Col. Gaddaffi's Son killed by NATO Airstrike.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Albatross**

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

Saif al-Arab and three of Col Gaddafi's grandchildren died at their villa in the Bab al-Aziziya compound, he said.

The Libyan leader himself was in the villa at the time, the spokesman said, but was unharmed.

Nato said it had hit a "known command-and-control building" in the area, adding it did not "target individuals".

An alliance spokesman, Lt-Gen Charles Bouchard, said "all Nato's targets are military in nature".

He added that he was aware of reports that members of Col Gaddafi's family had been killed, but made no further comment.

"We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of the ongoing conflict," said Lt-Gen Bouchard.

More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570

It seems that there can be little doubt now that Gaddaffi is a target for assassination - I couldn't approve more, though such actions wouldn't appear to be in line with UN guidelines.

Thoughts?

**Kilkrazy**

The UN security council resolution no.1973 authorises the appointed powers to take all necessary measures required to put an end to the government persecution and violence against civilians in Libya.

That arguably would include killing Gaddafi and his family, if they will not come to a satisfactory peaceful settlement of the situation, since they are the principle actors in the Libyan government.

It would be sad if Gaddafi's grandchildren got killed by accident, however it is sad that other people's grandchildren are getting deliberately killed by Gaddafi's forces, so it is a risk worth taking.

**htj**

Kilkrazy hit the nail right on the head there.

**Tacobake**

Sometimes I wish everyone would just be friends and be done with it.

**Phototoxin**

But if they targeted the British PMs family or Obamas family they'd be 'terrorists targeting innocents'

**htj**

Phototoxin wrote:But if they targeted the British PMs family or Obamas family they'd be 'terrorists targeting innocents'

Well, yeah. What you call it shows only which side you're on. That said, targetting family directly and killing them collaterally isn't quite the same thing.

**WarOne**

htj wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:But if they targeted the British PMs family or Obamas family they'd be 'terrorists targeting innocents'

Well, yeah. What you call it shows only which side you're on. That said, targetting family directly and killing them collaterally isn't quite the same thing.

In the end, killing a person is still killing a person. Your justification for it is wrapped up in the context of the present and the history that is recorded afterwards.

**htj**

WarOne wrote:
htj wrote:
Phototoxin wrote:But if they targeted the British PMs family or Obamas family they'd be 'terrorists targeting innocents'

Well, yeah. What you call it shows only which side you're on. That said, targetting family directly and killing them collaterally isn't quite the same thing.

In the end, killing a person is still killing a person. Your justification for it is wrapped up in the context of the present and the history that is recorded afterwards.

True enough. Preferably, none of this killing would be taking place, on either side.

**Albatross**

Phototoxin wrote:But if they targeted the British PMs family or Obamas family they'd be 'terrorists targeting innocents'

Gaddafi family members are part of the regime - not his grandkids of course, but there's no evidence that they were intentionally targeted. Also, if the roles were reversed, the British PM would be a legitimate target under certain interpretations of the current UN resolution.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

I severely doubt that his family is being targeted intentionally, unless they are part of the regime proper. Most of them aren't, ergo, they aren't a target.
Admittedly, that's just the logic of an internet theoretician, but I'd like to think there was some merit to it.

**Chowderhead**

Cool!

The dude was an donkey-cave. Glad to see that NATO is actually/accidentaly doing something good for once.

**Kilkrazy**

Phototoxin wrote:But if they targeted the British PMs family or Obamas family they'd be 'terrorists targeting innocents'

Colonel Gaddafi doesn't have a UN resolution to authorise such an action.

Let's not forget that Gaddafi authorised the Lockerbie bombing and the machine-gunning of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. He is not an innocent man and cannot rely on our finer feelings to protect him.

**Melissia**

PArt of me wants to see his family killed off one by one, until he's alone in the world and everything he knows and loved either hates him or is destroyed. And then HE dies.

But at the same time, I don't think children should be intentionally targeted. But the son, as opposed to grandchildren, ain't a child, but a government spokesperson, spreading lies and propoganda for the sake of keeping his people under control. He's a government employee of a government that is currently hated by the world. He should know his life is at risk while he maintains that position.

The life of US officials is at risk when they go abroad, certainly this dude isn't gonna be any safer.

**halonachos**

Melissia wrote:
But at the same time, I don't think children should be intentionally targeted. But the son, as opposed to grandchildren, ain't a child, but a government spokesperson, spreading lies and propoganda for the sake of keeping his people under control. He's the relative of a person that is currently hated by the world. He should know his life is at risk while he maintains that position.

I personally want to see the son in charge of the special forces go next.

**CT GAMER**

targeting family directly and killing them collaterally isn't quite the same thing.

Blowing up a building to kill one target inside?

I'm pretty sure the intent was to kill everyone inside...

Not gonna comment on the politics, but lets not split hairs...

**halonachos**

CT GAMER wrote:
targeting family directly and killing them collaterally isn't quite the same thing.

Blowing up a building to kill one target inside?

I'm pretty sure the intent was to kill everyone inside...

Not gonna comment on the politics, but lets not split hairs...

They didn't say that they were targeting the people inside, they said that they knew it was a control center so they blew it up. They didn't kill everyone inside though, Gadafi survived.

**htj**

CT GAMER wrote:
targeting family directly and killing them collaterally isn't quite the same thing.

Blowing up a building to kill one target inside?

I'm pretty sure the intent was to kill everyone inside...

Not gonna comment on the politics, but lets not split hairs...

I don't know whether that was the intent or just considered 'acceptable losses' but you're right, it is kind of splitting hairs.

**Mannahnin**

Military target, as a command center. Saif was government personnel and basically "hair to the throne" of a dictator, whom he supported as part of that government. The more irreverant part of me wonders if this is the first time a Facebook douche has been killed in a military action.

-----------

Terrible about the grandkids though. That's very sad. They shouldn't even be in the country, much less in a building of military importance.

-----------

Deliberately targeting Obama during a war wouldn't be a terrorist act. He's the Commander in Chief. It'd certainly be a military act. Going after his wife or kids would be very different, as they're not military personnel or part of the government (Michelle sort-of, but not in any legislative or decision-making capacity).

**Melissia**

More importantly, what's the libyan rebel's reaction to this?

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

Melissia wrote:More importantly, what's the libyan rebel's reaction to this?

Dunno, probably some elation.
You can bet they hold no love for anyone involved with Gaddafi right now.

**CT GAMER**

htj wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
targeting family directly and killing them collaterally isn't quite the same thing.

Blowing up a building to kill one target inside?

I'm pretty sure the intent was to kill everyone inside...

Not gonna comment on the politics, but lets not split hairs...

I don't know whether that was the intent or just considered 'acceptable losses' but you're right, it is kind of splitting hairs.

My guess is that they aren't randomly blowing up targets hoping he is inside, which leads me to think they had intel detailing who was in the house.

Like you said "acceptable losses".

**htj**

No, I suspect they thought there was a good shot at taking Colonel G out, and that if his family were inside, so be it. As it stands they got the family, not the man.

Of course, they might be blowing up buildings randomly. Military intelligence has made it's fair share of gaffs in the past. Maybe someone just just saw the name Gaddaffi and though 'Bloody hell, that's the chap we're after! Bombs here, please!'

**Mannahnin**

That sounds like the military commanders in this excellent book which I was just reading.

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

They did similar things to try and get Saddam, as I recall.
Didn't work then, either.

**htj**

Mannahnin, your choice of literature is exemplary.

Gorskar.da.Lost, it rarely does. Always trying to take out the commander to win the war quickly, I suspect NATO play too much Warmachine.

**Matrim**

Under UN, it is illegal to assasinate a political leader.

**Guitardian**

Under U.N. it is impossible to get anything meaningful done. I doubt if they really put much effort into playing by their own rules beyond looking like they are playing by their own rules. "legal" and "illegal" are mutable concepts anyway, not any kind of moral constant.

**Dark Apostle 666**

Yes, but Gadaffi and his son had to die to end this conflict, the government forces are held together by gadaffi and his fanatical sons, kill the head and the body dies, thus preventing further bloodshed.
Acceptable losses, "He who questions your right to kill a few to save the many, must realise you have no right not to." or some such, the exact quote escapes me.

**htj**

Matrim wrote:Under UN, it is illegal to assasinate a political leader.

But not illegal to attempt military action against the commander-in-chief of the enemy forces. All depends on how you phrase it and by what means you attack.

**Ketara**

Matrim wrote:Under UN, it is illegal to assasinate a political leader.

Ah, but he's a 'Colonel', correct? Making him a military target.