The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Celebration time, come on!
Reply 81
Original post by beepbeeprichie
Celebration time, come on!


You want to celebrate the deaths of 4 people who had very little if not nothing to do with the regime?
Original post by morris743
Oh no, Bush and America are more important than anyone else...they can do what they like :rolleyes:


OMG so sorry I forgot :rolleyes:
Reply 83
Gadaffis grandkids killed = tragedy
All the other peoples grandkids killed by Gadaffi = meh

usual phony "anti-imperialist" agends
Original post by Aj12
Which begs the question better late than never? How would Iraq look now had Saddam had another 10 years to continue his buchery? How would he react to the Arab spring?


We don't know because he is dead.

The basis of my argument is that your employing double standards by saying Gadaffi should be held responsible for people who have been killed by his army and in return justifiably assassinated while around the world others get with worse just because they have the power or are supported by powerful countries.
Original post by Aj12
You want to celebrate the deaths of 4 people who had very little if not nothing to do with the regime?


I celebrate the deaths of those who oppress the innocent. I sincerely regret the loss of life and if given the choice wouldn't eliminate this evil man at the expense of innocents. But nevertheless the world will be a better place without him.
Reply 86
Original post by Inzamam99
We don't know because he is dead.

The basis of my argument is that your employing double standards by saying Gadaffi should be held responsible for people who have been killed by his army and in return justifiably assassinated while around the world others get with worse just because they have the power or are supported by powerful countries.


But Iraq is a different case. Bush did not order his troops to fire on demonstrators. Iraq was a state on state war. Libya was the army vs protesters. The cases are completely different.

had Bush ordered American planes to strafe the streets of Baghdad looking for and aiming especially for civilian targets then he would be the same as Gadaffi
Reply 87
Original post by Broderss
Nice one America.


Yeah, go ahead and blame america. It just shows your ignorance.
Original post by Broderss
Nice one America.


America doesn't = Nato and vice versa, of course you know that :rolleyes:

it's funny how people just blame America these days for just about anything, hell we need a phrase for somehow finding a way to blame / scrutinise america to justify things like violence or an attack.... 'America baiting' or something
Reply 89
Original post by callum9999
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?


This.
Original post by teshla^^
Genocide is also a violation of this so called 'international law'.


....................its not a genocide..?
Reply 91
Original post by jakemittle
....................its not a genocide..?


True but it is slaughter.


Gadaffi threatened to cleanse Benghazi from house to house. And there are rumors of mass graves. Had Nato not joined in god knows how many more would have died.
This seems like a attempt to rally sympathy for Qaddafi and may possibly be fabricated, considering the 1986 "adopted daughter" claim
(edited 12 years ago)
I willing to bet it's just a lie to gain sympathy, certainly the grandchildren bit.
Original post by Aj12
True but it is slaughter.


Gadaffi threatened to cleanse Benghazi from house to house. And there are rumors of mass graves. Had Nato not joined in god knows how many more would have died.


Doesnt matter, NATO have overstepped their mandate.
They are meant to impose a no-fly zone and protect civilians!
They were not even meant to take sides or try to kill Gaddafi!
Why is everybody making assumptions that the UN was targeting Gaddafi's family...

Nato said it had hit a "known command-and-control building" in the area, adding it did not "target individuals".


Stop being idiots going on about Nato breaking international laws. They bombed a legitimate target which coincidentally had Gaddafi's son in.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gaddafi specifically told family members to live in potential Nato targets so he could use them as an excuse in the event that something like this happens.

I know I'm going by Nato's word here but do you really think that they would be stupid enough to target Gaddafi's family?
Reply 96
Original post by Darkphilosopher
Why is everybody making assumptions that the UN was targeting Gaddafi's family...



Stop being idiots going on about Nato breaking international laws. They bombed a legitimate target which coincidentally had Gaddafi's son in.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gaddafi specifically told family members to live in potential Nato targets so he could use them as an excuse in the event that something like this happens.

I know I'm going by Nato's word here but do you really think that they would be stupid enough to target Gaddafi's family?

It might be his son wasn't even there, or the grandchildren don't exist, he did the same back in the 80s with a daughter he posthumously adopted. :holmes:
Original post by Darkphilosopher
Why is everybody making assumptions that the UN was targeting Gaddafi's family...



Stop being idiots going on about Nato breaking international laws. They bombed a legitimate target which coincidentally had Gaddafi's son in.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gaddafi specifically told family members to live in potential Nato targets so he could use them as an excuse in the event that something like this happens.

I know I'm going by Nato's word here but do you really think that they would be stupid enough to target Gaddafi's family?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw5Ij_RFJ1Q
Watch till the end (you can ignore Putin)

Also Gaddafi was in the same building apparently (but not the area which was bombed)
Original post by Darkphilosopher
Why is everybody making assumptions that the UN was targeting Gaddafi's family...



Stop being idiots going on about Nato breaking international laws. They bombed a legitimate target which coincidentally had Gaddafi's son in.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gaddafi specifically told family members to live in potential Nato targets so he could use them as an excuse in the event that something like this happens.

I know I'm going by Nato's word here but do you really think that they would be stupid enough to target Gaddafi's family?


The quote reminds me of what Israel used to say when they bombed a school and killeds tens of innocent children, just replacing Hamas with Gaddafi.

How we're used to such ridiculous lies.
Original post by algérie_mon_amour
The quote reminds me of what Israel used to say when they bombed a school and killeds tens of innocent children, just replacing Hamas with Gaddafi.

How we're used to such ridiculous lies.


I'm sure that Nato wouldn't be stupid enough to kill Gaddafi's family on purpose though...

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending