|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
You live by the sword, you die by the sword...
It seems to be true, rumours about his son being hurt has been going for days. I looked up the whole timeline of the plane attack on the rebel blog:
http://www.libyafeb17.com/page/3/ (Note that the link will be wrong as the blog gets more posts)
03:35 Photo of Pilot Mokhtar Mohammed Osman who crashed his fighter jet into Baab Al Aziziyah today. May God have mercy on your soul my dear brother. I sit here speechless, at awe of what you did, proud of you as my countryman. We will continue till we free our country, every Libyan promises you this ![[image loading]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/196454_148457808551160_100001608255808_312617_8365197_n.jpg) 01:14 Almanara Media reports that two people of “importance” have been badly injured as a result of the fighter jet crash into Baab Al Aziziyah earlier and have been taken to Tripoli’s Burns and Reconstruction hospital. There is currently a heavy presence of security around the building and unconfirmed reports point to the injured being from Gaddafi’s sons. 00:33 @ShababLibya tweet: The Pilot who flew his jet into Bab Azizia was the martyr Muhammad Mokhtar Osman from Benghazi. May God have mercy on your soul dear brother, your sacrifice has not gone in vain and we will continue with this till our country is free. 23:16 Update: A trusted source has confirmed to us this story: The pilot who flew his plane into Baab Al Aziziyah took off as part of a 2 plane team with the mission of bombing strategic points in Al Guradibya base in Sirte. Their orders were to return immedietly after completing the mission. One pilot followed orders while the other flew to Tripoli where he emptied what he had left of ammunition on Baab Al Aziziyah and then crashed his plane into it 20:32 BREAKING BREAKING from Almanara Media The huge fire that has erupted inside Baab Al Aziziyah was due to a martyr mission using a fighter jet to crash into the compound 20:03 BREAKING – Almanara Media confirms the following: 1. Al Gurdabiyya airbase near Sirt has been subject to air strikes by the defected Free Libyan Airforce 2. Shooting and explosions have happened in Baab Al Aziziyah. 3. A big fire has erupted inside Baab Al Aziziyah 4. The defected Free Libyan airforce has bombarded three Gaddafi military convoys headed to the east 5. Demonstrations have broken out in Girgarish, Tripoli
|
Was in a nursing home. Blind lady was like. "I thought I'd never see the day when Libya got rid of that Gaddafi yungun.
Sort of made my day ><
|
On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :|
Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed.
Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to.
|
On March 21 2011 10:16 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :| Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed. Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to.
No, in the 80's if im not mistaken the USAF airstrikes killed his daughter
|
On March 21 2011 10:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 10:16 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :| Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed. Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to. No, in the 80's if im not mistaken the USAF airstrikes killed his daughter
He's bringing it upon himself. It'd be highly ironic and vengfull if all his children would die yet he'd live to be condemned in prision...
|
On March 21 2011 10:24 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 10:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 21 2011 10:16 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :| Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed. Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to. No, in the 80's if im not mistaken the USAF airstrikes killed his daughter He's bringing it upon himself. It'd be highly ironic and vengfull if all his children would die yet he'd live to be condemned in prision...
it seems they wont get their money back
Gaddafi: 'Libya funded Sarkozy's French poll campaign'
Col Gaddafi's most prominent son, Saif al-Islam (10 March 2011) In his interview, Saif al-Islam called on France to 'give us back our money'
The son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has alleged that his country helped finance Nicolas Sarkozy's 2007 presidential election campaign.
"We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything," Saif al-Islam said.
His remarks to the Euronews TV channel came days after Libyan state TV reported a "grave secret" that would bring about Mr Sarkozy's downfall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12760367
|
On March 21 2011 10:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 10:16 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :| Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed. Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to. No, in the 80's if im not mistaken the USAF airstrikes killed his daughter
I doubt he'll even get to a prison to be honest. The rebel forces will likely kill him if they can get to him. His only hope of survival is fleeing the country and that probably won't happen with the kind of man that Gadhafi is.
|
A coalition official tells AFP that the airstike on #Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli destroyed his "command and control capability' #Libya
A rebel commander in Benghazi, Ahmed al-Diwani, said that the air strikes open the way for the rebels to retake the towns they have lost in recent fighting and then continue their campaign toward Tripoli. But he acknowledged that it would be wrong to assume that the government's army is a spent force because of the air strikes.
"Gaddafi's advantage was tanks and rockets. That was what was defeating us. When we did not face them we were winning. Now we can go forward again. We will still have to fight, but when they see that they cannot win, it will be over," he said.
As Gaddafi's soldiers fled from around Benghazi after the air assault, the rebels seized the advantage to move back toward Ajdabiya, a town the two sides have battled over for nearly a week. Late today, people in the town said Gaddafi's forces could no longer be seen.
Source
|
Hopefully the mercenary elements of Khadafis force fucks off now that the wind is turning
|
Khamis Gaddafi:
![[image loading]](http://bit.ly/eslXX3)
|
On March 21 2011 10:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 10:24 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 10:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 21 2011 10:16 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :| Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed. Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to. No, in the 80's if im not mistaken the USAF airstrikes killed his daughter He's bringing it upon himself. It'd be highly ironic and vengfull if all his children would die yet he'd live to be condemned in prision... it seems they wont get their money back Gaddafi: 'Libya funded Sarkozy's French poll campaign'Col Gaddafi's most prominent son, Saif al-Islam (10 March 2011) In his interview, Saif al-Islam called on France to 'give us back our money'
The son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has alleged that his country helped finance Nicolas Sarkozy's 2007 presidential election campaign.
"We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything," Saif al-Islam said.
His remarks to the Euronews TV channel came days after Libyan state TV reported a "grave secret" that would bring about Mr Sarkozy's downfall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12760367
Old news and still no confirmations whatsoever.
|
On March 21 2011 09:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 08:34 pookychoo wrote:On March 21 2011 08:27 Half wrote:As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason. Its about "Whats going on" versus "How easily can we stop it". No, we don't run military operations on every oppressive regime, and it would be retarded if we did, we'd be in 10 Iraq wars and then we'd probably cause nuclear war with China. We've ran similar operations in the past, like all the previous no fly zones we set up. The fact of the matter is, Libya is a country where we can do a lot of good, both for our own interests, and for the Libyan people, and only use a few dozen fighter planes a few hundred tomahawks. There aren't a lot of other cases when an atrocity could be prevented with that relatively low cost on us. And in most of them, we did intervene, with positive results. Yes it is hypocritical to only get involved in countries that are oil rich It really only has a tangential relationship to oil. Name a single dictatorship with a strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals that we did not support.
Name a dictatorship that you (US) didn't support? That's kinda ironic that you unintentionally phrased it that way, given what happened with Saddam being supported and then becoming an enemy.
And actually, you just reinforce my point that protecting civilians is just an excuse to get involved, and not a truthful objective. Are you saying that the US chose not to protect civilians in places like Rwanda, Zimbabwe or even more recently Bahrain because they don't have a "strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals"? Libya shouldn't even qualify based on that statement, it is heavily tribal and does not hold western ideals either.
Nobody expects the US to be world police and take care of all the worlds problems, just don't bullshit about getting involved to "protect the civilians". The US is happy to let other countries sort out their own problems even with terrible loss of life if there's nothing in it for themselves. And let's not even get into the number of civilians who die as collateral damage when the US does decide to get involved. It ain't about protecting civilians and it's hypocritical to suggest that is the purpose.
|
On March 21 2011 10:54 pookychoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 09:28 Half wrote:On March 21 2011 08:34 pookychoo wrote:On March 21 2011 08:27 Half wrote:As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason. Its about "Whats going on" versus "How easily can we stop it". No, we don't run military operations on every oppressive regime, and it would be retarded if we did, we'd be in 10 Iraq wars and then we'd probably cause nuclear war with China. We've ran similar operations in the past, like all the previous no fly zones we set up. The fact of the matter is, Libya is a country where we can do a lot of good, both for our own interests, and for the Libyan people, and only use a few dozen fighter planes a few hundred tomahawks. There aren't a lot of other cases when an atrocity could be prevented with that relatively low cost on us. And in most of them, we did intervene, with positive results. Yes it is hypocritical to only get involved in countries that are oil rich It really only has a tangential relationship to oil. Name a single dictatorship with a strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals that we did not support. Name a dictatorship that you (US) didn't support?
It really isn't that difficult. The United States supported quite a few, but this is a ridiculous question.
|
The same could have happened at Venezuela if Chavez offered the excuse of "human rights". However he is already supplied by Russia and a bunch of F-16 wouldn't cut it if his Su-35 and S-300 are in good order.
|
|
|
On March 21 2011 10:53 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 10:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 21 2011 10:24 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 10:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 21 2011 10:16 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :| Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed. Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to. No, in the 80's if im not mistaken the USAF airstrikes killed his daughter He's bringing it upon himself. It'd be highly ironic and vengfull if all his children would die yet he'd live to be condemned in prision... it seems they wont get their money back Gaddafi: 'Libya funded Sarkozy's French poll campaign'Col Gaddafi's most prominent son, Saif al-Islam (10 March 2011) In his interview, Saif al-Islam called on France to 'give us back our money'
The son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has alleged that his country helped finance Nicolas Sarkozy's 2007 presidential election campaign.
"We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything," Saif al-Islam said.
His remarks to the Euronews TV channel came days after Libyan state TV reported a "grave secret" that would bring about Mr Sarkozy's downfall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12760367 Old news and still no confirmations whatsoever.
quite possible... and you are waiting for confirmation from who, Sarkozy ?
|
On March 21 2011 10:54 pookychoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 09:28 Half wrote:On March 21 2011 08:34 pookychoo wrote:On March 21 2011 08:27 Half wrote:As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason. Its about "Whats going on" versus "How easily can we stop it". No, we don't run military operations on every oppressive regime, and it would be retarded if we did, we'd be in 10 Iraq wars and then we'd probably cause nuclear war with China. We've ran similar operations in the past, like all the previous no fly zones we set up. The fact of the matter is, Libya is a country where we can do a lot of good, both for our own interests, and for the Libyan people, and only use a few dozen fighter planes a few hundred tomahawks. There aren't a lot of other cases when an atrocity could be prevented with that relatively low cost on us. And in most of them, we did intervene, with positive results. Yes it is hypocritical to only get involved in countries that are oil rich It really only has a tangential relationship to oil. Name a single dictatorship with a strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals that we did not support. Name a dictatorship that you (US) didn't support? That's kinda ironic that you unintentionally phrased it that way, given what happened with Saddam being supported and then becoming an enemy. And actually, you just reinforce my point that protecting civilians is just an excuse to get involved, and not a truthful objective. Are you saying that the US chose not to protect civilians in places like Rwanda, Zimbabwe or even more recently Bahrain because they don't have a "strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals"? Libya shouldn't even qualify based on that statement, it is heavily tribal and does not hold western ideals either. Nobody expects the US to be world police and take care of all the worlds problems, just don't bullshit about getting involved to "protect the civilians". The US is happy to let other countries sort out their own problems even with terrible loss of life if there's nothing in it for themselves. And let's not even get into the number of civilians who die as collateral damage when the US does decide to get involved. It ain't about protecting civilians and it's hypocritical to suggest that is the purpose.
Why do you have to single out the U.S., is it because they are the only country who actually sometimes does something, good or bad???? Name me a dictator that any of the countries in the West did not support, not just U.S......or should we take it a step further...Name me a country that does not put the interests of it's own citizens ahead of another countries.....
Tell me, why did the EU nations come to help Libyan rebels??? It sure as hell is not to protect the citizens, it's because of OIL and because OIL is in the interests of their nations. You are being too ideological.
As for civilian casualties, name me a single war or country that has never had civilian casualties when it came to war. It's impossible, since ancient times there have always been civilian casualties and even today. It's just not possible to minimize it as nations often build their military infrastructure in the mix of the civilian ones.....Let's not also forget favorite tactics of some countries to put their tanks/military equipment and soldiers mixed in with civilians....(human shield and all)
As for the U.S. being involved in this, there was no need for them to be, the other nations could of probably handled it, but it's good PR for them because they are helping the rebels. U.S. get's like 0 oil from Libya if I'm not mistaken, where as the EU get's a lot of it.
If you are going to bash somebody at least put the blame and bashing where it should be, don't just single out one nation, but hey I guess the U.S. is a popular target~.....
Also, I do not understand this, but why is the U.N./Nato bombing the hell out of the Gadaffi forces??? Was their mission not to just control air power so Gadaffi could not use his planes?? This seems to have gone overboard from evening the field to making it a one sided battle...
|
4:14am
The AFP newsagency, quoting the coalition, says Gaddafi's military control centre was the target of strikes on Sunday and was destroyed.
Libyan officals took journalists to see what they claimed was the damage from a missile attack. Officials said the missiles had struck very near to Gaddafi's tent.
Anita McNaught, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tripoli, said journalists taken to the scene asked officials why there was no smoke or fire. One official said he didn't know because he wasn't a military expert.
|
On March 21 2011 11:16 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 10:53 Boblion wrote:On March 21 2011 10:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 21 2011 10:24 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 10:18 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 21 2011 10:16 Krehlmar wrote:On March 21 2011 09:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Damn is the 2nd son he loses with airstrikes :| Second? From what I know another one might be critically wounded but it is not confirmed. Fitting for him to lose those he loves before he is overthrown, considering how many he himself has done the same to. No, in the 80's if im not mistaken the USAF airstrikes killed his daughter He's bringing it upon himself. It'd be highly ironic and vengfull if all his children would die yet he'd live to be condemned in prision... it seems they wont get their money back Gaddafi: 'Libya funded Sarkozy's French poll campaign'Col Gaddafi's most prominent son, Saif al-Islam (10 March 2011) In his interview, Saif al-Islam called on France to 'give us back our money'
The son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has alleged that his country helped finance Nicolas Sarkozy's 2007 presidential election campaign.
"We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything," Saif al-Islam said.
His remarks to the Euronews TV channel came days after Libyan state TV reported a "grave secret" that would bring about Mr Sarkozy's downfall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12760367 Old news and still no confirmations whatsoever. quite possible... and you are waiting for confirmation from who, Sarkozy ?
Nah just for some proofs.
edit: just to be clear it would make me laugh if it was true but well it doesn't seem plausible. Sarkozy had no problem to fund his campaign in 07.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 21 2011 11:38 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2011 10:54 pookychoo wrote:On March 21 2011 09:28 Half wrote:On March 21 2011 08:34 pookychoo wrote:On March 21 2011 08:27 Half wrote:As for "its just an excuse to meddle" Its not "hypocritical" to go out to eat some nights and stay in for dinner other nights. 'Civillians are being killed' is almost certainly a reason for involvement.. it is not the only reason in this case nor would it be a sufficient reason. Its about "Whats going on" versus "How easily can we stop it". No, we don't run military operations on every oppressive regime, and it would be retarded if we did, we'd be in 10 Iraq wars and then we'd probably cause nuclear war with China. We've ran similar operations in the past, like all the previous no fly zones we set up. The fact of the matter is, Libya is a country where we can do a lot of good, both for our own interests, and for the Libyan people, and only use a few dozen fighter planes a few hundred tomahawks. There aren't a lot of other cases when an atrocity could be prevented with that relatively low cost on us. And in most of them, we did intervene, with positive results. Yes it is hypocritical to only get involved in countries that are oil rich It really only has a tangential relationship to oil. Name a single dictatorship with a strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals that we did not support. Name a dictatorship that you (US) didn't support? That's kinda ironic that you unintentionally phrased it that way, given what happened with Saddam being supported and then becoming an enemy. And actually, you just reinforce my point that protecting civilians is just an excuse to get involved, and not a truthful objective. Are you saying that the US chose not to protect civilians in places like Rwanda, Zimbabwe or even more recently Bahrain because they don't have a "strong fighting opposition aligned with western ideals"? Libya shouldn't even qualify based on that statement, it is heavily tribal and does not hold western ideals either. Nobody expects the US to be world police and take care of all the worlds problems, just don't bullshit about getting involved to "protect the civilians". The US is happy to let other countries sort out their own problems even with terrible loss of life if there's nothing in it for themselves. And let's not even get into the number of civilians who die as collateral damage when the US does decide to get involved. It ain't about protecting civilians and it's hypocritical to suggest that is the purpose. Why do you have to single out the U.S., is it because they are the only country who actually sometimes does something, good or bad???? Name me a dictator that any of the countries in the West did not support, not just U.S......or should we take it a step further...Name me a country that does not put the interests of it's own citizens ahead of another countries..... Tell me, why did the EU nations come to help Libyan rebels??? It sure as hell is not to protect the citizens, it's because of OIL and because OIL is in the interests of their nations. You are being too ideological. As for civilian casualties, name me a single war or country that has never had civilian casualties when it came to war. It's impossible, since ancient times there have always been civilian casualties and even today. It's just not possible to minimize it as nations often build their military infrastructure in the mix of the civilian ones.....Let's not also forget favorite tactics of some countries to put their tanks/military equipment and soldiers mixed in with civilians....(human shield and all) As for the U.S. being involved in this, there was no need for them to be, the other nations could of probably handled it, but it's good PR for them because they are helping the rebels. U.S. get's like 0 oil from Libya if I'm not mistaken, where as the EU get's a lot of it. If you are going to bash somebody at least put the blame and bashing where it should be, don't just single out one nation, but hey I guess the U.S. is a popular target~..... Also, I do not understand this, but why is the U.N./Nato bombing the hell out of the Gadaffi forces??? Was their mission not to just control air power so Gadaffi could not use his planes?? This seems to have gone overboard from evening the field to making it a one sided battle...
He singles out the U.S. because it is the only country who has got the hardware to accomplish what "they" want. Which is to bomb the crap out of khadaffis forces. So its perfectly obvious that the U.S. are pulling the string on this operation and decide what happens unless you believe U.S. armed forces are operating under the leadership of the french government. You know... because they are such good friends and all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
