Moammar Gadhafi and his wife escaped death today when a NATO missile strike in Tripoli struck the home of Gadhafi’s youngest son, Seif al-Arab, who died in the strike along with his wife and children.
A U.N. Mandate to protect Libyan civilians has lead NATO to perform air strikes for the past month. The strike that killed Gadhafi’s son was the first strike targeted towards his family. British Defense Minister, Liam Fox, and U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, have stated that the NATO strikes are not targeted at Gadhafi himself but instead are targeting his command centers. NATO promises to cease all strikes once Gadhafi forces return back to their bases, once all his threats and acts of violence against Libyan people come to an end, and once humanitarian access is welcomed into the country.
Gadhafi called for a cease-fire and negotiations with rebels and NATO powers only a few hours before NATO’s attacks struck his family. NATO officials and rebels do not see his offers has being sincere since in the past Gadhafi had spoken of peace but continued to attack his people. Many rebel fighters welcome NATO's attacks and hope that they make Gadhafi feel the fear that his people are experiencing and hopefully inspire him to change his violent behavior.
Do you think it is appropriate to attack the family members of enemy leaders? Seif al-Arab had been studying in Germany for a while until recently, and is known to keep a very low-profile. One of Gadhafi’s other sons, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, has even been called a reformist. I think it only appropriate to attack a leader’s family if the family members themselves are helping to rule the country. If someone only holds the fault of being related to notorious leader and has done nothing to hurt others, they do not deserve to be attacked in any way. What are your views? Do you think his son’s death will affect Gadhafi’s plans?
13 comments:
The action taken by NATO is unjustified, outrageous, and savage! I dearly hope that Qaddafi will be able to rally his army and stay in power, in his words, "to [hi] death" and as a "martyr."
This makes me sad. But had Qaddafi actually listened to NATO and the huge international disagreement and demand for reform in the first place, such actions would not have been taken. I cannot say that it is his fault for the death of his son though. Nevertheless, I hope this has taught Qaddafi a lesson, even though it is a painful and maybe unnecessary one. Then again, is it necessary so that he agrees to step down? I'll let the rest of you figure that out.
Hmm. Honestly, my gut reaction was that I felt extremely sad for Gadhafi's youngest son. Seeing as he kept a low profile, I'm sure he didn't really mean any harm. I feel like his dad was doing most of the damage, and I believe NATO should have done something else, like seize Gadhafi's house or something less drastic than killing the man's innocent son should have been done. I agree with Conor in the sense that I hope it teaches Gadhafi a lesson to step down and stop terrorizing the Libyan people. These Libyans don't deserve to be brutalized by a dictator, and hopefully Gadhafi will come to his senses before his next son is harmed. I think Gadhafi should surrender before he endagers the lives of more innocent people. He doesn't deserve to live and continue ruining people's lives while the innocent die by his own stubbornness.
Am I the only one who didn't immediately think this was wrong? This is no different from attacking civilian targets, which proves to quite effective sometimes, but it may mean some increased terrorism down the road. But we can only wait to see if the end justifies the means.
I have to disagree with Conor here. The death of Gadhafi's sone is a direct result of his actions, and I believe he brought all this upon himself. And no Alex, you are not. What I don't understand is why the Defense Minister and Secretary of Defense are stating that NATO is not targetting Gadhafi. Does it make a difference to kill the leader who's already killing his own people? Taking out his command centers is essentially cutting him off from ordering his troops around, so wouldn't taking him out be just the same? If Nato's looking to not be viewed as savage, I don't think they need to worry since the person they're fighting has committed so many attrocities already. Additionally, Lybia is part of the United Nations, and there are rules it needs to follow. If this makes Gadhafi change his mind about what he's doing, then so be it. I think Gadhafi now understands the pain associated with the death of a family member. And its finally time he understood the same suffering he's dispensed upon his own people.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi. Just throwing that out there...
I am not supporting NATO's action nor am I saying it was completely wrong. Michael, I agree that Gadhafi brought it upon itself. But it technically is not his fault that his son died. It is NATO, they physically killed him. That's like saying Iago was the one who really killed Desdemona. No, Othello did that, although Iago sparked a passionate flame inside him.
NATO, as stated by the original post, is targeting command centers.
Does this mean that the missile strike on the home of Gadhafi's youngest son was because NATO suspected the home to be a command center? I don't agree with killing innocent people because of their simple blood ancestry with criminals, however, it is possible that Gadhafi's son did conspire with his father or help him carry out his horrific deeds in some way. The original post did not specify the involvement of the son. Nevertheless, I hope Gadhafi stops being a reckless barbarian and succumbs to peace.
By the way Conor, I love the Othello reference.
I believe that Gaddafi must be stopped, no matter what it takes. But I fail to see how an attack on his family can be justified, or how it will help stop Gaddafi. Attacks on civilian targets are very difficult to justify, and this is no better: worse, I would say. This borders on terrorism.
I think that NATO did the right thing by trying to target Gadhafi, unfortunately it was a failed attempt. Since it killed his family memebers I think it will only motivate him to futher carry out his violence in Libya. The people wish that he would feel the fear that they are currently feeling, but I dont think he feels any fear. He will continue to fight and will not give up easliy.
I agree with Max and other who said the NATO's actions weren't completly wrong. The idea and the attempt had a purpose, hopefully to shake up Gadhafi, but killing his innocent son while he gets to live..I don't know about that. If the son were helping out Gadhafi and was active it would be a little bit more accpetable. But since he did try to stay on low key, he shouldn't have had to die just because his father is Gadhafi.
OSAMA IS DEAD?!!! OMFG!! :-)
^^ Damn tim beat me to it...
... im kind of waiting for that moment for osama to release a video saying he fooled the world... but naw thats pessimistic.
he's dead... what now? does that mean we go home now?
...who's week is it to blog??
Although I do believe that family members related to those who actually commit wrongdoings should not be attacked, Seif al-Arab did nothing to show that he was not on the same side as his own father. First of all, al-Arab was known to have been given troops and equipment by his father in the Libyan civil war. Who knows what he may have done with all this force that was available to him? It's highly probable that he was at least responsible for inflicting some of the violent acts on the opposing side. Although there have been rumors that al-Arab had switched to the side of the rebels before his death, it seems even more untrue after you consider the fact that Gadhafi was with him before he was killed. This meeting seems to suggest that he was still pro-Gadhafi and conspiring with his father. To respond to the comments above, I do agree that the killing of those who are innocent is a wrong thing. Now, Seif al-Arab may not be free of guilt but he seems considerably better compared to some of his other siblings. He was the one who tried to not get as involved in any power struggles and tried to stay out of the conflict, unlike his brother Seif al-Islam. However, if the stories about him being the least involved in the conflict are true, his apathy towards stopping the wave of violence his father had started makes him just as guilty as the rest who are responsible for what's currently happening in Libya.
Anyways, I heard the al-Arab's death might have been faked by the pro-Gadhafi side to garner support. So we can't really be sure if he's actually dead yet.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/rebels-suspect-son-saif-al-arabs-death-is-a-muammar-gaddafi-ruse/story-fn7ycml4-1226048714085
Post a Comment