Skip to content

Not that I support Ghaddafi but

Doesn\’t he have a point here?

A defiant Muammar Gaddafi has threatened to bring war to the \”homes, offices, families,\” of Europe unless Nato stops airstrikes against his regime in Libya.

The Libyan leader, facing an international arrest warrant for his brutal response to the rebel uprising, delivered the warning of vengeance in an audio message played to thousands of supporters in Tripoli\’s Green Square.

\”These people [the Libyans] are able to one day take this battle … to Europe, to target your homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes,\” he said.

War is one of these mutual things, isn\’t it? We bomb him, he\’s allowed to bomb us? We shoot at him, he\’s allowed to shoot at us?

And if not, why not?

19 thoughts on “Not that I support Ghaddafi but”

  1. Now, Tim. When we bomb Libya it is a concerted action by the international community to rid the World of a Godless tyrant who is carrying out a genocide of his citizens. When he bombs us, it is an outrageous attack against the liberal democracies of the free world and illegal and unwarrented violence aganst innocent civilians. Do get it right.

  2. No no no Tim, that would be an unprovoked outrage by a rogue state, at least according to my Official Dictionary Of Tranzispeak.

  3. It sounds like hot wind to rouse his support.

    For his own self interest, it would be a stupid thing to do. Does he want to harden European/US public opinion (currently pretty apathetic) against him? Blow up a building in London, Paris or Berlin and that’s what he can expect.

    Saddam overplayed his hand on the WMDs on the assumption Bush wouldnt have the balls to pull the trigger. Does Gaddafi have better judgement?

  4. Can’t understand what Gadaffi has done wrong.So his guvmnt did n’t crumble like the ones next door and his army and a large chunk of the population stayed loyal.Is this his fault?The legitimate government does have some rights to deal with people who attack its soldiers.
    If he is an international terrorist tyrant why are we annoying him ?

  5. Note: Gadaffi is not threatening to start bombing countries in Europe but to restart bombing countries in Europe.

  6. Yes, he is perfectly entitled to, but not able to, end of.

    As Ed hints, Libya was somehow vaguely involved with the Lockerbir thingy and possibly other terrorist attacks, but I don’t think he has the several thousand warships or aircraft required to invade Europe.

  7. Any chance of him targeting homes, offices, families of western politicians?
    As long as he keeps collateral damage to a minimum, reckon there’s a lot of us could really get onside with this.
    Wonder if it’s worth getting some “Go Gadaffi Go!!” T-shirts printed up?

    D’ya reckon he’d consider putting local authorities on the target list?

  8. The Cowboy Online

    “Any chance of him targeting homes, offices, families of western politicians?

    As long as he keeps collateral damage to a minimum, reckon there’s a lot of us could really get onside with this.”

    I like your thinking, and I think you’re right. The enemy of my enemy and all that. So, how do I go about getting one of those t-shirts then?

  9. Erm … the Lockerbie thingy was wrapped up last year the courts in Europe and the UK found that Liby was wrongfully accused and convicted. Turns out the key prosecution witness was paid £10,000 by police to say a Libyan did it. Then the courts apologized to Libya. Then Libya asked USA to return the 2.5 billion in damages paid to families of victims of Lockerbie. USA said no and is now bombing Libya. Do get it right.

  10. Yer welcome if you wanna mosey on up into the Sierra Nevadas.

    That’s the originals, not the copies.

  11. @Mark – The Taleban and Afghans don’t have any fighter planes or warships or any high tech weapons of mass destructions (missiles to you and me) but they are still managing to keep the strongest armed forces in the world at bay for many years.

  12. And yes, self defense when your under attack is not only morally correct, it is expected. Plus Qadhafi didn’t threaten to attack Europe. He simply said based on what we have done to Libya they are well within their right but they will not. Instead they are focusing on their people; their women and children. If only we could learn to do the same, our economy would not be on the brink of collapse.

  13. I think the biggest problem would be the same problem that exists in all the asymmetric warfare visited on ‘the West’ by Islamic societies: whereas our killing of non-combatant civilians is inadvertent, it is an active goal for the Jihadists and Black Septembrists and whathaveyou. For example, Operation El Dorado Canyon was a retaliation for a bombing of a disco that killed two US soldiers and a female civilian (explicitly an act of terror). It was targeted on military and political entities in Libya, and inadvertently caused the deaths of some civilians (two F-111 crewmen died, too.) The response was the bombing of Pan-Am 103 with the loss of 270 non-combatants*. This is really the difference. I suppose from an operational standpoint, the precise reason one dies in a war is immaterial to the victims, but we draw a strong moral distinction in the motives of the perpetrators. Due to the huge disparity in Libya’s force projection capability and NATO’s, etiolated as the latter may be, the only way that Libya could bring a retaliation to Europe would be by frank terroristic means.

    * I don’t really buy the “it wasn’t Libya wot done it” angle. It may have been partially linked to the Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air 655, but the idea that that was anything other than an horrendous mistake is merely to humour Islamic paranoia.

  14. Err, what do you mean “allowed”. You’re suggesting this is some kind of game with a referee who will tell you when you break the rules?

    Tim adds: Err, yes. There are rules (Geneva, Hague Conventions) and there is a referee, the ICC. UN as well perhaps.

  15. Libya’s not at war with Europe; Gaddafi is fighting NATO (Or France, Britain, Canada and the US…). For him to launch an attack against Malta, for instance, would be totally unjustified as well as tactically inept.

  16. Isn’t this the natural escalation of armed conflict?
    What will the west do if african volunteers take part on G ‘s side maybe with Chinese support.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *