Oh - Please!

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Once again, the wingeing, whining, Uber Left-wing Guardian goes on about how awful it is that some of Gaddaffi's family got killed and quotes the killer's regime verbatum and asks no questions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/01/gaddadi-family-deaths-reinforce-doubts

They make me sick, to be honest. Look, you never heard me shouting 'hooray' when death rained from the skies on Gadaffi's trained killers who were closing in on the rebel towns, and I certainly do not delight in the deaths of his innocent grandchildren. But Gaddaffi's son happens to be 29, and has a cushy job in his dad's murderous regime.

If Gaddaffi is going to set up a command centre, then leave his son in charge and let his family be around when the jets come screaming in to flatten the place, then he must bear final responsibility for what happens.

To hear the Guardian and the Mirror talk sometimes, you get the impression that all would be sweet and wonderful if the Bin Ladens and Gaddaffis of this world were allowed to operate unhindered.

This statement has been made before and needs making again -
When the USA, or it's allies, launch an attack that causes innocent civilian casualties, this is because those deaths were a mistake, and they happened in spite of precautions taken to prevent them.

When Gaddaffi or bin Laden, or any other enemy of the Western democracies, kills an innocent civilian, this is a direct result of an operation to just that.

Killing civilians is what we do by mistake, but it's what they do on purpose.

So, let's not have the left wing British Press banging on about this, please.
Gaddaffi was willing to murder Libyans in a deliberate attempt to hold onto power and oppress his own people. If his son wants to put on a uniform and run a command centre for his murdering father, be it upon his own head. If he wants to take his family and put them in the line of fire, then understand that we are after a control centre, not the human shields he cynically uses in an attempt to save them from destruction.

The British left is right to condemn US foriegn policy on many occassions, but to take sides with the liikes of Saddam Hussain, or Gaddaffi,or anyone else just because they happen to be 'Anti American' too is simply self defeating and utterly hypocritical.

The Left needs to speak out against injustice whereever it happens - not just when Britain or America are at fault. In this undeclared war against the Libyan people, Gaddaffi is up against his own , as well as a UN Resolution. The UK and US governments are doing the right thing for once ,and ought to be supported. instead, many in the left wing press are speaking out for the killer Gaddaffi and trying to pin any blame on the West. it's time we called them on their hypocrisy.

Comments

[osintsev-v.livejournal.com]

are u kidding people?

If in USA 1 thousand armed people would want to overthrow USA Government what would the government do??? Simply give up? A let the thousand in WH?

Gaddafy did what any government would do he protected legislative Libyan democracy from attempt to overthrow it by some group of armed gangs!!!

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Maybe he took some of those pills of hallucination that Saif al-Islam was going on about.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If 1,000 armed people tried it they'd be arrested as rioters and locked up in the slammer. If 100,000 people try it, then shit gets interesting.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The fact that the rebellion is getting its arse kicked even with NATO air support suggests that the rebellion may not be as popular as some people are making out. Tunisia and Egypt did it on their own - I think that says a lot.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Or maybe that the rebellion's leaders are incompetent grandstanders who'd fall apart the moment they'd have to fight on their own and not serious soldiers.

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

Killing civilians is what we do by mistake, but it's what they do on purpose.

There is no way that you can avoid civilian causalities in a war. Anyone who thinks that is militarily naive. When we go to war with a country we are going to kill civilians, now we can make ourselves feel better by saying it wasn't on purpose but that is avoiding the issue. Civilians will die by our actions and as we are unwilling to face up to that fact we should not be going to war.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I take your point that civilian deaths may inevitably happen - but the point is, do we really want to get rid of Hitler, or anyone else, or can we tolerate what these dictators like him and Gaddaffi are doing?

It may well be that we could only stop the massacre of the Libyan civilians by the use of air strikes. in which case, let us do it with the attitude that we are doing it for the right reasons, and with sobriety and determination.

I still say that Gaddaffi is not showing the same regard for human life as the Nato Forces ( USA is part of the NATO alliance, please note), and therefore we can and should point out that we are still exercising great restraint, where he is not.

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

Once again, the wingeing, whining, Uber Left-wing Guardian goes on about how awful it is that some of Gaddaffi's family got killed and quotes the killer's regime verbatum and asks no questions.

Which article is this? Not a fan of the guardian but this article has mentioned that these are regime claims and have not been verified. They seem to describe what the journalist has seen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/01/gaddadi-family-deaths-reinforce-doubts

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Woopps , my bad.
I meant to copy and paste the link at the end. Instead I gave my opinion , as required , but not the main link.
Will re edit and add yr link - thanx.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I wonder how many people who object to the death of young Gadafi also objected to the shooting death of Qusay Hussein?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

And Saddam's 14 year old grandson, who put up quite the fight according to US forces.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That emphasizes the point I'm making. How many people who are outraged at this were of the other? As far as I'm concerned killing Hussein's sons was perfectly justified, they were more monstrous than their none-too-kind father. His grandson.......depends on what kind of person that 14-year-old was. If too much like his father, same thing. If not at all........it was definitely one of the horrors of war.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Qusay was intimately involved with the regime and was at least as responsible as Saddam for the tortures and control of the populace. Not the same thing as here by any means.

[tridus.livejournal.com]

So you don't think the minor detail that NATO insists they're not trying to assassinate Ghadafi or change the regime is a problem? (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-04/26/c_13847181.htm) Either they're lying through their teeth to us, or this operation was a rather serious screwup.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Of course they're lying through their teeth. We went beyond "just a no-fly zone" a long time ago.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I don't think that ' just a no fly zone' was ever promised. Attack on Gaddaffi's assets was part of what the rebels were asking , and that is what the UN resolution allows for. Saying that a C&C centre isn't a tank or an arty battery is pushing it a bit far.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's what the public was promised was the limit of involvement.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Maybe the USA decided that taking out his airforce was the limit ~ they~ were prepared to go to, but I seem to recall the French and Brits going for airstrikes against tanks, artilliery and other assets, all agreed within the UN resolution.

This strike against a bunker is simply an extention of the same policy. I know that the Libyans are taking away any incriminating debris, scattering the area with toys as usual and calling it ' residential' damage, but this is par for the course in Libya, according to several foriegn correspondants that I have recently read.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I think the aim of the Op was to put a command and control centre beyond use.

If Gaddaffi put himself at risk by paying a visit, tough. if his son was killed - and it turns out that this son was a man who was less involved than I suspected - then that is something of a greater tragedy. And yes, women and children should never be deliberately targetted.

However, it is not yet even clear if the grandchildren of gaddaffi are actually hurt , or this is just Gaddaffi doing a bit of propaganda.

No, I don't think that they are lying to us.
I may be wrong , but I am more inclined to believe them until proven otherwise.

We should not delight in bloodshed ...

[russj.livejournal.com]

We should not delight in bloodshed--even in a just cause:

"they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.
Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren"
(Book of Mormon | Alma 48:23 - 24)

"And now, behold, we will resist wickedness even unto bloodshed. We would not shed the blood of the Lamanites if they would stay in their own land.
We would not shed the blood of our brethren if they would not rise up in rebellion and take the sword against us.
We would subject ourselves to the yoke of bondage if it were requisite with the justice of God, or if he should command us so to do.
But behold he doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies, but that we should put our trust in him, and he will deliver us."
(Book of Mormon | Alma 61:10 - 13)

Re: We should not delight in bloodshed ...

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

You know, I don't think those Christians-in-Name-Only at whom you seem to be directing your sermon, are listening. It's bad when even the atheists like me can play "Spot the Hipocrites."

Matthew 7:16-23 (http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/7-16.htm) anyone?

Re: We should not delight in bloodshed ...

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

At least you can quote a real scripture.

Re: We should not delight in bloodshed ...

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

But are you and I 'delighting in bloodshed' here?

I personally don't think so. I can't speak for everyone in either of our countries, but I can accept the concept of the Just War, and I believe that this is the just use of the powers of State, vested in certain members of the International Community.

Ideally, Gaddaffi will be deposed by his own people, but if he gets his just dessert as the result of a nato airstrike, I feel that he would have brought that end upon himself, that he would not have been a just or good ruler had he been alowed to stay on , and that his death could be justified under international law, however tragic it might be to his immediate family.

Re: We should not delight in bloodshed ...

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Well, I am not up on the Book of Mormon - however I think the bible follows very similar themes.

It has to be said though , that the State is sanctioned by god as an instrument of His justice.

" It is not without ppurpose that it carries the sword" according to Romans.
wether it is the hoodlum shot by the armed policeman, or a pirate in a boat of the coast of Somalia, or even someone like Osama bin Laden, it is a tragedy that they have died, that they needed to be kiilled in the first place. I rejoice in the fact that some sense of justice is served, and hope that those who lost loved ones find some sense of closure when it happens - but no, I would not say that I am 'delighted ' by hearing of the death of bin laden , or even of gaddaffi, if that ever came about.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If Gaddaffi is going to set up a command centre, then leave his son in charge and let his family be around when the jets come screaming in to flatten the place, then he must bear final responsibility for what happens.

I hear what you are saying, but I doubt this is a standard that could be objectively acceptable on both sides.

By your own standard, the Pentagon & WH are military targets. The WTC is just a big money command center, and they are backed by a military.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

The Pentagon was certainly a legitimate military target and should not have been considered a terrorist attack except for the fact that they hijacked a civilian airliner full of civilians to use as a missile in the attack.

I disagree however that the WTC were nothing but a "monetary command center" but even if they were, the appropriate way to deal with them would have been economic conflict, not flying a plane into them to kill a whole bunch of people.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

You and I know that many of the dead at the Pentagon were not armed soldiers, but rather grandmothers at desk jobs.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

And the aircraft that they took control of?


Seriously, the Pentagon and the White House would be a legitmate target for anyone wanting to wage war against the USA, even in ' assymetrical fashion .

But hijacking a civil airliner?

The guy who did this to the people of lockebie has his son and grandchildren killed? Well, i feel genuine sorrow over the death of those grandchildren for sure, and even his dead son wasn't the same one I thought he was. but what goes around comes around. if we could have avoided those deaths and still got his command centre, that would have been a better outcome, but it's Gaddaffi who brought all this about, and him that the guardian should hang the blame on .

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

My point is that its always easier to cite "what goes around comes around" when your not the victim.


the Pentagon and the White House would be a legitmate target

Sasha and Malia are legitimate targets?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Depends who/ what they are and what they are doing.

But lets go back to basics....
the UN Resolution allows a 'no fly zone' to be enforced, it allows for airstrikes on gaddaffi's war machine in order to protect civilians he is trying to murder.

Now, if gaddaffi climbs into a tank, and switches his C&C centre to be within a residential compound and packs it with his family, well, I stiill think the C&C centre is a legitamate target.

The cynical use of human shields isn't something we want to encourage. Wives, girlfreinds and adult sons have got to understand that being close to this guy Gaddaffi - physically, politically or socially - is not a nice, safe play.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Depends who/ what they are and what they are doing.

Living in the WH, the aforementioned military target.

The cynical use of human shields isn't something we want to encourage.

Agreed.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ok - they are the children of the President of the USA, and would be living at home in the White House.

Now, I would imagine that the USA would do the decnt thing and declare war only if it were attacked first, or had exausted diplomatic chaneels to resolve the dispute.

Let us say that China were to declare war on the USA in the hypothetical future, would it be admissible, under the rules of war to try to attack the government and not just the armed forces?
i presume that this would be so.

Now, a deliberate attempt to kill the President's family who were sent to Texas in order to avoid a strike on Washington would, I feel, be immorral as well as illegal under international law. But supposing a hypothetical leader in any state says to the world "I am moving my entire extended family into the Presidential Palace" - I don't think this is a moral way to wage war.
Any responsible father would never use his own kids as a human shield. Apparently , Osama bin Laden tried to use one of his wives as a human shield when the US special forces attacked his compound - but yeah , just the type of behaviour I expect of terrorists who attack civilians as a matter of policy.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Now, I would imagine that the USA would do the decnt thing and declare war only if it were attacked first, or had exausted diplomatic chaneels to resolve the dispute.


Didn't OBL declare war on us before 9/11 or something?

i presume that this would be so.

Well, someone would try and stop us. But, it does blur the line between civilians and targets quite a bit to include government workers.

a deliberate attempt to kill the President's family who were sent to Texas in order to avoid a strike on Washington would, I feel, be immorral as well as illegal under international law

We thought he was there. We had intel. Drone attacks aren't perfect.

I don't think this is a moral way to wage war.

I doubt there is one anymore, if ever. There is no morality in raw survival though.

Any responsible father would never use his own kids as a human shield

I would fight to protect my father, but my father isn't OBL!

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I fail to see what you are driving at here.

No, OBL never acted as if he wanted to discriminate between civilians and military targets.

We thought he was there. We had intel. Drone attacks aren't perfect.

indeed - this is what i feel is a big difference between the USA and its allies like Great Britain , and the terrorists who just don't give a damn.

As someone who votes and has even stood for office, i feel that i should ask myself , and my elected reps " where do we stand on this issue?" - whatever the issue happens to be.

So, if the dictator of some forign land , or an international terrorist is hiding up, do we go after him - and what if he has got a wife and kid? I think that the USa has done the right thing with Gadaffi and bin Laden

"they took care to avoid civilian casualties, they killed bin Laden and took custody of his body." I don't have any problems with any of this.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

He was waging asymmetric warfare. Had he decided to go attacking a conventional army Al-Qaeda would have ceased to exist in short order, as symmetric warfare is very much not what it's built for. The Taliban had a conventional army and was fighting pitched battles, Al-Qaeda like most modern terrorists is simply a guerrilla movement that eschews PR.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which means it was already a de facto declaration of war, unless we are to believe Gadafi had flying tanks and artillery.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Killing civilians is what we do by mistake, but it's what they do on purpose.

By 2002 we had slew over 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan bombings. You'd have thought we were even, but nope.

Then we invaded Iraq (by "mistake") and caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians and made the rest refugees.

Opps. Our bad.

Be careful; think of the children!

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

They've invested their precious senses of collective identity in the exploits of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, not to mention, G.I. Joe. Have we considered what will happen when their fragile little ego bubbles are burst so cavalierly? Good heavens, their were Neo-con pundits who nearly went catatonic when their favorite bette noir, the Evil Soviet Empire, imploded right before their impressionable little eyes. Goodness, they've worked hard to resuscitate their faith in Supervillains after that trauma. Go easy on them.

Re: Be careful; think of the children!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Zing!

The Fatal Conceits of Armchair Alexanders

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

I can't take anyone seriously who believes he is a Serious Armchair General or a Sofa Statesman.

The U.S. Govco. burned down the house in order to kill one rat and the idiot owners of the house are cheering? They must be under the delusion that their insurance company, Beijing Inc. is going to bail them out after Our Boys™ have razed the place with their proton packs. The U.S. Government is acting like the freakin' Ghostbusters and people are cheering as if that kind of behavior reflected some flavor of reality... OH PLEASE, indeed!

Once upon a time, in the Real World, no less, we could say that such a thing would only happen in the world of animated cartoons or blockbuster comedy movies starring people like Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray. No longer. Real human adults have regressed to the point of actually believing it when two-faced weasel politicians tell them that Zool is hiding under their beds and that Gozer is coming to plant the flag of the Islamic Caliphate in the middle of their little cul-de sac neighborhoods.

Garet Garrett said that one of the symptoms of empire was a cultural "emotional complex of vaunting and fear." Check. We've got that.

Re: The Fatal Conceits of Armchair Alexanders

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I can't believe I'm saying this but I think you and I actually agree on what this means in the real world. O.o

Re: The Fatal Conceits of Armchair Alexanders

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Go compare the view from the Independent.
The Indy is a paper that is solidly behind AV , the criticism of government cuts in services, and a lot of real progressive politics in the UK - however, note that while it airs the views of the gaddaffi regime, it also quotes the rebels and other people involved for a more balanced article - a job the guardian does not even attempt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/backlash-at-killing-of-gaddafis-son-2277675.html