Saif al-Arab, son of Col Gaddafi KILLED by NATO Air strike

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Broderss

Nice one America.

Reply 21

ish90an

Remember, its not an assassination if we kill "evil Arabs".

Reply 22

thisisnew

They're saying Gaddafi himself was also in the villa/house which was hit. Fail assassination.

Reply 23

The_0001

Original post by callum9999

Your suggestion that the killing of his 3 grandchildren was deliberate is quite odd though - and implies you hold a heavy bias in this matter...

If they were going to assassinate anyone, why not aim for Gaddafi himself?

Oh no because when you bomb a house with children inside and people not part of the regime you're not really trying to kill anyone are you...

They did, and failed. Even then, who gives them the right to try and assassinate the leader of another country? They should take him to the Hague, not to the grave.

Oh and be quiet about bias.

Reply 24

The_0001

Original post by Steevee

Why would I support such a thing? I would almost never support such a thing, but it is a sad inevitability of ay conflict, civilian casualties.

Still doesn't justify the killing of three children. And please, did they really have to bomb the house? No.

Reply 25

Aj12

Original post by The_0001

Still doesn't justify the killing of three children. And please, did they really have to bomb the house? No.

If they kill him they will stop the deaths of thousands of others.

Reply 26

Steevee

Original post by The_0001

Still doesn't justify the killing of three children. And please, did they really have to bomb the house? No.

Right. So the fact that there might be civilian casualties should stop ay intervention, even when it is clear there will be many thousands of civilians will be killed with no intervention?

Reply 27

blue_shift86

damn, if only they had got the father, this conflict may have ended sooner!

Reply 28

The_0001

Original post by Aj12

If they kill him they will stop the deaths of thousands of others.

LOL at your flawed consequential thinking. They said the same about the Taliban and Saddam Huessein!

Reply 29

Broderss

Original post by callum9999

I thought America had nothing to do with the airstrikes?

Whenever there are bombs and innocent civilian deaths, America is always involved.

Reply 30

Aj12

Original post by The_0001

LOL at your flawed consequential thinking. They said the same about the Taliban and Saddam Huessein!

Saddam and the Taliban have nothing to do with this. Gadaffi is the only thing holding the Libya regime together. It is based completely around him.

Reply 31

The_0001

Original post by Steevee

Right. So the fact that there might be civilian casualties should stop ay intervention, even when it is clear there will be many thousands of civilians will be killed with no intervention?

I didn't suggest that. I was referring to the killing of three children which could and should have been avoided.

Reply 32

damidude

Original post by Steevee

Because clearly this is as bad as systematically killing civilians and opressing your people :rolleyes:

I think the quote in your signature answers that comment. The UN has taken an executive decision to intervene in a country for humanitarian reasons: to remove evil. By doing so, they have done evil in killing innocent people, and have also facilitated evil by supplying and training brothers to kill one another.

Reply 33

milkytea

What is the difference between killing a normal Gaddafi loyalist soldier and his son?

Reply 34

callum9999

Original post by The_0001

Fine maybe they did mean to - who knows. Maybe they had dodgy intelligence? If they weren't part of the regime, why are they taking money/advantage from it and living in a house with the head of said regime? Maybe they weren't involved in the killing, but they are certainly profiting from it (and don't appear to be doing anything to stop it - not that they should be killed for that).

If this was an assassination attempt they should be pretty embarrassed.

Yes they should take him to the Hague, surprisingly, it's not as simple as walking up to his house and arresting him though it is. Maybe they thought his assassination would stop, or severely hamper, the regime - and thus the loss of life would be worth it due to the prevention of hundreds of civilian deaths in the near future?

Reply 35

Broderss

Original post by The_0001

LOL at your flawed consequential thinking. They said the same about the Taliban and Saddam Huessein!

But Saddam Hussein is still alive though.

Reply 36

mevidek

I think that once again, NATO have ****ed the situation up much more, like in the past (namely Serbia). This was a stupid action, that will piss Gaddafi off even more, and I feel sorry for him. No-one should see a family member die before them. Well ****ing done NATO. I hope you are happy.

This is coming from someone who doesn't like Gaddafi.

Reply 37

The_0001

Original post by Aj12

Saddam and the Taliban have nothing to do with this. Gadaffi is the only thing holding the Libya regime together. It is based completely around him.

Epic face palm moment. The same was then said about Saddam Hussein. Then look what happened and is still happening.

Reply 38

tehFrance

Original post by The_0001

They should take him to the Hague.

And we all know what goes on there :mmm:

Reply 39

callum9999

Original post by Broderss

Whenever there are bombs and innocent civilian deaths, America is always involved.

Nice little anti-America sound bite there, but how in this case? This is an operation led by Britain and France, surely they deserve blame more than America, who is reluctant to do anything and had to be pushed into the little they are doing by the others?