kdsingh80 Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi survived a NATO air strike that killed his youngest son and three grandchildren under the age of 12 in his bastion of Tripoli, hours after the alliance rejected the embattled leader's offer for "a ceasefire and negotiations." Gaddafi and his wife were in the Tripoli house of his 29-year-old son, Saif al-Arab, when it was hit by at least one missile fired by a NATO warplane late last night, Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said on Sunday. The house of Saif al-Arab, one of Gaddafi's seven sons, was attacked on Saturday night with "full power," he said. 68-year-old Gaddafi and his wife were there in the house with other friends and relatives, Ibrahim said. "The leader himself is in good health, he wasn't harmed." The spokesman said Gaddafi's wife was also unharmed but other people in the house were injured. "This was a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country. This is not permitted by international law. It is not permitted by any moral code or principle. What we have now is the law of the jungle," Ibrahim told media persons. "We think now it is clear to everyone that what is happening in Libya has nothing to do with the protection of civilians." Ibrahim claimed that the attack resulted in "the martyrdom of brother Saif al-Arab Muammar Gaddafi, 29 years old, and three of the leader's grandchildren." He did not give the names of children but said they were nieces and nephews of Saif al-Arab and were younger than 12. He said their names are not being released to protect the privacy of the family. On the attack, the spokesman said "it seems there was intelligence that was leaked. They knew about something. They expected him (Gaddafi) for some reason. But the target was very clear, very, very clear. And the neighbourhood, yes of course, because the leader family has a place there, you could expect of course it would be guarded, but it is a normal neighbourhood. Normal Libyans live there." Acknowledging that it had carried out the air strike, the NATO, however, did not deny or confirm the reported deaths. A NATO spokesman said the strike had hit a "known command and control building in the Bab al-Azizya neighbourhood". "All NATO's targets are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the... regime's systematic attacks on the Libyan population and populated areas. We do not target individuals," Lt Gen Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's Operation Unified Protector, said. Bouchard said he was aware of reports that some of Gaddafi's family members had been killed in the strike. "We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of the ongoing conflict," he said. Saif al-Arab is the most unknown of the Libyan leader's children, Al Jazeera said. "He has been largely invisible since the conflict began" in February, it said. "He hasn't been visible in any significant form. He hasn't appeared on TV or made any speeches, he hasn't been on any crowd-rallying marches." Ibrahim said Saif al-Arab had been studying in Germany [ Images ]. Libyan officials said Saif al-Arab's house had been hit by at least three missiles. In a video broadcast by the satellite channel, Libyan officials showed reporters what they said was the destroyed house, a large crater, crumbled concrete and twisted metal. In their reaction, rebels in Benghazi said they cannot trust Gaddafi. Al-Jazeera said there were "an awful lot" of suggestions in Libya's rebel-held eastern region that the news of the deaths could be fabricated. One of the main spokesmen for the opposition Transitional National Council, Abdul Hafez Goga, said he thinks "it could all be fabrication, that it may well be Gaddafi is trying to garner some sympathy." Three loud explosions were heard in Tripoli last evening as jets flew overhead. Volleys of anti-aircraft fire rang out following the first two strikes, which were followed by a third. Earlier on Saturday, NATO officials had rejected an offer by Gaddafi to call a ceasefire and negotiate as false. The proposal was delivered in an often defiant speech by Gaddafi broadcast over Libyan state television, in which he asserted he would never leave Libya. "Come France [ Images ], Italy [ Images ], UK, America, come, we'll negotiate with you," Gaddafi said. "You lie and say I'm killing my own people. Show us the bodies." http://www.rediff.com/news/report/nato-strike-kills-gaddafi-son-3-grandchildren/20110501.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted May 1, 2011 Report Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) They smell vulnerability and want to get rid of Gadaffi and grab all the oil in his nation. Simples. Whitey isn't even interested in any 'peace talk'. The quicker they can get rid of Qadaffi, the sooner they can get on with benefiting from the spoils. Edited May 1, 2011 by dalsingh101 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdsingh80 Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 They smell vulnerability and want to get rid of Gadaffi and grab all the oil in his nation. Simples. Whitey isn't even interested in any 'peace talk'. The quicker they can get rid of Qadaffi, the sooner they can get on with benefiting from the spoils. I don't understand why are you blaming whitey's for this.Powerful countries always invaded weak countries for their resources.I blame Arabs more than any other invading countries.There was time when these mighty arab conquered and destroyed other countries Now they support USA and other super powers over supporting each other. HIstory repeats itself.Once Mighty Hindu Kings supported muslims over each other and India feel to muslims now they are repeating same mistake 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I don't understand why are you blaming whitey's for this.Powerful countries always invaded weak countries for their resources.I blame Arabs more than any other invading countries.There was time when these mighty arab conquered and destroyed other countries Now they support USA and other super powers over supporting each other. HIstory repeats itself.Once Mighty Hindu Kings supported muslims over each other and India feel to muslims now they are repeating same mistake What I find strange is that those leaders who are blatantly against the wahhabi type Islam (like Saddam and Qaddafi) also get targeted so hard. And you are being Indian again. The west likes to go on like it no longer has imperial agendas and is progressive, but when you see all this it just makes you think that whitey, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, hasn't really changed at all. The hypocrisy stinks. If another Arab country decided to invade an oil rich country like they have, they would be jumping up and down about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdsingh80 Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 And you are being Indian again. The west likes to go on like it no longer has imperial agendas and is progressive, but when you see all this it just makes you think that whitey, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, hasn't really changed at all. Could you point to my any post where I said that west is progressive.What I am saying is that race of invaders hardly matter.At one time Japan had imperial agenda ,defeating everybody but the Japan end up being defeated.Today it is america and Europe in future it could be China or India then which race will you blame? Obama is black but is he changing USA policy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) Could you point to my any post where I said that west is progressive.What I am saying is that race of invaders hardly matter.At one time Japan had imperial agenda ,defeating everybody but the Japan end up being defeated.Today it is america and Europe in future it could be China or India then which race will you blame? Obama is black but is he changing USA policy? Are you telling me that you haven't noticed the 'Anglospheres' hand in a lot of recent things. Hell, even the name itself says a lot. But you being stuck where you are probably can't see it. WTF has Obama got to do with it? Don't you get that when you come up in the Anglocentric system you are tied to a lot of its legacy and characteristics. His ability to freely act how he wants would be curtailed by this. In any case, 'whitey' is more of a political, cultural construct than purely a racial one, as they frequently do get non whites to act along their lines. Look at that Nikki Haley for example. Sometimes people willingly become whiteys pawns, sometimes they don't want to, but are constrained by the environment around them (I could be wrong but I think Obama falls in the latter category). Back to the point. These other imperial nations you mentioned didn't make noise about being the opposite of what they were. Therein lies the difference. Try and see the nuances here. The hypocrisy stinks. If any Arabs recently invaded another nation, they never really did it shouting about how civilised and sophisticated they are and how they are only doing it as some righteous favour to those being invaded. You better be careful that you don't end up being another dimwitted apologist for them. There is already enough of them as it is. Edited May 2, 2011 by dalsingh101 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.