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

Original post by Makaveli_The_Don

Three grandchildren too.

:facepalm:

NATO ****ed up tbh.

The UN intervenes in order to protect civillians and ends up killing them. Three helpless grandchildren plus a son who was in no way involved in the regime.

Original post by Aj12

The feck are Nato playing at? Gadaffi as a target is debatable at best but if his Son holds no rank or position in the military then this was well beyond the resolution.

This is a hard one to call. Not sure how I feel about this

NATO have not ****ed up in anyway at all.

They are bombing strategic locations to hamper Gaddafi's genocide of the Libyan people. When you bomb places - people are going to die. When you bomb strategic locations, important people are going to die. Gaddafi's son was part of the regime, he knew he was fighting a war and he selfishly kept his three young children with him, resulting in their deaths.

NATO have an absolutely justifiable argument - while bombing an important target a leader of the regime was killed. If he kept his kids with him that was in no way Nato's fault.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 121

TheCount.

16

Original post by Aj12

BBC does not even have a picture of this guy. No one seems to know anything about him or who these other grandchildren are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8486158/Col-Gaddafis-youngest-son-killed-in-Nato-air-strike.html

Reply 122

L i b

19

Original post by teshla^^

Genocide is also a violation of this so called 'international law'.

Yes, but say what you will about Gaddafi, I've never heard him being seriously accused of genocide. Genocide is not just mass killing, it is slaughter or some other forms of harm meted out on ethnic, religious or national grounds. Killing people for political reasons is not genocide.

Anyway, I wonder why you say "so called 'international law'" as if it doesn't exist, it certainly does. However it would appear in this case, Gaddafi's son was involved in military activity and was present at a military target - hence his death was far from unlawful.

Reply 123

Suetonius

9

Saif al-Arab also participated in the massacres earlier during the conflict. We should be (and seemingly are) attempting to kill or capture Gaddafi anyway. If some of his family come down with him, only he is to blame for not relinquishing power.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 124

illusionz

20

Original post by Tenbinza

Gaddafi's son was part of the regime

Go do some research and get your facts right. He wasn't part of the regime. The other sons were, but the one who died wasn't. Although he had a travel ban imposed on him, he didn't have his assets in the EU siezed like all the other sons/Gadaffi himself.

Reply 125

marek35

Lol, tomorrow he'll come out and say, his 15,000 sons have died due to NATO bombing.

Wont believe what he says unless there is DNA proof its him.

Reply 126

Get Real

9

If they have intelligence that a building is being used for military purposes, then surely, they would be aware that Gaddafi and his family were in there.

I think the little "Needs to be verified" stance from NATO confirms this enough.

Reply 127

Tenbinza

Original post by illusionz

Go do some research and get your facts right. He wasn't part of the regime. The other sons were, but the one who died wasn't. Although he had a travel ban imposed on him, he didn't have his assets in the EU siezed like all the other sons/Gadaffi himself.

Why did he not go to a safer, non-military location then?

Reply 128

User414413

18

Original post by milkytea

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

Original post by Democracy

And nothing of value was lost...

These. Also, there's no confirmation of death hence I'm kind of skeptical. It wouldn't surprise me if he's still alive.

Reply 129

Aj12

18

Remember people anyone inside a military target is a legitimate target its perfectly legal.

Reply 130

hash007

15

Original post by Inzamam99

If they had murdered Bush and all others involved in planning the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq in 2001 then tens of thousands of deaths also would not happened?

Would you have supported an assassination of the former President of the United States? If not then why not? Surely his actions resulted in the deaths of thousands as well.

Excellent point there my friend.

Reply 131

rei dos reis

12

Why does his son matter more than anyone else's. And he's probably impregnated half of lybia anyway, no loss.

Reply 132

crazycake93

13

Original post by Aj12

Remember people anyone inside a military target is a legitimate target its perfectly legal.

I guess... But what about hostages? Do they deserve to die?

Reply 133

Aj12

18

Original post by crazycake93

I guess... But what about hostages? Do they deserve to die?

No and to this point Nato has been trying to avoid hitting targets where civilians are present. Thing is mistakes will be made its the nature of war.

Reply 134

jakemittle

17

Original post by Tenbinza

NATO have not ****ed up in anyway at all.

They are bombing strategic locations to hamper Gaddafi's genocide of the Libyan people. When you bomb places - people are going to die. When you bomb strategic locations, important people are going to die. Gaddafi's son was part of the regime, he knew he was fighting a war and he selfishly kept his three young children with him, resulting in their deaths.

NATO have an absolutely justifiable argument - while bombing an important target a leader of the regime was killed. If he kept his kids with him that was in no way Nato's fault.

Its not a genocide..
And youre an idiot. NATO are only permitted to impose a No-Fly Zone and protect civilians, this was, apparently, a house! What prove do they have that any decision making or anything was coming from there?
Also they have killed 4 civilians! His son did not hold any position within the military.
They do not have a justifiable argument whatsoever...
they are obviously about regime change which is NOT permitted by the UN.

According to you its okay to kill people that are part of the regime?..Does this include civilians who want to protect Gaddafi?

Reply 135

jakemittle

17

Original post by Aj12

Remember people anyone inside a military target is a legitimate target its perfectly legal.

thats completely wrong, you cant killed non-armed personnel :s-smilie:

Reply 136

jakemittle

17

Original post by milkytea

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

His son may not support Gaddafi's regime, also he is part of the Gaddafi family and may not be trained in warfare whereas a loyalist solider is a trained and paid and loyal member of his army..?

Reply 137

Fusilero

14

Original post by Aj12

BBC does not even have a picture of this guy. No one seems to know anything about him or who these other grandchildren are.

Yes, Al-Jazeera also suspects there's no such guy :holmes:

Reply 138

Aj12

18

Original post by jakemittle

thats completely wrong, you cant killed non-armed personnel :s-smilie:

If they are in military targets and they were not the aim of the strike and the nation involved had no clue they were there. Its not our fault Gadaffi stationed a very important military command center in his home

Reply 139

lonelykatana

17

Let me just point something out....
In 1986, Gaddafi's spokesman said one of his daughters had been killed in an attack on his compound in Tripoli. It was later proven to be completely untrue.

So until we have confirmation, I don't think any of us should be taking this without at least a slight bit of scepticism.

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

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you