Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Andaluciae]

I think it will be to hard to tread the line between protecting civilians and supporting the rebels. We should not even get involved in this mess and let the Libyans fight the good fight. When we opposed Great Britain in the 1700s did other countries join up? We should apply the same to Libya. IMHO

Hahahahaha

You're being sarcastic, right?

[Buffett and Colbert]

But I support him. I just searched his name, it's Gadaffi, right?

There are over 100 ways to anglicize his name. None are wrong.

But some are more correct than others.

[Laerod]

That you seem unaware of how to spell his name suggests your support is ill-researched.

Not really. His name isn't even written in our own alphabet, and therefore doesn't seem to have a standard spelling in our alphabet. Go look at even a small number of reliable English language news sources and you will see nearly as many spellings of his name as news sources.

Qaddafi - New York Times
Gaddafi - BBC
Gadhafi - Boston Globe

I've even seen it spelled with a "k"

Unless you plan on spelling it as القذافي‎ معمر then it's really just an academic exercise, and no spelling is truly "right."

We can be fairly certain there's no "r" in it, though.

[Risottia]

I think it will be to hard to tread the line between protecting civilians and supporting the rebels. We should not even get involved in this mess and let the Libyans fight the good fight. When we opposed Great Britain in the 1700s did other countries join up? We should apply the same to Libya. IMHO

So the plan is calling on France and Spain to support the rebels, right? Well, 50% accomplished, now it's Zapatero's turn.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Unless you plan on spelling it as القذافي‎ معمر then it's really just an academic exercise, and no spelling is truly "right."

For the benefit of people who cannot read Arabic - Mooh - ammar Al G*adhaah fee.

The G is pronounced with a glugging sound. (It's the circle with the two dots over it.) Hope that clears thing up.

We can be fairly certain there's no "r" in it, though.

The last letter on the first word is an "r".

Anyway; I have no optimism when it comes to Libya - power vaccum, multiple faction civil war etc etc. And whatever the West does, it's going to be blamed for it (for inaction, or imperialism). Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[OuroborosCobra]

I think it will be to hard to tread the line between protecting civilians and supporting the rebels. We should not even get involved in this mess and let the Libyans fight the good fight. When we opposed Great Britain in the 1700s did other countries join up? We should apply the same to Libya. IMHO

Maybe you should check your history before making comparisons to past revolutions.

Other countries DID join up with us in fighting the British in the 1700s. The French provided both material support, and had had several thousand soldiers fight alongside the Continental Army. In a number of battles, the number of French soldiers was equal to the number of American soldiers. The Battle of Yorktown, generally seen as having sealed the American victory, was a joint American/French victory. Half of the troops on the American side were French, the British Navy was prevented from providing reinforcements or support because the French had defeated them at the Battle of the Chesapeake.

So is your position still that we should apply the same standard in Libya as other countries applied to us in our Revolution?

[Teinohikira]

Not really. His name isn't even written in our own alphabet, and therefore doesn't seem to have a standard spelling in our alphabet. Go look at even a small number of reliable English language news sources and you will see nearly as many spellings of his name as news sources.

Qaddafi - New York Times
Gaddafi - BBC
Gadhafi - Boston Globe

I've even seen it spelled with a "k"

Unless you plan on spelling it as القذافي‎ معمر then it's really just an academic exercise, and no spelling is truly "right."

We can be fairly certain there's no "r" in it, though.

The reason i spelled Gadhafi's name wrong is because I suffer from Dyslexia, so I make errors in people's names.

[OuroborosCobra]

Unless you plan on spelling it as القذافي‎ معمر then it's really just an academic exercise, and no spelling is truly "right."

For the benefit of people who cannot read Arabic - Mooh - ammar Al G*adhaah fee.

The G is pronounced with a glugging sound. (It's the circle with the two dots over it.) Hope that clears thing up.

Good to know. Honestly I just did a cut and paste from Wikipedia for the Arabic.

[Potarius]

The reason i spelled Gadhafi's name wrong is because I suffer from Dyslexia, so I make errors in people's names.

Though, incidentally, seemingly not with the frequency at which you misjudge how easy it is to detect earthquakes. But, I digress.

There's really no truly "wrong" way to spell his name in English, apparently.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

The British are saying that one of their goals is to kill or assasinate Gaddafi and his entire family, including children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... ague-libya

There is nothing even comparable to that claim inside the article you cited.

I suggest you stop making shit up.

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

[Fartsniffage]

There is nothing even comparable to that claim inside the article you cited.

I suggest you stop making shit up.

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

Umm, other stuff?

[Buffett and Colbert]

The G is pronounced with a glugging sound. (It's the circle with the two dots over it.) Hope that clears thing up.

It's more like a "k" from the back of the throat.

[Laerod]

There is nothing even comparable to that claim inside the article you cited.

I suggest you stop making shit up.

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

That they probably won't target him. It doesn't mention his family at all.

[Farnhamia]

There is nothing even comparable to that claim inside the article you cited.

I suggest you stop making shit up.

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

It quotes the British Defense Secretary speculating that if Qaddafi happened to be killed in an attack on a military target, not everyone would weep. "There is a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether we go ahead and target him," he said. "You would have to take into account what would happen to civilians in the area, what might happen in terms of collateral damage. We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

Umm, other stuff?

That doens't answer my question. You two claimed it didn't support anything in the post. What didn't it support? That Russia and China have condemned western european military attacks on Libya? Or that even the Arab League has harshly criticized the French/British attack on Libya?

Or that the British did say that Gaddafi is a legit target while they and the French have both said that removing Gadaffi was a goal of their military action. You can say that there was no mention of children, but in other reports, it was stated that along with Moamar, his entire family was to be targeted as well.

Also, while not in the specific link, it was the French who said it was their goal to seize Libyan oil fields for themselves.

It certainly doesn't help that the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya. Such a statement certainly makes it appear to be European Christian crusade against the Islamic world.
Course, if the coalition were to distance itself from the Vatican's statement..

My posts may not make sense but they are the result of the amalgamation of all the data has and is still coming in.

Then again, I'm still waiting for my question to be answered.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

. We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."

Take that statement. Isn't that what they've been doing since yesterday?

[EnragedMaldivians]

The G is pronounced with a glugging sound. (It's the circle with the two dots over it.) Hope that clears thing up.

It's more like a "k" from the back of the throat.

The way it spells it in the Wikipedia article, it uses the glugging "gaa" not back of throat "haa". But yes I've heard it pronounced that way before. (Back of throat haa, is the haa with the dot next to it.)

My grandma was a Qur'an teacher (Qur'an) also uses Gaa btw) - and she got pissed off beyond reason if I mispronounced any of the letters; if you correct my arabic again, I'll be a little pissed off.

Anyways, slightly off topic. Feel free to telegram me if you still disagree.

[Farnhamia]

Umm, other stuff?

That doens't answer my question. You two claimed it didn't support anything in the post. What didn't it support? That Russia and China have condemned western european military attacks on Libya? Or that even the Arab League has harshly criticized the French/British attack on Libya?

Or that the British did say that Gaddafi is a legit target while they and the French have both said that removing Gadaffi was a goal of their military action. You can say that there was no mention of children, but in other reports, it was stated that along with Moamar, his entire family was to be targeted as well.

Also, while not in the specific link, it was the French who said it was their goal to seize Libyan oil fields for themselves.

It certainly doesn't help that the Vatican is supporting the attack and calling on France to prevail and impose French, Christian culture on the Muslim of Libya. Such a statement certainly makes it appear to be European Christian crusade against the Islamic world.
Course, if the coalition were to distance itself from the Vatican's statement..

My posts may not make sense but they are the result of the amalgamation of all the data has and is still coming in.

Then again, I'm still waiting for my question to be answered.

I saw a quote from a former somebody at the Arab League complaining that the air strikes had injured civilians, nothing more. Has the Arab League as an entity issued a statement condemning them?

You do have a link for the French desire to seize the oil fields, right?

You said The brits had targeted Qaddafi specifically, which was not supported in the post I replied to. How many of your posts are we talking about?

[Caninope]

I think it will be to hard to tread the line between protecting civilians and supporting the rebels. We should not even get involved in this mess and let the Libyans fight the good fight. When we opposed Great Britain in the 1700s did other countries join up? We should apply the same to Libya. IMHO

Yes.

[Farnhamia]

. We don't simply with a gung-ho attitude start firing off missiles."

Take that statement. Isn't that what they've been doing since yesterday?

No. The missile strikes were very precise. These are high-tech cruise missile, they could put one in your house through a specific window. And what he said was, we don't go doing that. So, no.

[Caninope]

There is nothing even comparable to that claim inside the article you cited.

I suggest you stop making shit up.

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

It says that the Crazy Colonel would die in the process, and they wouldn't particularly care. Not that they are going to kill him and everyone in his family.

[North Suran]

There is nothing even comparable to that claim inside the article you cited.

I suggest you stop making shit up.

If the source doesn't say those things, Englishman, then what does it say?

I'm Scottish, for one thing.

The source says that Gaddafi could be targeted and that few tears would be shed if he died during the course of the conflict. Not only is that not saying "the British are targeting Gaddafi", but it doesn't even mention his family. You, of course, solidly claimed that one of Britain's goals was to "kill or assasinate Gaddafi and his entire family, including children".

[Fartsniffage]

That Russia and China have condemned western european military attacks on Libya?

It doesn't support that.

Or that even the Arab League has harshly criticized the French/British attack on Libya?

That is unclear, the FO says he has been misquoted.

Or that the British did say that Gaddafi is a legit target while they and the French have both said that removing Gadaffi was a goal of their military action.

It doesn't support that.

You can say that there was no mention of children, but in other reports, it was stated that along with Moamar, his entire family was to be targeted as well.

And I'm sure you can source them.

Also, while not in the specific link, it was the French who said it was their goal to seize Libyan oil fields for themselves.

And I'm sure you can source that.

Then again, I'm still waiting for my question to be answered.

It says things other than what you are claiming.

[Laerod]

That doens't answer my question. You two claimed it didn't support anything in the post. What didn't it support?

Well, technically it's your job to show us something that says so, but I'll be nice and tear your arguments apart for you:

That Russia and China have condemned western european military attacks on Libya?

Never happened. The article mentions criticism. Nothing indicates outright condemnation.

Or that even the Arab League has harshly criticized the French/British attack on Libya?

Not what you claimed. You said they threatened pulling out of the coalition, which is a lie. They're not in the coalition.

Or that the British did say that Gaddafi is a legit target while they and the French have both said that removing Gadaffi was a goal of their military action.

This is not what you claimed. Also, it is no longer up to date. Whatever has been suggested earlier by Cameron is no longer official policy:

"The goals of this campaign are limited. It is not about seeing him [Gaddafi] go. It is about supporting the UN resolution."

Asked if the mission could be accomplished with Gaddafi still in power, Mullen replied: "This is one outcome."

From your Guardian article.

You can say that there was no mention of children, but in other reports, it was stated that along with Moamar, his entire family was to be targeted as well.

What reports? You've only provided one source. I highly doubt his entire family would be up for "assassination" (Gaddafi is being treated as a military element here, so it's not an assassination), although some of his sons would be valid military targets, seeing as they have military positions.

Also, while not in the specific link, it was the French who said it was their goal to seize Libyan oil fields for themselves.

Source it.

My posts may not make sense but they are the result of the amalgamation of all the data has and is still coming in.

Without any attempts to discern their veracity it seems.

Then again, I'm still waiting for my question to be answered.

Gee, I wonder what that feels like...

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

They can fix the rift by handing control of the operation to either Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or the Arab League. This would deflate all criticisms by turning it into an Arab/Islamic operation to protect civilians, that happens to be supported by the US/Europe.

Putting NATO in charge, while NATO has better stuff, is going to be a very bad idea. Our enemies will use it against us to recruit terrorists. If we say it is is an Arab League Operation, they will be less successful in their attempts to use it as a recruiting tool.

War is complicated and getting involved in one is especially complicated. As isthe information coming out. We won't know what's real or not until long after the conflict has ended.
All we have are biased statements by government representatives. That is all I try to post, with my own intrepretation of those statements. Right or wrong.
We have, afterall, not yet reached the point of 20/20 hindsight.

We should remember, most importantly, that in times like these, our governments tend to turn the media into propaganda machines. This means won't tell the media if anything negative happens to our people or other nations are opposed to our actions.

That stuff never comes out until after things settle down. Even then it could take a couple of years to sort the truth from the propaganda.