Muammar al-Gaddafi

I have been away for a while but I am not sure if this has been brought up, please excuse me if it is on another thread.

While relaxing and talking with my Family, the subject arose on the killing of Muammar al-Gaddafi's youngest and three Grandchildren, while living in their home by NATO forces.

If one or more of our Family was killed/murder'd what would we do, seek a satisfactory outcome, Goal sentence, Electric chair, hanging.

In the case of a ruler, would they perhaps, seek satisfaction for their loss by taking it out on a counties leader by killing some of their Family.

I hope and pray that this does not happen but hope that protection is offered quickly.

This is a subject I feel that is being over shadowed by other events.

Adrian

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

As I understand it Manxman, the generally recognised protocol is that you do not deliberately target leaders of governments/regimes no matter how despicable or evil they are. If this was not so then we would see the likes of Mugabi, KimJong Il, Ahmadinejad and many others being bumped off willy nilly.
I believe that the reasoning behind this is that it would make it diplomatically acceptable to bump any leader off once it was condoned for specific individuals.

There again if a leader got taken out as a result of "colateral damage" against a legitimate target it would just be unfortunate would it not?

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

I think your reasoning on this point has been superceded by the assassination of Bin Laden by the American special forces in Abbottabad. Their action may now open the door for anyone with the means to do so to target political leaders of whatever political persuasion around the world. Pass me my T72 tank and AK47 assault rifle with fitted telescopic night sight and silencer.

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

Uncle Joe - bin Laden was not the leader of a recognised country/organisation in the usually accepted diplomatic and political sense so I would argue that the mores and conventions of normal international diplomacy and etiquette do not apply.

If you are interested I have views on the subject in a post I have made in "Current affairs/politics".

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

Bin laden was a just a terrorist like any other terrorist, and our policy should be to shoot them on the spot wherever they are found. They give no mercy, they should be shown no mercy...

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

That's fine Plantman, but then again the American Government can also be described as 'terrorist' for the way they deal with 'detainees' in Bhagram airbase and Guantanamo and the so-called 'rendition' flights all around the world. The UK government could, by the same reasoning also be a target because they side with and support the American regime. Therefore both Obama and Cameron amongst others could be a target for terrorist action because of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

But they were targets anyway, weren't they? Are you saying they weren't targets before the Bin Laden assassination? So what's changed?

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

No Plantman, I am merely pointing out that the threat is heightened by the actions of the American Forces. Contrary to first reports, Bin Laden was NOT armed, and did not hide behind his wife. He could have been taken prisoner and brought away for trial at the International court in the Hague.

Re: Muammar al-Gaddafi

Errr.....Uncle Joe, reports are purely speculation on what may or may not have happened during the operation. How do we know he could have been taken prisoner? Are you privvy to details of the operation that the rest of us are not?

If you are saying that ideally, capturing him would have been a better thing to do then that is fair enough, although I happen to disagree with that point of view for reasons which I have outlined elsewhere.