wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that some (?) of his kids were also apparently killed. I don’t see why NATO targeted a house in a residential area given the extreme risk of civilian casualties.
Ordinarily I would have no problem with NATO bombing the shit out of Gaddafi or his sons overall, but I have a huge problem with the way this strike happened.
My guess is they were hoping to catch the old man on a visit.
That would have been awesome, but I have a real problem with the deaths of innocents. Nothing is worth that, in my opinion, as it’s not only wrong on a moral level, but also erodes the moral high ground we had in overthrowing the bastard in the first place.
My brain is low on caffeine at the moment, but you know what I mean.
How (if at all) is this affecting on-the-ground feelings in Libya?
As far as I can make out at the moment, most people’s feelings are conflicted. On the one hand there’s jubilation at the death of a cruel bastard and member of the regime, but on the other hand there’s regret at the deaths of Gaddafi’s grandchildren for precisely the reasons I’ve given above. We don’t kill kids - that’s what Gaddaffi does deliberately, and we’re trying to break free of that kind of cruelty and barbarity.
However, there is a vocal minority who say that even the collateral deaths of 50 kids would be worth it provided Gaddaffi himself was killed, as it would effectively end the conflict and therefore prevent the deaths of many hundreds more children and innocents.
I can understand that kind of logic, but I obviously don’t subscribe to it.
Um… Considering that you claim that most rebels are against the slaughter of civilians, how is it that you claimed to consider this when begging and cajoling NATO to come fight your war for you? It’s no secret that NATO couldn’t care less about killing civilians; as far as they’re concerned, no amount of deaths on the part of the natives is too large as long as it can be justified by being able to fly their bombers incrementally higher, or replace manned planes with robotic drones and whatnot. You could have, for instance, taken a look at NATO’s track record in Afghanistan, where barely a day goes by without them “accidentally” murdering their allies or innocent civilians (today’s story: 10 Afghani allies murdered by NATO helicopters; Khaleej Times - Dubai News, UAE News, Gulf, News, Latest news, Arab news, Gulf News, Dubai Labour News).
Face it: this is exactly what you signed up for. You called the attack dogs on your own people, so there is no point feigning moral indignation once the blood starts splattering the pavement. You reap what you sow.
You’re accusing Bibliovore of dishonesty here, which is inappropriate for this forum, and your other accusations look like a deliberate provocation. I am going to lose patience with you very quickly if any more of your posts look like this.
They’re right. You can’t fight a modern war without collateral damage, it’s simply impossible. Not by ariel assault, not by GPS guided munitions, not by house to house fighting. When dealing with Quadaffi himself, he has and will continue to use human shields; you will not kill or remove him from power bloodlessly, and the people of Libya have, rightly, rejected compromise positions that wouldn’t lead to democracy and freedom.
But you can’t have you cake and eat it too. Fighting Quadaffi and his troops means that fighting will go on in and around cities, will involve conscripts that Quadaffi has forced to fight for his regime, and will cause a non-zero degree of collateral damage. The only way to avoid that is to execute the members of the rebellion and go back to Quadaffi’s tyranny. The only way to ameliorate that is, as quickly and cleanly as possible, to capture or kill Quadaffi and possibly his inner circle as well. This is unavoidable, and the civilian death toll will be magnified, not reduced, the longer the conflict is drawn out.
It also makes a difference if civilians are targeted or not, and what for the peace will take after the war. Quadaffi’s victory would be civilian-targeted slaughter, reprisals and a legacy of brutality that will be passed down through his heirs in a dynasty of blood. A democratic victory will see violence targeted at valid military targets while attempting to limit collateral damage, and then the rule of law with freedom and justice. There is no comparison, and no real alternative other than the horrors of war unless you prefer the certainty of surrender.
With all due respect, I am doing no such thing. I have said nothing regarding Bibliovore’s honesty, nor do I have any particular opinions on the subject. I am simply pointing out the fact that, in calling upon NATO forces, the Libyan rebels knew or should have known exactly what would happen. Decrying the predictable after bringing it into existence is absurd. Note, however, that these are criticisms directed at the rebels as a whole, rather than at Bibliovore as as individual.