[POLL] NATO/UN's Action justified to Kill Gaddafi's Son?

Scroll to see replies

I strongly condemn against the killing of unarmed civilians.In this case be it the grandsons of Gadhaffi.If anything Gadhafi will be in full vengeance over this... who will pay the price? innocent civilians...

The west will be eventually seen as the baddies just as the previous poster before me kindly mentioned.

I don't think children were killed but Gaddafi's son was. The house had a bunker and apparently Gaddafi escaped from the building after the bombing which means he could have died. I don't agree with killing civilians nor do I agree with the whole notion of "collateral damage" either. Every care should be taken to ensure that civilians are not killed, if there's a reasonable chance civilians will be killed as a result of an air strike then the air strike should be called off, simple as. I wouldn't trust Gaddafi or Libyan state TV about what happened.

Reply 21

viksta1000

tbh they have no right being there in the first place....I don't see the worlds autocrats attacking the UK because they think a democracy is the wrong way to run a country

Its their government, let them deal with it and tell our bloody government to deal with our bloody issues before sticking their bloody noses in someone else's crap!!!

Reply 22

Brandmon

Funny how apparently killing him is "Killing civilians", despite the fact that he was given military forces early on to deal with protesters.

And one must suspect the apparent death too. Both the cause of death (Gaddafi could have got some TNT in place as easily as NATO) and if he actually died (If he really died, his corpse would have been paraded through the streets of Libya as a martyr. But he wasn't)

Therefore I won't vote as it is not at all clear what happened: anyone accusing NATO or the UN of anything would be a hypocrite as the Libyan Government is as capable of doing so.

But if so, good riddance. Maybe the man now has a taste of his own medicine. he brought all this mess to himself and his own country after ordering the Air Force to perform anti-riot duty.

Reply 23

Clip

Whatever the result or justification, some people will blame "the West" for everything.

Reply 24

Aj12

Original post by viksta1000

Even when the people are begging us to help them?

Reply 25

viksta1000

Original post by Aj12

Even when the people are begging us to help them?

Nobody's begging, the Libyans are rebelling and constructing there revelation armies in doing so!

Gadaffi called for a ceasefire prior the the NATO attack and yet NATO and the UN still continue to retaliate :confused:

Does Cameron not understand why Obama blatantly does not give a crap about sending troops into Libya? Has the UK not learnt from what happened when they helped fight the soviets?

Reply 26

Maker

Original post by ilovedubstep

Have you seen the thousands of libyans on the streets now? They are attacking the British embassy in Tripoli. This is going to have huge consequences in the war, we are now the baddies essentially.

The usual rent a crowd propaganda BS. I am surprise people still fall for it.

Look here my niave friend, Tripoli is now one of the most tightly controlled cities in the world. Gaddafi's security forces and informers spy on everyone and no-one does anything without their say so. There are no such things as spontanous crowds in Tripoli. People go on the streets when they are orderd to by Gaddafi, they don't have a choice. The thousands of Libyans in Tripoli you refer to are there on Gaddafi's orders, not a spontanous show of support for Gaddafi.

Grow up.

Reply 27

Aj12

Original post by viksta1000

Does Cameron not understand why Obama blatantly does not give a crap about sending troops into Libya? Has the UK not learnt from what happened when they helped fight the soviets?

Because Gadaffi keeps breaking his own ceasefires.

http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/15/libyan-rebel-leader-we-beg-the-west-for-a-no-fly-zone/

And if you remember the coverage before the no fly zone was implemented the Rebels were begging.

No one has mentioned troops being sent to Libya?

Reply 28

viksta1000

Original post by Aj12

There was a discussion between Cameron and Obama regarding this matter and Obama firmly denied

I do agree that Gadaffi is breaking his own ceasefires but I still believe that its their problem to solve

Why is NATO not attacking Saudi Arabia and Bahrain (with over £3 trillion worth of assets/investments combined)...because their power in the western economy is too significant, thats why! So all this bull**** about Libya is just because they're a country of less interest in the world

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 29

Aj12

Original post by viksta1000

Because like it or not its pretty damn difficult to run fights on two fronts at once at the moment let a lone another 2 or 3 on top of Libya and Afaganistan

Reply 30

viksta1000

Original post by Aj12

Because like it or not its pretty damn difficult to run fights on two fronts at once at the moment let a lone another 2 or 3 on top of Libya and Afaganistan

What so you think that if Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya never happened, then the US and UK would actually attack the Saudi's? :eek:

Reply 31

Aj12

Original post by viksta1000

What so you think that if Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya never happened, then the US and UK would actually attack the Saudi's? :eek:

I doubt it. Mainly because the Saudis have a much bigger military and it would destroy the world economy....

Reply 32

viksta1000

Original post by Aj12

I doubt it. Mainly because the Saudis have a much bigger military and it would destroy the world economy....

precisely my point...Libya is an 'easier' target hence the intervention

Reply 33

Brandmon

Original post by viksta1000

Why is NATO not attacking Saudi Arabia and Bahrain

Is there a Civil War in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain that I didn't hear of?

Original post by viksta1000

precisely my point...Libya is an 'easier' target hence the intervention

That is just a silly presumption. Just compare the leaders of the mentioned countries:

Afghanistan: Lead by extremists that supported bombing civilians left, right and centre.

Iraq: A dictator that deliberately killed many thousands of Kurds and not counting those who simply showed dissent.

Libya: A dictator that decided to bomb his own children (That is what he calls his Libyan people)

Saudi Arabia: Lead by a monarchy that exercises the death penalty.

If anything the rest of the African continent is far, far easier. The US has enough military capability to occupy a good portion of Africa if they wanted to. Plus if NATO wanted to target Saudi Arabia, they would simply stop supplying them with their weapons.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 34

ak137

Original post by Brandmon

Is there a Civil War in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain that I didn't hear of?

That is just a silly presumption. Just compare the leaders of the mentioned countries:

Afghanistan: Lead by extremists that supported bombing civilians left, right and centre.

Iraq: A dictator that deliberately killed many thousands of Kurds and not counting those who simply showed dissent.

Libya: A dictator that decided to bomb his own children (That is what he calls his Libyan people)

Saudi Arabia: Lead by a monarchy that exercises the death penalty.

If anything the rest of the African continent is far, far easier. The US has enough military capability to occupy a good portion of Africa if they wanted to. Plus if NATO wanted to target Saudi Arabia, they would simply stop supplying them with their weapons.

*Facepalm* Yes, in case you missed in the news, 'rebels' rebelled in Bahrain, but troops from UAE, Saudi and Qatar were brought in. Many want democracy created by the people in Saudi and surrounding countries.

*Another facepalm*
Afghanistan: the USA supported the 'terrorists' during the soviet invasion of afghanistan.

Iraq: Supported by the USA and NATO countries when it was Iran-Iraq war.

Libya: Supported by USA and other countries for 40 years, why not take him down earlier if they were so concerned about human life.

Saudi Arabia: Supported by the USA and Britain in exchange for oil - lots of it, very cheaply.

I think i can safely say you failed.

Reply 35

viksta1000

Original post by Brandmon

Is there a Civil War in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain that I didn't hear of?

Yes there is! :biggrin:

....the reason you haven't heard about them is explained in the link :wink:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8945190-saudi-arabia-tightens-media-controls-and-censorship

Original post by Brandmon

That is just a silly presumption. Just compare the leaders of the mentioned countries:

Afghanistan: Lead by extremists that supported bombing civilians left, right and centre.

No. They were not 'lead' Afghanistan had nothing to do with anything whatsoever, they unfortunately just happened to be the location where the Taliban happened to hide.... perhaps due to its remote geography :confused:

Original post by Brandmon

Iraq: A dictator that deliberately killed many thousands of Kurds and not counting those who simply showed dissent.

Oh really, is that all? So Mugabe and Kim Jong must be a saints compared to hussain in the sense that they never attracted US intervention?.....it was oil!

Original post by Brandmon

Saudi Arabia: Lead by a monarchy that exercises the death penalty.

ah right, so that must be it :confused:

, Saudi leaders just 'exercise' the death penalty...does that still not involve killing civilians just as the leaders above? Atleast the other allowed news groups in jounalists into their country, Saudi Arabia have arrested and beaten journalists that have entered and even banned protests.

I thought a democracy is the reason why NATO is in Libya in the first place, so why is Saudi Arabia any different?

Reply 36

ak137

Original post by Maker

Its war, people die, grow up

Brainwashed by BBC and Sky News eh?

Original post by jndk109

nato has the right to bomb anywhere that they consider as a threat to other people if that be military tanks or the leader who initiated the problems. I dont think it's justified but it was obvioulsy a mistake they were targeting gaddafi himself to save the unjustified deaths of civillians.

NATO has no right whatsoever to interfere with foreign entities, let alone exercise military operations.

Lets say this: next time theres a election in britain (in 2015 i think?) we'll ask the civilians of the countries we have invaded on the opinion on our candidates. What..? no..? you saying thats not a good idea? Well what right do we have to DICTATE what state they should live in!

(sorry, last bit wasnt aimed at you directly) :smile: