Should NATO accidentaly kill Qhaddafi?

Darth Rotor said:
NO

Let us not deprive of some perfectly decent Libyans from enjoying that achievement.

Stop Raining On Their Parade, eh?
Click to expand...
Seconded.

Read this.
A general in eastern Libya who has mutinied against Muammar Gaddafi rule said his forces stood ready to help rebels fighting in Tripoli if called on to do so, but he rejected any need for foreign assistance.
[...]
"Our brothers in Tripoli say: `We are fine so far, we do not need help'. If they ask for help we are ready to move," said General Ahmed el-Gatrani, one of most senior figures in the army in Benghazi which no longer swears allegiance to Gaddafi.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine. Can't get more clear than this: The Libyan opposition rejects foreign assistance. I do wonder why this hasn't been reported more widely in the western media.

Thunder said:
what if he was killings thousands of people every day, with tanks and bombers, and there was good reason to believe that if he had a dreadful accident, the deaths would stop?
Click to expand...
No means no. Those words are more commonly used in the context of rape, but arguably more applicable here. The Libyan opposition's leaders say no, that means they want no foreign intervention.
The number of killings are irrelevant. Forced foreign intervention in favour of a faction that rejects your help is the most stupid, braindead and immoral thing you can do.
 
None of you have critical thought about the technical aspects of it. If they knew within a few meters where he was then a missile would do it. However if he was taking a walk when the missile struck then he would not be killed. He might go for a walk if he was told that a missile was heading towards him.

Also basic security precaution for embattled leaders. Never be in the same place for too long.
 
No, and they shouldn't do it deliberately either. Regardless of the intentions, it'd end badly.
 
The last time anyone tried to kill Gaddafi on accident with missiles was 1986. He wasn't targeted, we said, only military facilities. But his home was hit, killing his infant daugher. And, we're told, this triggered the Lockerbie bombing a few years later.

Another time, in 1980, the Italian Air Force might have been trying to shoot down Gaddafi's plane when they instead hit Itavia flight 870.
 
The Libyans would resent it. It might cause major collateral fatalities. It might provoke the loyalists to commit further atrocities for revenge. He might decide at the last minute to step down and leave the country along with his mercenaries, sparing a bloodbath which would kill thousands of Libyans. The mercenaries know that if he dies, their lives are over even if they surrender, so thay will probably prefer to got out fighting.

The people are just going to have to win this one themselves. Throw them some halal MREs or the equivalent and help the refugees at the borders so that they will be in a shape to do some work when they are finally able to go home.
 
Toontown said:
NATO? Kill Kadaffy?

It is to laugh. They can't even kill a lousy Taliban without committing a war crime. Lefto-lawyers got them all tied up in knots.

What will happen to that unarmed voluptious blonde nurse when the missile finds it's way to Kafaffy's lap? That's a dead, unarmed civilian. And everybody knows she's going to get it if they take Kadaffy out. So that would be deliberately targeting a civilian, right, Tranewreck?

War crime.

No can do.
Click to expand...
I've seen a lot of crazy on these forums, but accusing NATO of being some peacenik group really takes the cake.

On topic: everyone should just stay the **** out of the Libyans' business for now, ok?
 
Thunder said:
if NATO is 100% certain of Qhaddafi's location, should NATO accidentaly fire a cruise missile at that building, tent, or bunker?

I'm really not sure myself. I prefer he be arrested for war-crimes trials.
Click to expand...

Why? Why get involved? Why is it ok to get involved in another country and try to take out the leader when we have a Democrat for President but it is not OK when we have a Republican.

Qhaddafi has been our ally against Al Qaeda, in case you have been living under a rock.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Why? Why get involved? Why is it ok to get involved in another country and try to take out the leader when we have a Democrat for President but it is not OK when we have a Republican.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was OK then and I don't think it is OK now.

Qhaddafi has been our ally against Al Qaeda, in case you have been living under a rock.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda or Gaddafi are pretty close together on the evil bastard scale.
 
Last edited:
Peephole said:
I've seen a lot of crazy on these forums, but accusing NATO of being some peacenik group really takes the cake.

On topic: everyone should just stay the **** out of the Libyans' business for now, ok?
Click to expand...

Really? That's the craziest post you've ever seen?

I disagree. Most of your posts are crazier, including the one I'm responding to here. Your freaking avatar is crazier.

Perhaps it would help if you would improve your ability to read objectively, without imagining your own personal meanings in the words you read. Then you would know that I did not compare NATO to a "peacenik group". Then you wouldn't have quite wierdly thought it "takes the cake". Then you wouldn't have been triggered to annoy me with a meaningless personal attack on what I didn't say.

Then you wouldn't have to be wasting time composing an equally meaningless retort to this post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom