Nato strike 'kills Saif al-Arab Gaddafi', Libya says

[EnglishLady]

BBC News


A Nato air strike in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has killed the son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, a government spokesman has said.

Colonel Gaddafi himself was in the large residential villa which was hit by the strike, the spokesman added, but was unharmed.

His son Saif al-Arab was said to be killed, as well as three grandsons.

Journalists say the building was extensively damaged and one unexploded bomb remains at the site.

Saif al-Arab, who had a lower profile than his brother Saif al-Islam, had been studying in Germany and returned to Libya recently.

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the villa in which he was killed was attacked "with full power."

"The attack resulted in the martyrdom of brother Saif al-Arab Muammar Gaddafi, 29 years old, and three of the leader's grandchildren," he said.

"The leader with his wife was there in the house with other friends and relatives, the leader himself is in good health, he wasn't harmed." Col Gaddafi's wife was also unharmed, he said.

"This was a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country," the spokesman added.

more

BBC News - Nato strike 'kills Saif al-Arab Gaddafi', Libya says

 

[Ragman]

Dang! Missed!

 

[greg334]

Dang! Missed!

Why say that?

I mean that we shouldn't be there to begin with and for that matter we shouldn't be involved with NATO.

 

[xiggi]

Why say that?

I mean that we shouldn't be there to begin with and for that matter we shouldn't be involved with NATO.

Regardless of should or shouldn't be we are and as long as we are Gaddafi needs to go.

 

[Ragman]

Regardless of should or shouldn't be we are and as long as we are Gaddafi needs to go.

My point exactly.

 

[blackpup]

Family members of the passengers on Pan Am flight 103 would probably not mind seeing Gaddafi killed.

Lockerbie Scotland midair airplane bombing.

jimmy

 

[greg334]

Regardless of should or shouldn't be we are and as long as we are Gaddafi needs to go.

Yeah now, but you know what, not very many people seem to grasp reality that we know what he is but we are absolute clueless of what the "rebels" stand for and who they are. Many don't understand that we may easily get someone who is worst than he is or it can turn into a covert terrorist base of operations while the chances that we will get another ally in there is slim to begin with.

I feel that the stupidity of the country with the libya situation has a foundation based solely on the hatred of the man who has kept quiet and actually helped us for the past 9 years which has placated our need to ask why are we involved. Talk about blind involvement, we have it clearly here with the UN resolution starting out as 'protecting' civilians and moving beyond that while there is absolutely no congressional oversight or congressional approval.

Our failures in Afghanistan are becoming more apparent and if we continue to go down this path of nation building in the middle east for reasons other than our direct national defense, than we will fail in the middle east.

BUT in truth, if one is going to b*tch about Obama and his actions in the domestic matters while supporting this action, it seems hypocritical at minimal to speak at all.

 

[layoutshooter]

We have NO business in Libya. As to our failures in other parts of the world, they are 100% caused by our congress and presidents. This trouble in Libya is 100% about the oil supply in Europe.

 

[greg334]

Thank you, but we also don't have any business in Korea, Africa, Germany, the Balkans, Japan either.

Afghanistan we can only justify by their support of terrorism. Iraq we really can't justify it outside the UN mandate which has caused us too much trouble in the first place.

 

[layoutshooter]

Thank you, but we also don't have any business in Korea, Africa, Germany, the Balkans, Japan either.

Afghanistan we can only justify by their support of terrorism. Iraq we really can't justify it outside the UN mandate which has caused us too much trouble in the first place.

We have, in my mind, another reason to be in Afghanistan. After the Soviets pulled out we SHOULD have helped them recover. We did not, a mistake in my mind, and the power vacuum was filled by the Taliban. I feel that we should try to make that right. Just my personal feelings. The average "joe" in Afghanistan is okee dokee. I would want them on my side in ANY fight.

As to the rest. Since the so called "Cold War" ended we no longer need to be any where else. That assumes that it really has ended. Many don't believe that the Soviet is gone for good. My self included. I seen them as just regrouping and gearing up for another run. Just my opinion based on what I see going on.

We have NO business supporting UN goals. I think we should dump that nasty bunch.

 

[scottm4211]

I think taking care of your own house would go a long way here.

 

[layoutshooter]

I think taking care of your own house would go a long way here.

Yep, Obama and his ilk are little different from the Soviet. Socialism is, at best, a bad economic system, and at it's worst, murderous. Socialism is NEVER good. We have been heading down that path for decades. That slide MUST be stopped.

 

[greg334]

Well I listened to some prominent military people who sound like they are trying to be politically intelligent and their comments make me seem to think that we are facing other issues outside of Obama. Their position is that we inherited the world's problems when we involved ourselves in WW2 and the aftermath led us to having a national moral obligation to defend others outside our borders based on democracy and humanitarian needs so we need to expand in these areas because of our national interest while being involved with issues like Libya and Afghanistan.

One of the things that this has triggered is my thought that we as a country must remind ourselves is the purpose of the military and how we have let them define our interests as a nation. It seems to go back to something that is out of Five Days In May scenario.

With the cold war, we had one type of enemy, and that type was easily identified and they were open about how they viewed us and why. At that time, our moral obligation wasn't to defend others but rather to put a barrier up using them to defend ourselves. In other words, there was only one national moral obligation and that is to protect only the people of the US.

If you know what the history is with the Soviets, their expansion into the eastern bloc countries and how our "allies" like France, Italy and others allowed and in some cases embraced the Soviet leaning politicians, then you can see what reasoning behind the idea that we no longer have to be everywhere and we don't have any obligation to any other nation.

Mexico is the only thing we should concern ourselves with because they are directly tied to our country while they are also the biggest threat to us. Our military has an obligation to be involved with removing the threat in Mexico and only based on the fact that like WW2, we are attacked by elements within Mexico and in some cases promoted directly be the government of Mexico.

In contrast, Libya is not a problem for us, we have no interest in their oil but Europe does and because we are too stupid as a nation to understand how we are being used by the EU and the AL, we went along with this idea that we need to be involved for the people and have an underlying reason to oust gadaffi who "attacked" us. We again fail to see the elements within the middle east and don't get that we may have destabilize our safety by going after him.

 

[layoutshooter]

We were in Europe and on the DMZ in Korea as part of the defense of the United States. The idea was that it was better to stop them there than fight them here. Had they been able to take over all of Asia and Europe as planned we would have had to fight them on our own shores.

I believe that the Soviet never went away. They are using OUR tax dollars to modernize their weapons systems and are being to show signs of expansion again. It will happen as it did before, with the enslavement and murder of millions. Only this time our government will be complicit. Obama is cut from the same cloth.

 

[scottm4211]

We were in Europe and on the DMZ in Korea as part of the defense of the United States. The idea was that it was better to stop them there than fight them here. Had they been able to take over all of Asia and Europe as planned we would have had to fight them on our own shores.

I wonder how that intent back then (which may have been the right move, we'll never know), could possibly apply to what's going on today. It seems ludicrous.

 

[greg334]

We were in Europe and on the DMZ in Korea as part of the defense of the United States. The idea was that it was better to stop them there than fight them here. Had they been able to take over all of Asia and Europe as planned we would have had to fight them on our own shores.

The key word is were, in reality the former enemies of the US are trading partners so I don't put much credence into the idea that we still need a presence in Germany (EU) or Korea as part of our defense.

Things have changed, enemies are now internal and external with more of a problem identifying them than anything else. We tie our own hands through political correctness and a run away court system that prevents a proper defense of the country by having open immigration (tourist, student, etc. ...).

I believe that the Soviet never went away. They are using OUR tax dollars to modernize their weapons systems and are being to show signs of expansion again. It will happen as it did before, with the enslavement and murder of millions. Only this time our government will be complicit. Obama is cut from the same cloth.

I somewhat agree, I don't think the Soviets went away, for that matter a few of them are still running around cashing in on their fame. BUT the issue with our tax money modernizing their systems is far from the problem when we are, ourselves, jumping into things when we need to contract and reevaluate our purpose with our country.

Our government was complicit in the other genocides, but selective in their entry to stop it. We tend to forget we have ourselves caused it, by first placing ourselves into a country and fighting a war as a third party while retreating from that war which triggered the death of millions.

 

[layoutshooter]

"The key word is were, in reality the former enemies of the US are trading partners so I don't put much credence into the idea that we still need a presence in Germany (EU) or Korea as part of our defense."


The Soviets AND China are STILL enemies of the United States. There are still valid intelligence sites located in EU, Japan AND Korea as well as many other less well known sites around the globe. The need for those is still there.

 

[layoutshooter]

"The key word is were, in reality the former enemies of the US are trading partners so I don't put much credence into the idea that we still need a presence in Germany (EU) or Korea as part of our defense."


The Soviets AND China are STILL enemies of the United States. There are still valid intelligence sites located in EU, Japan AND Korea as well as many other less well known sites around the globe. The need for those is still there.

 

[greg334]

Layout,
China is our trading partner, no longer considered an "enemy". They now face other issues that attack their political world form inside.

The soviets are gone, we and others caused their collapse but the ideology and the mindset are still there. The only difference is that they are looking to deal with us on an economical level, so we won't refight the cold war.

Germany is a strong country, they can stand on their own without the United States being there. France is a strong country, they too can stand on their own. Italy is a strong country and they too can stand on their own.

The cost of keeping troops there outweighs the actual benefit of them being there to deter an attack from Iran or the Soviets. There is no real purpose there and when Eisenhower spoke of the military institution, he was talking about this exact issue where the military is telling the politicians we need to be here and there when we don't.

 

[layoutshooter]

Layout,
China is our trading partner, no longer considered an "enemy". They now face other issues that attack their political world form inside.

The soviets are gone, we and others caused their collapse but the ideology and the mindset are still there. The only difference is that they are looking to deal with us on an economical level, so we won't refight the cold war.

Germany is a strong country, they can stand on their own without the United States being there. France is a strong country, they too can stand on their own. Italy is a strong country and they too can stand on their own.

The cost of keeping troops there outweighs the actual benefit of them being there to deter an attack from Iran or the Soviets. There is no real purpose there and when Eisenhower spoke of the military institution, he was talking about this exact issue where the military is telling the politicians we need to be here and there when we don't.

So there is no longer a need for intell? Intell that can ONLY be collected in certain areas. Every thing is hunky dory, nothing can go wrong.

There is no longer a need to be "Vigilant Always".

I don't think so. I don't trust China for ONE SECOND. Neither do I trust Russia for ONE SECOND. IF they were such "buddies" of ours they would NOT be building HUGE militarys, modernizing their nukes and so on and so forth. Sorry, don't buy it.