Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NATO Says Qaddafi's Sixth Son, Three Grandsons Killed in Airstrike
Foxnews.com ^ | 4/30.2011

Posted on 04/30/2011 4:08:36 PM PDT by The Chief

Almost got Qaddafi!

(Excerpt) Read more at FoxNews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gaddafi; libya; nato; noflyzone; obama; obamaswar; qaddafi; regimechange
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last
To: MinuteGal

The Saudi’s were targeted by the Col several years back ...

The Saudi’s gave their approval for this operation or else we’d already be dealing with their outrage.


101 posted on 05/01/2011 11:55:03 AM PDT by 08bil98z24 (Say NO to the WOD ------ NObama ---- Equal Opportunity Politician Basher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: The Chief
All the heads of Al Qeada were at a funeral, we denied the military the chance to take them out all at once.......then we attack a home of a son of what was our ally in the WOT and kill his grandchildren.

Today, I am ashamed of our govt, its leaders and all within the power structure. What have we become?

When you fight a war, you fight to win, not to cut off the head of the snake. We have no idea who would replace him. INSANITY RULES THE DAY!!!

102 posted on 05/01/2011 12:58:23 PM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
The stated purpose of the engagement in Libya, was to protect the Rebels from Air attack, NOT to remove Gaddafi. NOW the purpose is to remove Gaddafi?

Our Muslim President is setting up a Grand Caliphate, he will be a hero to billions in mud huts everywhere.

103 posted on 05/01/2011 1:03:00 PM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

post 68.....EXACTLY


104 posted on 05/01/2011 1:07:49 PM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: politicianslie

I don’t know if you are man or woman, but I could kiss you for your logical writing in post 80.......Needless to say, spot on.


105 posted on 05/01/2011 1:10:13 PM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: 08bil98z24

Ok, you obviously did not understand WHy I posted what I did....it is precisely because as you said

“All the goofs who support Ghadafi and are rooting for his victory are no better than the idiot anti-war protesters in Vietnam, or Code Pink in the latest conflicts.”
“Bringing up supposed violations of a garbage treaty just cause are idiotic”

Uh, duh...my post is to show the hypocrisy of the left and anti-war crowd and also the absurdity of the Geneva convention roe in these wars.

I am sure that MoveOn is NOT being critical here...THAT”s why I posted this.


106 posted on 05/01/2011 1:13:29 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (Where is the Great Santini NOW when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: caww

We are not supposed to “fret”, but as sovereigns in our own country, WE are responsible for anything done in our name. Whether we are within a few decades or days of the Return, we must stay on the side of God. We definitely do not want to be part of the “Desolator”.


107 posted on 05/01/2011 1:14:39 PM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: runninglips
as sovereigns in our own country, WE are responsible for anything done in our name

I dont see myself as sovereigns..but I do vote for those who represent me...I did not vote for Obama so will not take any responsibility whatsoever for what he has brought on this country...nothing at all. However I will take resposibility if I fail to do what I can to stop his onslaught....but I do not "fret" over the outcome.

108 posted on 05/01/2011 1:30:59 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: The Chief

Now they’re going for regime change?


109 posted on 05/01/2011 3:14:02 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Chief

Under what provocation is the United States attacking Libya? Would Obama care for their President to kill his children?


110 posted on 05/01/2011 5:11:00 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

“NATO is providing air cover in Libya solely to protect the civilian population” ...in an attempt to overthrow the government of Libya. That is an act of war. The people there are attempting to overthrow the government and we are helping them. It doesn’t matter if we personally agree that Daffy needs to go, we have no right to do so as a nation. Might does not make right. Imagine the new leaders of Libya getting their hands on nukes and fearing we might do the same again to them.


111 posted on 05/01/2011 5:15:59 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

“If were going to assassinate dictators, why not the north korean dictator? “

Exactly. When do we stop? When every leader in the world is a US plant? Why not take out NK since we have 16,000 troops there protecting SK from them, seems NK is a direct threat.


112 posted on 05/01/2011 5:17:33 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I just returned from the weekend. Has nobama turned-in his Nobel Peace Prize as yet? Is he in the dock at the Hague answering why he has such blood lust and why he is bombing this country? Isn’t this a war crime or something? Maybe nobama is just implementing mooch-elle’s dictum of “Keep Moving” on omar? This is very confusing...


113 posted on 05/01/2011 6:18:51 PM PDT by hal ogen (1st amendment or reeducation camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: narses
Really? When did the chief of state become a military target? What theory of war supports that belief?

When he wears a uniform, though I question whether anyone is at war here. I understand NATO is simply protecting civilians, a noble cause, from the air. If Gaddafi survives, in power, he will be a threat to the west.

114 posted on 05/01/2011 6:40:19 PM PDT by SJackson (Normal people don't sit cross-legged on the floor and bang on drums, WI State Sen Glenn Grothman (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady
If we're going to do things like this, we need to be successful. We can't target the guy, miss, his his family, and leave him in power, assuming that things like NATO insists Gadhafi not target of airstrikes , NATO "does not target individuals, Lt. Gen. Bouchard, makes everything OK.

He's a terrorist, perhaps restrained for awhile post Reagan and post Sadaam, but he'll remember this if left in power.

115 posted on 05/01/2011 6:44:00 PM PDT by SJackson (Normal people don't sit cross-legged on the floor and bang on drums, WI State Sen Glenn Grothman (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

You’re right on all counts.


116 posted on 05/01/2011 6:54:08 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

“I understand NATO is simply protecting civilians, a noble cause, from the air.”

How did this attack “protect civilians”?


117 posted on 05/01/2011 7:11:45 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: narses

You’re asking the wrong person, it sounds like it may have killed a few. I don’t know how you protect civilians from the air, and I doubt either NATO or the White House does either.


118 posted on 05/01/2011 7:14:14 PM PDT by SJackson (Normal people don't sit cross-legged on the floor and bang on drums, WI State Sen Glenn Grothman (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Were US weapons used? What legal authority was there for this attack?


119 posted on 05/01/2011 7:16:20 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: narses

None that I’m aware of, it seems to be a clear violation of the War Powers Resolution/Act. US weapons wouldn’t be the issue, it would be US forces, which were used. To my knowledge without the madatory Congressional notification, and in the absence of a national emergency, we shouldn’t be there at all. I’ve not read a lot about this, you seem to imply this was a US strike, the articles I’ve seen say NATO without identifying the specific nation. Was this the US?


120 posted on 05/01/2011 7:56:30 PM PDT by SJackson (Normal people don't sit cross-legged on the floor and bang on drums, WI State Sen Glenn Grothman (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson