Nato strike 'kills Gaddafi's youngest son'

[AD-15]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...755721620.html

EDIT: In case anyone's interested, the Arabic he's speaking at the end is: "May God have mercy on those that were martyred tonight" - then it cuts off.

[Blitzen]

No tears for this one here.
The swine had it coming, and it's just a pity he wasn't taken down aswell.

Target 2: Lockerbie bomber. He has the 'least terminal' terminal cancer since medical records began.

[Andeh13]

No tears for this one here.
The swine had it coming, and it's just a pity he wasn't taken down aswell.

Target 2: Lockerbie bomber. He has the 'least terminal' terminal cancer since medical records began.

Well said!

[Saracen]

....

Target 2: Lockerbie bomber. He has the 'least terminal' terminal cancer since medical records began.

Not so, I'm afraid.

My father died of cancer ..... about 6 YEARS after a consultant gave him 6 weeks at most. Specifically, I was shown the xrays, and told on June 26th (a few years back) that he wouldn't see that August. And this was a cancer he'd had surgery on about 20 years prior to that.

Generally, estimates are much better than that, but it is still a somewhat rough guide.

I understand the point you make, and it's galling he was released, but the "best advice" from doctors on this issue can only be a rough guide, and in a small number of cases, can be out by a LONG way. It doesn't mean that the doctor's opinion wasn't the best he could do, or that the decision to rely on it was inappropriate given Scottish rules.

Like I say, I disagreed with his release then, and now, if for no other reason that it made it even more unlikely we'll ever get to the truth behind whether he was involved (very likely, IMHO) and more relevantly, who else was involved (probably, IMHO, including ol' Mad Dog himself). It would certainly be an incredibly ballsy Libyan agent that did something like Lockerbie if it wasn't sanctioned by the Colonel. But that aside, the medical judgement is always open to a large error margin.

[barker967]

If this is true and NATO did attack this place then it is entirely wrong. NATO`s role in this issue is to attack only military targets that are themselves attacking civilian people in Libya, this attack shows that NATO is now completely ignoring its own doctrine and pretty much declaring war on Libya and its leadership. Something they have no right to do.

Don`t see this as a defence of Gaddafi and his regime, just that if the west expects to be seen as the good guys in all this then they need to act accordingly. Also the last thing this country can afford is another all out war, which it will lead to.

[santa claus]

If this is true and NATO did attack this place then it is entirely wrong. NATO`s role in this issue is to attack only military targets that are themselves attacking civilian people in Iran, this attack shows that NATO is now completely ignoring its own doctrine and pretty much declaring war on Libya and its leadership. Something they have no right to do.

Don`t see this as a defence of Gaddafi and his regime, just that if the west expects to be seen as the good guys in all this then they need to act accordingly. Also the last thing this country can afford is another all out war, which it will lead to.

ftfy .

[barker967]

I`m glad someone noticed my deliberate error.........

[AD-15]

If this is true and NATO did attack this place then it is entirely wrong. NATO`s role in this issue is to attack only military targets that are themselves attacking civilian people in Libya, this attack shows that NATO is now completely ignoring its own doctrine and pretty much declaring war on Libya and its leadership. Something they have no right to do.

Don`t see this as a defence of Gaddafi and his regime, just that if the west expects to be seen as the good guys in all this then they need to act accordingly. Also the last thing this country can afford is another all out war, which it will lead to.

Absolutely. Couldn't have put it better myself.

[peterb]

Al Jazeera's Sue Turton, reporting from Benghazi, said there were "an awful lot" of suggestions in Libya that the news of the deaths could be fabricated.

And as the head of the Libyan armed forces carrying out an attack on his own civilian population, it could be argued that he is a legitimate target.

[Blitzen]

If this is true and NATO did attack this place then it is entirely wrong. NATO`s role in this issue is to attack only military targets that are themselves attacking civilian people in Libya, this attack shows that NATO is now completely ignoring its own doctrine and pretty much declaring war on Libya and its leadership. Something they have no right to do.

Don`t see this as a defence of Gaddafi and his regime, just that if the west expects to be seen as the good guys in all this then they need to act accordingly. Also the last thing this country can afford is another all out war, which it will lead to.

Sorry but your are wrong.

Gaddafi = Head of Libyan Armed Forces
Libyan Armed Forces are the one killing civillains
Therefore Gaddafi IS a legitimate target. If he chose to surrounding himself with family, then its his bad call.......callatoral damage and nothing more.

[barker967]

Sorry but your are wrong.

Gaddafi = Head of Libyan Armed Forces
Libyan Armed Forces are the one killing civillains
Therefore Gaddafi IS a legitimate target. If he chose to surrounding himself with family, then its his bad call.......callatoral damage and nothing more.

I disagree, what is going on in Libya is a civil war, or near as can be. The west saw the civilian population being attacked by the military arsenal of that country and have put measures in place to protect that civilian pop by destroying any weapons that are being used against the UNARMED civilians. Fair enough.

The problem I have is when the west decides it can do what it likes in order to achieve regime change in a country it has no right to do meddle in. Gaddafi is not a legitimate target according to the NATO and UN resolution put in place to protect the civilians, end of. We are not at war with the state of Libya.

[roachcoach]

Also the last thing this country can afford is another all out war, which it will lead to.

It was a war the minute the first weapon was launched. It's only the politicians who are still under the delusion that it is not.

Sadly that posturing will do nothing to solve the crisis and only cost more lives whilst they piss about for however long it takes them to realise the only way this ends is with troops on the ground going in hard & fast.

Not that I think that's necessarily "right", but it's the only way out of the mess we're embroiled in right now.

[Whiternoise]

If this is true and NATO did attack this place then it is entirely wrong. NATO`s role in this issue is to attack only military targets that are themselves attacking civilian people in Libya, this attack shows that NATO is now completely ignoring its own doctrine and pretty much declaring war on Libya and its leadership. Something they have no right to do.

Don`t see this as a defence of Gaddafi and his regime, just that if the west expects to be seen as the good guys in all this then they need to act accordingly. Also the last thing this country can afford is another all out war, which it will lead to.

I'm not a fan of war, personally, best avoided. But, two things factually:

1. Gaddafi's capacity is as a military leader, rather than as a head of state.
2. The UK has stated that we will not be sending in ground troops. The 'war' as it is, will be conducted by air and actually shows what we spend our defence money on. We have essentially neutralised the entire country and in monetary terms it wasn't particularly expensive. All the army needs to do is provide the rebels with a bit of auxilliary firepower and knock out the heavy guns for them and they'll presumably keep fighting.

So, yes, it's a lot of money (cruise missiles are staggeringly expensive), but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the Middle East.

[pp05]

Even our own people who were sent on fact finding reported these rebels were too few and were bandits basically. That is why the rebels don't want ground troops in Libya, then how would they remove them ??... there numbers.. It would be like LibDems becoming the government on 10% of total votes casted.

The fact is the members of the UN were duped. It was always regime change and now they simply don't care about the rule book. UN is pointless.

I'm not a fan of war, personally, best avoided. But, two things factually:

1. Gaddafi's capacity is as a military leader, rather than as a head of state.
2. The UK has stated that we will not be sending in ground troops. The 'war' as it is, will be conducted by air and actually shows what we spend our defence money on. We have essentially neutralised the entire country and in monetary terms it wasn't particularly expensive. All the army needs to do is provide the rebels with a bit of auxilliary firepower and knock out the heavy guns for them and they'll presumably keep fighting.

So, yes, it's a lot of money (cruise missiles are staggeringly expensive), but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the Middle East.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It is ironic that after so many years of sanctions European firms were very quick to start selling Libya their wares.

From 2005 to 2009 European firms were granted licenses for over 800 milion Euro of weapons to Libya:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...rts-libya#data

The French even demoed the Rafale in Libya in 2009:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...entId=blogDest

Libyan air force Mirage F1s were in the process of being refurbished by Dassult:

http://www.marianne2.fr/blogsecretde...-vol_a142.html

The French also recently sold the Libyans anti-tank weapons and communications equipment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6928880.stm

Even the US helped train Libyan officers too:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w..._arms_training