It looks like NATO bombed a house where Moammar Gaddafi was staying and killed his youngest son and three of his grandchildren, but did not harm to Gaddafi or his wife. If so, then this is another example of Gaddafi inexplicably surviving an attack from the West. However, I don’t put a lot of trust in these early reports. What is shows more than anything else is that he is going to pay a heavy price for clinging to power.
Update [2011-5-1 8:37:31 by BooMan]: Al Jazeera is skeptical of this entire report.
The sole source of this information is the Gaddafi regime’s spokesman. And an arranged visit to “the site” by Western journalist under strict control of Gaddafi regime minders.
The “missed me again” mythology is a story that Gaddafi has often used.
What grounds do you have to suggest the report is not true? I assume they’re indeed dead. Or are we supposed to expect that Saif and the three children will be inexplicably resurrected sometime in the near future? Assassination is a crime under US and international law, I believe. Susan Rice and her counterparts will have to turn pirouettes in the Security Council to justify this.
Assassination IS a crime, but when have the United States and its allies ever been called to account for that or any other of their many international crimes?
“Susan Rice and her counterparts will have to turn pirouettes in the Security Council to justify this.“
I seriously doubt it. Quentin.
When has any country been called to account for practicing assassination?
I will agree with you about one thing. The United States is among five nations that can act with legal impunity internationally. The other four are the UK, France, Russia, and China. That is because they have veto power in the UN Security Council. And these five often extend that impunity to their friends. The US to Israel and other states, China to Myanmar, Russia to Belarus and other former Soviet republics, the UK and France to former colonies.
Note that prior to World War I, there were no “international crimes”. Prior to World War II, there was no international institution that could deal with “crimes against humanity” occurring within a sovereign state.
International law and the ability to punish international crimes are institutions in their infancy, with deliberately limited powers.
“When has any country been called to account for practicing assassination?“
One incident that comes immediately to mind is the one in which the great “peace” guy Bill “I feel your pain” Clinton launched a bombing campaign on Baghdad to “punish Saddam” for what turned out to be a completely bogus claim that he had attempted to assassinate ex-President George Bush the First. That bombing included civilian residential neighborhoods, and killed a number of innocent Iraqis, including artist Layla Al Attar, a leader in Arab art, her husband, and an unknown number of her neighbors. Her daughter, an aspiring artist herself, was blinded in the attack.
Was the attack a coincidence given that Layla was the artist who designed the mosaic portrait of Bush that was placed on the floor at the entrance of the Al Rashid hotel after the devastating destruction Bush the First inflicted on Iraq in 1991?
And how, exactly did bombing residential neighborhoods in Iraq and killing innocent Iraqis “punish Saddam” for something that never even took place?
That just reinforces my point. The sort of retaliation based on bogus claims is not “being called to account”.
We have had Serbs and Croatians called to account for war crimes during the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. But there has not been the bringing to account for assassination.
The second issue is that why should heads of state be more privileged over other political actors and civilians in being institutionally protected from assassination.
Clinton’s retaliation for the purported assassination plot of Poppy Bush was tied up in domestic fear, domestic politics, and the purported re-emergence of Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programs.
I don’t understand what you are saying here. I find it hard to figure out what the connection is.
Your last statement assumes that bombs always land on their proper targets or that US intelligence in selecting targets is perfect. Neither of those assumptions are warranted for US military technology or operations. Where munitions land do not reflect where they were intended to land. (One can make the same statement about the very inaccurate rockets and artillery that Gaddafi troops against Misurata and Zintan, by the way. But you can’t say that about Gaddafi troops turning the Misurata Hospital into their command center.)
The sole source of the report is from the Libyan government. That, absent independent reporting, suggests that it could be false in some if not all of the details. The reporter who were taken to the site express skepticism; see the Guardian’s tone for an example. The pictures show one heck of a lot of rebar for the building to be a simple one-story house.
If it was a legitimate command and control facility that was the source of orders for troops in the field, is it assassination? The only claim that it was a simple residence is from the people who have most to gain by portraying themselves as victims.
I agree. This is quite possibly propaganda designed to influence world opinion and rally his own troops.
And the only claims that it was a command and control center are so far from the people who have the most to gain by trying to justify an attack on a residential neighborhood that reportedly killed four innocent human beings, three of them under twelve years. I call that at best a draw when it comes to credibility.
And yes, if the goal was to kill Qadhdhafi, it was an assassination attempt, and therefore a crime, no matter what.
I just love the smell of crispy-fried Muslim children in the morning, don’t you Booman?
Talk about callous! Have you become such an apologist for the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate that you’ve lost your soul in the process?
Not callous, I’d say, disgusting.
Those weren’t innocent human lives that were so casually snuffed out, they were extensions of Qadhdhafi himself, and therefore were just as killable as he is.
American “progressives” are just fine with murdering state leaders they don’t like, along with anyone else who happens to get in the way. That includes children evidently.
Nice of you to assume how I feel about it.
You made it clear that you feel having his family’s lives snuffed out is”the price Qadhdhafi has to pay” for doing what heads of state and governments do when faced with a threat of being overthrown.
If he is endangering his family that doesn’t mean that I have endorsed killing his grandchildren. It means that I am observing that he will pay a high price if he continues to cling to power. I.e., it appears that his family will not be spared.
I made no value judgment on that either way.
Personally, I have advocated going right after Gaddafi and ignoring his troops to the degree that is possible. I’d prefer to see him captured than blown up. I’d even be happy to see him go into exile if it will avoid a bunch of bloodshed. But he’s responsible for his decisions. NATO is responsible for theirs.
I don’t have a clue about the veracity of this report anyway, which I made clear. I don’t usually express moral outrage about uncorroborated reports. What I did was note that his son and grandchildren had reportedly been killed and express the opinion that he was evidently going to pay a steep price for clinging to power. Nothing more or less.
And now we have the old “he is endangering his family” canard – quite a convenient way to absolve the attackers of any responsibility for their deaths, isn’t it? Not to mention that it has been actually used to justify kidnapping and murdering family members of enemies.
And do tell us how it is possible for someone in Qadhdhafi’s circumstances to avoid endangering his family? Hide them in a secure underground bunker where they can be bombed en masse? Scatter them in different parts of the country where they can be picked off a few at a time, or kidnapped and held hostage? Send them out of the country where, once again, they can be kidnapped and held hostage? And how to get them out of the country?
Oh yes, of course in understand that he is endangering his family by “clinging to power”, so whatever harm the United States and its allies, or “the rebels” do to his family, it will be entirely his responsibility because he didn’t care enough about them to step down.
So much is wrong with this type of argument that it’s hard to know where to begin.
What a kind comment.
That’s very generous of you.
NATO kills four innocent human beings, at least three of which are children, and all you can talk about is the price Qadhdhafi is paying?!
Oy!
How do you know (1) that anyone was killed; (2) that three children were killed; (3) that Saif al-Arab Gaddafi was innocent against the crimes against civilians in Libya? The sole report is from the Gaddafi regime itself.
I suppose you also believe that Israel was involved in the Egyptian revolution, Iran is destabilizing Bahrain, al Quaeda is behind the hundreds of thousands or people in the streets of Sanaa, Aden, and Taiz, and that armed thugs from outside the country are killing the people of Deraa, Latakia, Baniyas, Homs, and Douma.
Regimes that suppress independent reporting (notice that the Libyan Interim National Council has not limited independent reporting) generally do that for a reason. The problem is that the lack of independent reporting immediately challenges the credibility of their assertions.
I was responding to the content and tone of BooMan’s comment, not to the relative credibility of the parties making claims.
I don’t know for sure whether anyone was killed, and neither do you. You also do not know whether the house was really a “command and control bunker”. Given the history of United States and NATO actions it is not beyond imagining that they bungled an assassination attempt and killed children and others while Qadhdhafi (and his wife?!) were missed. That kind of thing happens a lot – it happened more times than any of us knows about in Iraq.
Unlike you I am not going to assume that the Libyan government is lying and “people like Cameron” are telling the truth. Neither side has more credibility than the other in this case.
As for the rest of your personallty insulting BS, give me a break! If you haven’t read enough of what I have written here to understand that I am not into that kind of conspiracy crap, then you should stop reading or responding to anything I write because you obviously are trying to turn me into a foil for something, as opposed to responding to the positions I am actually expressing.
As for credibility, regimes that suppress independent reporting include that bastion of free speech and free press the United States of America, and its allies. Sometimes they suppress it directly and openly by barring the press, or tightly controlling what members of the press see and hear. Sometimes they take blatant steps to bias the press (imbed, anyone?). Sometimes they target, detain, torture, and even kill troublesome journalists and news organizations. And sometimes they suppress it more subtly, as they did regarding Iraq in 1990-91, and 2002-2003 but suppress it they do, and how! So please don’t pretend one side is better than the other when it comes to suppression of information. It isn’t.
I agree with your second paragraph. I don’t know. I am waiting for independent verification. It hasn’t come yet. And I agree with you about Cameron’s and NATO’s statements. The only thing we know for sure is that the UN Security Council with the abstention of China, Russia, India, and Germany issued a resolution authorizing the protection of civilians by “all means necessary”. We don’t know how far the US and NATO have gone in this instance, but past events are not comforting either as to motives, rules of engagement, or how well those rules were followed.
The “personally insulting BS” was under the assumption that did not take the statements of dictators as credible on face value. I was specifically not trying to turn you into a foil. Your second paragraph proves that I was correct in your skepticism.
I do not disagree that the US and its allies are paragons of objective information. And there have been periods of press suppression and manipulation in the US. My point wasn’t about the morality of the actors but in the fact that denying independent verification is the first tell that the information is being manipulated–whether that is Gaddafi’s Libya or Bush or Obama’s US. That they really don’t fool anyone.
Then we do not disagree to any great degree it seems.
FYI, when you said to me “I suppose you believe…” followed by a list of Wildly ignorant, downright absurd beliefs about countries and matters I am personally quite familiar with, I quite naturally inferred that you were ascribing these beliefs to me. It is a technique I have seen used repeatedly in my decades of discussing and debating Middle East issues. If you were not suggesting that I believe such things, then I am glad.
It was rhetorical, not personal. I have found your position on Assad helpful to understanding what is going on in Syria, even today. Assad is not Gaddafi; Gaddafi does not have an oligarchy of his father’s cronies with an interest in preventing reform. One gets the sense that Syrians see the crackdown as a regime decision, even a Baath Party decision, not a Bashir Assad decision. I don’t know if that is true, but it is the impression I get from the Syrians being interviewed on al-Jazeera and from other commentary.
In fact, a Syrian in talking about the likelihood of the sort of international intervention in Libya occurring in Syria said “Libya is unique. Gaddafi has few friends left and the country is not as complex as Syria.” By which he meant the diversity of religious sects that could be exploited (but have not yet been) by politicians; by the complications of the Kurds being in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq and pushing for rights or for national identity; by the complex relationship with various factions in Lebanon as well as a complicated history with Lebanon. All of which, he argued, means that the risks of what happened in Iraq after Saddam Hussein would be likely a mild form of what would happen in Syria if instead of reforms the Baath Party were overthrown like the NDP in Egypt. Whether through internal revolution of international intervention.
The price.
How much are children worth these days.
I haven`t been to the market for quite some time, but I think I remember Iraqi children were real cheap.
The implication here is that the value of Qadhdhafi’s children is very low to the United States and its allies, and yet it must be higher to Qadhdhafi, since their lives are a price he has to pay for doing what heads of state faced with armed insurrections; “cling to power” when faced with an armed insurrection.
Unfortunately, the price is as cheap as it was in Vietnam when I was a young man. As cheap as it was in Coventry and Hamburg and Tokyo in WWII.
I suspect it is as cheap as it has been during most of history. Except during the Roman Empire when enemy children could be seized and sold as slaves. Then they were worth a little more.
At least the Israelis have been honest about it in clearly stating that the life of one Jew is equal to ten Arabs, or something along those lines.
True (your statement, not theirs), but irrelevant.
The reaction to this post is kind of predictable and sad. I imagine none of you folks will ever be in a position of influence.
This does appear to be a failed attempt to kill Qadhafi though some like David Cameron have indicated it was an effort to take out a command and control center.
Booman has been against this war since the beginning. Innocent people have died since day one. It should go without saying that innocent children should never be the victims of violence. Why jump to impugn someone’s motives?
Because it is easier to spout outrage than to understand what was really being said.
Certainly, 3 children being killed in a bombing is a tragedy. Why were they in a C&C bunker? Why is NATO resorting to assassination attempts?
ya-know….these were questions Booman wa trying to answer. He simply pointed out the action, and that even though the source isn’t reliable, Gaddafi was (apparently) missed again.
Burning down the house to get the flea…..
“…3 children being killed in a bombing is a tragedy.“
Nah, it’s just part of the price Qadhdhdafi has to pay for clinging to power. Presumably the price will get higher and higher as NATO picks off more and more of his innocent family members?
“Why were they in a C&C bunker?“
You should ask instead why they were in a home in a residential neighborhood. The only “evidence” that what NATO bombed was a “command and control bunker” consists of the expected self-exculpating claims by “people like David Cameron”.
“Why is NATO resorting to assassination attempts?“
What is new or different about that? It is not exactly as if these types of attempts were something new and different for the United States and its allies.
I remember when we had real rebels. Ones we could support. Who fought against the US, and didn’t look to them for support. Good, honest third-world peasants, who wanted the redistribution of land, and other neat stuff, and it didn’t matter what their religion was, or whether they had oil.
It didn’t really matter that much who was killing whom.
They were poor, they had guns, they hated our guts. That was enough.
And their supporters had neat concerts, and t-shirts and stuff.
Things are so confusing now.
Sound like they were confusing then, too, if you decided that people hating your guts was good enough reason to support them.
“…another example of Gaddafi inexplicably surviving an attack from the West.“
Oh, come on! This is nothing unusual at all.
How many times did your good ole USA try and fail to murder Saddam Hussein, and how many innocent lives did they snuff out in the process? In just one attempt, a bombing of a residential area in the Mansur district of Baghdad, they slaughtered about 30 human beings, all innocent men, women, and children, including burying alive one entire Christian family of five – mother, father, and three small children – who were simply trying to spend a quiet evening in their home.
I guess that was just part of the price Saddam paid for not turning himself in to the conquering American heroes.
You seem, somewhat oddly, to be faulting NATO and the UN for trying to remove Gaddafi from power.
I disagreed on the wisdom of doing so, but not the morality of doing so.
Why does Gaddafi get a pass for having his troops blindly lob artillery into city centers and you are all angry that NATO bombed one his residences?
Where are you coming up with these standards?
Are you pro-Gaddafi? Are you okay with him violently suppressing dissent in his country?
I know you have a crush on Assad. But Gaddafi?
“You seem, somewhat oddly, to be faulting NATO and the UN for trying to remove Gaddafi from power.“
Yes, of course I am faulting the United States and its allies (aka NATO and the UN) for trying to remove Qadhdhafi from power by means of military violence. There is nothing remotely odd about it, and it is entirely consistent with my convictions both past and present.
“I disagreed on the wisdom of doing so, but not the morality of doing so. “
I disagree with the wisdom, morality, and legality of using military violence to remove Qadhdhafi or any other head of state under the circumstances that pertain in Libya. And oddly, I seem to recall your repeatedly stating that if they were going to use military violence in Libya, they ought to remove Qadhdhafi, which does not sound to me like disagreeing with his removal.
“Why does Gaddafi get a pass for having his troops blindly lob artillery into city centers and you are all angry that NATO bombed one his residences?
…
Are you pro-Gaddafi? Are you okay with him violently suppressing dissent in his country?
“
I thought you were a much more sophisticated thinker than this. Honestly, you are reminding me more and more often of the people who accused me of being a “Saddamist”, and worse yet – horror of horrors – a Soonee” because I unequivocally opposed the United States’ use of military and other forms of violence in Iraq. Do you seriously not understand that it is entirely possible and consistent to be opposed to the use of military violence in Libya, including bombing Qadhdhafi’s residences without being pro-Qadhdhafi?!
“I know you have a crush on Assad.“
I am surprised again to see from you the kind of unsophisticated, utterly unnuanced thinking that is more characteristic of the Sarah Palins of this world.
Yes, it is possible to be against the use of military violence without being supportive of the victim of that violence.
But it is Gaddafi who is bringing the military violence. He’s the one out there killing people. So, a bunch of people decided that someone ought to put a stop to it. This was not primarily the United States, as we generally don’t care what goes on in Libya. But we were asked to get involved. And we decided to say ‘yes’ we will get involved in that. I don’t agree with the decision because I don’t want the United States to be on the hook for resolving every internal dispute in the world. It shouldn’t be our responsibility or our job to prevent every slaughter. That’s why France is taking that role in Cote d’Ivore. Maybe Italy should have worried about Libya. Maybe no one should have done anything. I don’t care that much.
But, once we got involved, it’s our job to solve the problem with a minimum of violence. We should aspire to remove Gaddafi from power without having to decimate his armed forces or destroy Libya’s infrastructure or their economy. We ought to avoid arming one side to kill and slaughter the other more effectively. We should avoid building up one tribe to subdue another.
In other words, go get Gaddafi and bring him to the Hague. Force him into exile. Or kill him directly. In that order of preference.
In my judgment, that is far more humane than arming-up a civil war and leaving Libya in tatters with bad feelings between different groups.
But Gaddafi is the one who is being indiscriminate. He’s the one who caused this problem. He’s the one who deserves to be condemned. If he wants to defy the world and cling to power, then he should expect bad things to start happening to him and his friends, family, cronies, and troops. This is a war now, and he isn’t going to win it.
I don’t advocate targeting his grandchildren. I don’t know that they were targeted. But I know this. He’s ultimately to blame for what happens to him and his family.
As for Assad, you keep telling me how wonderful he is and how much all your Syrian friends like him and how he’d win a free and fair election, and how he has no control over his goons.
I’d call that “a crush.” The man is now officially a butcher. When are you going to condemn him for his murderous actions?