Thread: Gaddafi's daughter sues over deadly Nato air strike

I dont quite understand where the jurisdiction to file suit in Brussels come from...she defended Saddam (or was part of his counsel) and Idi Amin was her father in law so i'm not sure she has a steller legal career to fall back on.

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

During the bombing raid on 30 April the Libyan leader's son Saif el-Arab, 29, as well as three of his grandchildren were killed. Ms Gaddafi's four-month-old daughter Mastoura was one of those who died.

Gaddafi's daughter sues over deadly Nato air strike | World news | The Guardian

Gadaffi himself announced to fight untill his dead.

Obama: "Germany already is a global leading power"
He wants to make Germany joinig the war in Libya.
Commitment-shy Germans still wary of US embrace | The Irish Times

Should the Nato stop the war in Lybia?

Political realities require gaddafi's head on a pike. You can't just stop halfway with this sort of thing. If you set out to kill a dictator you have to do it, otherwise he becomes that guy who beat the world. Not a great idea. That would be worse than a martyr. I'm surprised we haven't just assassinated him yet. I mean the man parades around in dresses of eyesearing color, he can't be that hard to spot. Just shoot him and have done.

Originally Posted by Traveler

I dont quite understand where the jurisdiction to file suit in Brussels come from...she defended Saddam (or was part of his counsel) and Idi Amin was her father in law so i'm not sure she has a steller legal career to fall back on.

What ever her political way is, it´s hard to lose family members.

Originally Posted by reality

Political realities require gaddafi's head on a pike. You can't just stop halfway with this sort of thing. If you set out to kill a dictator you have to do it, otherwise he becomes that guy who beat the world. Not a great idea. That would be worse than a martyr. I'm surprised we haven't just assassinated him yet. I mean the man parades around in dresses of eyesearing color, he can't be that hard to spot. Just shoot him and have done.

Well, that is not the way governments should treat each other. All of Gadaffi´s offers to stop his military operations were ignored by the NATO, though it was the NATO, who offered Libya to stop NATO attacks, if it´s military will go home.
What we have here is ia mediaevally strike on other´s goods.
This war and the Nobel Price for peace doesn´t comply.
The west gave it´s future away by outsourcing it´s supply to low wage locations and can not keep it by taking other´s resources.

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

What ever her political way is, it´s hard to lose family members.




Well, that is not the way governments should treat each other. All of Gadaffi´s offers to stop his military operations were ignored by the NATO, though it was the NATO, who offered Libya to stop NATO attacks, if it´s military will go home.
What we have here is ia mediaevally strike on other´s goods.
This war and the Nobel Price for peace doesn´t comply.
The west gave it´s future away by outsourcing it´s supply to low wage locations and can not keep it by taking other´s resources.

Thats strange, I thought it had something to do with Ghaddafi slaughtering his peacefully protesting subjects in the streets.
We want him GONE. He won't leave. Conflict ensues.

Of course wars go against international politics. That is the nature of war, you stop talking nicely to one another and do your best to beat the other party to death. I'm not sure why you're whineing quite so hard about the nobel price for peace etc. Talking only goes so far. Eventually you have to stop talking and fight.

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

During the bombing raid on 30 April the Libyan leader's son Saif el-Arab, 29, as well as three of his grandchildren were killed. Ms Gaddafi's four-month-old daughter Mastoura was one of those who died.

Gaddafi's daughter sues over deadly Nato air strike | World news | The Guardian

Gadaffi himself announced to fight untill his dead.

Obama: "Germany already is a global leading power"
He wants to make Germany joinig the war in Libya.
Commitment-shy Germans still wary of US embrace | The Irish Times

Should the Nato stop the war in Lybia?

Absolutely not IMO.

I have never forgotten or forgiven Gaddafi for his many acts of terrorism over decades. I especially have never forgotten Pan Am Flight 103 never mind other airlines he blew up.







The Lockerbie hole might as well be Shanksville to me or the other sites where bin Laden's AQ gang flew those men, women and children (yes, even babies were on those planes) into their deaths in order to kill many more like them. Yet, nobody--nobody--hunted Gaddafi down for that as a pariah and 'most wanted' criminal.

I don't wish to give a personal pass to people who intentionally blow up commercial airliners for terrorism nor should the world set that precedent. Given bin Laden has now been made to pay for his crimes, getting Gaddafi would be the 'two for' to set that precedent. If someone does that, they should be hunted down and killed unless they surrender first and face justice.

It's not a matter of him 'turning a new leaf' on that as if that should be an excuse for ultimate accountability. Once the UN resolution passed to get him to stop a threatened massacre of his own protesting people, he threatened to do it again rather than just abide by the UN resolution:

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: GADDAFI: I'LL BLOW UP HOLIDAY JETS

He refused to properly destroy his chemical weapons stockpile despite 'agreeing' to do so.

Libyan chaos raises worries over chemical weapons stockpile - CNN

He got this current UN mandate and NATO action because he was threatening to slaughter those who opposed his regime that would have created a massive harm and death toll and causing a human catastrophe of refugees far worse than what already exists. Even the ICC wants him now for his long list of international crimes. It's time he faced justice for all his crimes.

As for Germany, I was disappointed it did not participate in this endeavour.

First, it would have been nice to see Germany take the side against an international criminal and threatener of mass slaughter like Gaddafi given its military legacy of WWII and beforehand. It is involved in Afghanistan, but that was obligatory by the NATO agreement given signatory nations as well as itself were and are being threatened and attacked by AQ with the shelter and assistance of its Taliban ally. It helped stop the Yugoslavian slaughters, a good thing. Other than that, it would be nice to see Germany developing a legacy of using its military for beneficial purposes such as situations like this and as a way of making up for past bad acts by being a 'good guy' against a 'bad guy,' if you will. Instead, it has made Germany seem--fairly or not--that it historically had no problem using its military for wars of imperialism, aggression and/or atrocity but when it comes to ridding the world of a 'bad guy' on the flip side threatening or committing slaughters, it can't be bothered with properly stopping it.

Second, Germany and its citizens have been attacked itself over the years by Gaddafi. The 1986 raid was even in response to a Libyan bombing of a German disco. German citizens were even killed on Pan Am Flight 103.

Third, Germany has a much larger role and obligation for itself and as a central EU member to see that Europe is not swamped with refugees and other negative collateral consequences of Gaddafi's misconduct that led to this intervention and would result if he was allowed to remain in power. It's getting a 'free ride' on others' tail here who are doing the heavy lifting and taking the responsibility for it.

As for Gaddafi's daughter filing that nonsense...so what. Belgium shouldn't even be entertaining these kinds of 'universal jurisdiction' claims because not only are they legally dubious insofar as jurisdiction but also because they are so often mischievous and frivolous anyway on merit, and it should be tossed out. Aisha Gaddafi is currently under a travel ban with UNSC Resolution 1970 and is well known for advocating and representing Saddam Hussein and various terrorist organisations, not the least of which is her own father and family of which she is a participating member and a part of their oppression of the Libyan people, never mind crimes against others.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Absolutely not IMO.

I have never forgotten or forgiven Gaddafi for his many acts of terrorism over decades. I especially have never forgotten Pan Am Flight 103 never mind other airlines he blew up.







The Lockerbie hole might as well be Shanksville to me or the other sites where bin Laden's AQ gang flew those men, women and children (yes, even babies were on those planes) into their deaths in order to kill many more like them. Yet, nobody--nobody--hunted Gaddafi down for that as a pariah and 'most wanted' criminal.

I don't wish to give a personal pass to people who intentionally blow up commercial airliners for terrorism nor should the world set that precedent. Given bin Laden has now been made to pay for his crimes, getting Gaddafi would be the 'two for' to set that precedent. If someone does that, they should be hunted down and killed unless they surrender first and face justice.

It's not a matter of him 'turning a new leaf' on that as if that should be an excuse for ultimate accountability. Once the UN resolution passed to get him to stop a threatened massacre of his own protesting people, he threatened to do it again rather than just abide by the UN resolution:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-air-strikes-

He refused to properly destroy his chemical weapons stockpile despite 'agreeing' to do so.

Libyan chaos raises worries over chemical weapons stockpile - CNN

He got this current UN mandate and NATO action because he was threatening to slaughter those who opposed his regime that would have created a massive harm and death toll and causing a human catastrophe of refugees far worse than what already exists. Even the ICC wants him now for his long list of international crimes. It's time he faced justice for all his crimes.

As for Germany, I was disappointed it did not participate in this endeavour.

First, it would have been nice to see Germany take the side against an international criminal and threatener of mass slaughter like Gaddafi given its legacy as such an aggressor and slaughterer in WWII. It would have been a very good opportunity to turn the page of that legacy into something positive. It is involved in Afghanistan, but that was obligatory by the NATO agreement given signatory nations as well as itself were and are being threatened and attacked by AQ with the shelter and assistance of its Taliban ally. It helped stop the Yugoslavian slaughters, a good thing. Other than that, it would be nice to see Germany developing a legacy of using its military for beneficial purposes such as situations like this. Instead, it has made Germany seem--fairly or not--that it historically had no problem using its military for wars of imperialism, aggression and/or atrocity but when it comes to ridding the world of a 'bad guy' on the flip side threatening or committing slaughters, it can't be bothered with properly stopping it.

Second, Germany and its citizens have been attacked itself over the years by Gaddafi. The 1986 raid was even in response to a Libyan bombing of a German disco. German citizens were even killed on Pan Am Flight 103.

Third, Germany has a much larger role and obligation as a central EU member to see that Europe is not swamped with refugees and other negative collateral consequences of Gaddafi's misconduct that led to this intervention and would result if he was allowed to remain in power.

As for Gaddafi's daughter filing that nonsense...so what. Belgium shouldn't even be entertaining these kinds of 'universal jurisdiction' claims because not only are they legally dubious but so often mischievous, dubious or frivolous anyway, and it should be tossed out. Aisha Gaddafi is currently under a travel ban UNSC Resolution 1970 and is well known for advocating and representing Saddam Hussein and various terrorist organisations, not the least of which is her own father and family of which she is a participating member and a part of their oppression of the Libyan people, never mind crimes against others.

Yes, Gadaffi was a terrorist, but he regretted and he took his chance to work with Americans against Al-Quaida during the last decade. he also helped us Germans to free hostages. He wasn´t an enemy anymore, but an allied. Its sad, that he now gets stabbed in his back by our governments.
To do like we do now to pulls us down to a level, which we never get tired to zing on people like Gadaffi.

Originally Posted by reality

We want him GONE.

We have no rights to make him disappear.
What is our freedom and democracy worth, if we kill and kill? Children died, not Gadaffi.

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

Yes, Gadaffi was a terrorist, but he regretted and he took his chance to work with Americans against Al-Quaida during the last decade. he also helped us Germans to free hostages. He wasn´t an enemy anymore, but an allied. Its sad, that he now gets stabbed in his back by our governments.
To do like we do now to pulls us down to a level, which we never get tired to zing on people like Gadaffi.

He was never an ally. Any cooperative work he ever did was something for his own behalf and preservation there, and even then, it's rather dubious as to his claims of who is 'AQ' there given anyone who opposed him was suddenly 'AQ.'

If anything, brutal dictators like him who leave his people abused, in poverty, and in religious backwardness by their own promotion help breed Islamic extremists. He's not been stabbed in the back...he's been stabbing everyone in the back literally and figuratively for decades and otherwise being a total menace and it's time for him to go. What's sad is that it didn't happen decades ago.

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

We have no rights to make him disappear.
What is our freedom and democracy worth, if we kill and kill? Children died, not Gadaffi.

which is why im' saying just shoot him in the head instead of using airstrikes. You can't fight a war without troops on the ground.

And isn't that what the UN is for? To keep dictators from massacring their people because they want free elections/rights etc?

If Nato would quit being such pussies and actually prosecute a war instead of lobbing rocks we wouldn't have this problem.

I agree with Sullivan. What's the big deal? Just take this guy out. He's a worthless piece of crap and always has been.

One thing people should understand about foreign policy: Just because we might have some form of communication, agreement or collaboration with some two-bit dictator for some particular issue at some point in time, doesn't make the bastard our friend or ally. When we went in to get Saddam in 2003 it scared the crap out of Gaddafi. He stepped in line and said what he knew we needed to hear from him to avoid his own demise at the time.

Now that his people have risen up to confront him, its time to simply take this pile out of existence. What replaces him may or may not be better, but at least it has a chance to be better.

Those least giving of mercy are often the most demanding of it

If he isn't an obvious despot in dead of extermination and if this isn't an opportunity for it....

Have to find him first. Arafat evaded Israel's best efforts for ever, and somehow I don't think NATO would do any better with Gaddafi.

Originally Posted by reality

Thats strange, I thought it had something to do with Ghaddafi slaughtering his peacefully protesting subjects in the streets.
We want him GONE. He won't leave. Conflict ensues.

Of course wars go against international politics. That is the nature of war, you stop talking nicely to one another and do your best to beat the other party to death. I'm not sure why you're whineing quite so hard about the nobel price for peace etc. Talking only goes so far. Eventually you have to stop talking and fight.

Please tell me why we had to fight again? I'm really confused. I'm also really confused about the slaughtering of revolutionaries. You realize that the war were most Americans were killed was the American Civil War, right? I don't get why it was any of our business.

If what you say is really true we would have gone into the Sudan a long time ago...or how about the Congo? Seriously, this is about money and oil and it's bullshit.