A Nato air strike in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has killed the son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, a government spokesman has said.

Saif al-Arab and three of Col Gaddafi's grandchildren died at their villa in the Bab al-Aziziya compound, he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570

I wonder did they think they'd be safe having the kids around, or did 'Nato' (possibly not as clear cut as it used to be) not know they were there. Maybe it accepts them as collateral damage, or however you wanna put it

Libya: UK ambassador's Tripoli residence 'destroyed'

The Foreign Office is investigating reports that the residence of the British ambassador in Tripoli has been "destroyed".

It said in a statement that it believed other foreign residences had also been attacked.

"Such actions, if confirmed, would be deplorable as the Gaddafi regime has a duty to protect diplomatic missions," said the Foreign Office.

It added that the UK currently had no diplomats in the Libyan capital.

Instead the UK has a diplomatic presence in Benghazi, the largest city in the rebel-held east of the country.
'Absolutely clear'

The reports of the attack on the British residence - which the BBC understands come from sources on the ground - come after the Libyan government said a Nato air strike on Tripoli had killed a son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Saif al-Arab and three of Col Gaddafi's grandchildren are reported to have died at their villa in the Bab al-Aziziya compound.

A spokesman for the regime said the Libyan leader himself was in the villa at the time but was unharmed.

Nato said it had hit a "known command-and-control building" in the area, adding it did not "target individuals".

Prime Minister David Cameron also defended Nato's operations in Libya.

"The targeting policy of Nato and the alliance is absolutely clear," he told the BBC.

"It is in line with UN resolution 1973, and it is about preventing a loss of civilian life by targeting Gaddafi's war-making machine."

Mr Cameron did not comment on whether British aircraft were involved in the attack that reportedly killed Col Gaddafi's son.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13253371

I'm expecting looters carrying trays of Ferrero Rocher now

Utterly despicable act.
How can NATO justify killing an innocent family member????? It is one thing to attempt to kill Gaddafi and Saif, but murdering 3 young relatives? Something totally wrong going on there, the person who ordered that attack should be charged with manslaughter.

Whist I agree with the sentiment, I can't see how it's at all avoidable if you're engaging in a bombing campaign.
Are they meant to knock on each door, find out who's inside, then ask them if they wouldn't mind holding while a large white 'X' is painted on the roof of the house? And then getting them promise to stay indoors for the next 30 minutes?

I think I'll wait for further information on what went on.

Hmm. I would be very surprised if they were doing that at.


I'd say no. If it can be shown they knew the children were present but attacked anyway, they would be charged with a war crime. That's actually likely to end up with a harsher sentence than manslaughter. If they were targeting the facility and it had a military function, that would technically make it a legitimate target during time of war - the debate would then be whether we are actually at war with Gaddafi or not. If it was a military facility you have to ask what Saif was doing bringing his children to it when they've been attacking military facilities for months...

Could do either way this. Wait and see until more details come out IMO.

If they even saw the possibility of the children being there it should be classed as a crime.

Doesn't the US believe that all 'men are created equal'? Perhaps all libyan men are therefore created evil.... or atleast are in the eyes of NATO.



My sentiments reg. bombing campaigns are pretty clear. Look at Iraq, 7% of civilian deaths over a 5 year period were attributed to bombing. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0807240) I guess that means that we have killed more Iraqi civilians than the coalition have lost military personnel. As far as I am concerned it is one thing to send a ground team in to try and extract an individual, but one life does not have a value of less than another - ie, you cannot substitute gadaffi for his innocent family members and say that it is then ok to take them all out. What would our response be if Cameron was to meet Gadaffi and NATO blew them both up saying that it's OK because Gadaffi is gone.

Sounds highly unlikely that they didn't know there were other non-regime people there at the time. Tis all im saying, no doubt that we shall never know anyway, usual secrecy will ensue.

Um no. Standard rules of engagement require UN troops to positively ID their targets and avoid civilian casualties at all costs, even to the point of not going through with an attack if they are present. However the target was obviously the building, not whoever was in it at the time. You can't abandon every attack at a building on the grounds somebody other than military personnel might be inside it, that's just illogical. The possibilities are

1) If they IDed the target and committed to the attack but didn't know the people were inside, then it's effectively a disciplinary matter - they didn't verify the target's state well enough i.e. if they had no way of knowing civilians were inside they are not guilty of an act of violence, they were performing what is generally called 'normal hostilities'. The people who should then be in trouble are whichever military intelligence/planners targeted the building in the first place. This is much as when the Chinese embassy in Bhagdad (iirc?) was hit and many civilians were killed - the person who got it in the neck wasn't the pilot who dropped the bomb, it was the officer who planned the attack without knowing exactly what the situation in the building was.
2) If they did ID the target correctly and they were aware civilians were inside but pressed ahead anyway, then they are guilty of an act of violence during wartime specifically disallowed by the rules of engagement, which is the dictionary definition of a war crime.


The US has got F all to do with it. In fact this is one time they've made scrupulous efforts to stay the hell away from the conflict.In fact, the fact the attack did kill innocent civilians requires it to be examined and the people involved to be investigated and prosecute according to international law. Which flag was on the side of the plane is irrelevant.


It's very likely actually - they don't have the manpower to have eyes on every target for hours before the attack arrives. The most important issue in that regard is whether the weapon in question was 'man guided' i.e. say a paveway laser guided bomb or a 'drone' like a cruise missile. If it's the former, whoever was 'painting' the target might have had a chance to observe the situation and call off the attack. If it's the latter, the bomb was effectively dropped the moment it left the launcher and then, as I say, whoever planned the mission is the person at fault.

I agree we will probably never learn all the details of the attack anyway, or at least for several years when it's all long forgotten by the majority. This is itself a tragedy. Until someone in the military is genuinely and publicly held to account for events like this, they will keep on happening.

However, a moment of perspective is also required. This is an awful act and the deaths are needless. But it's only a fraction of what's gone on in Misrata and Adjabiya. I'm sure you're aware of how many innocent children have been killed intentionally in those towns, right? And how many would have been (i.e. all of them) if somebody hadn't intervened.

Jon

Even though the US plays a major (if not the major) role in NATO, Was a founding member, and has the largest military of any NATO member (AFAIK) ?
If the US is dictating targets in Libya, which whether you choose to believe it or not, will be happening, then chances are it is showing its usual hypocracy when choosing who has the right to life and who doesn't.



The target was the building and not who was inside?????? I am pretty sure that if Clnl Gadaffi had been killed then the statement would be something along the lines of 'we successfully identified the location of Clnl Gadaffi and carried out a bombing raid in which he was killed'. If you care to explain the logic in bombing a house as a strategic target....



You can have proper intelligence before blowing someone up, in fact, i would say that it is vital that you do. Not enough manpower? then don't drop the bomb! If there is evidence of bomb in the building then perhaps you have grounds, but all I will say wrt our evidence of bombs... Iraq.



ie, they decided not to bother looking.



I would guess that they would have this location pretty high up the priority list for manpower, god help the poor souls who happen to be near X random location which NATO decides needs lighting up.



There is a difference between murders that are being committed as intentional violence, and murders that can be avoided by simple precautions. wrt the children that have been saved, who says that those children are more deserving of life than any others? I in no way condone violence, but certainly wouldnt have NATO blowing up one sides children to save the other's.

Of course, there is then the debate over if the people even wanted Gaddafi to go... to be honest I reckon that the rebels are in the minority anyway. (though that is just mere speculation).

All true but all totally irrelevant to the situation in hand.


I choose to believe not because they said so, the European forces actually involved in the conflict say so, the people observing things for the UN say so and The Arab Sodding League say so. You can believe your own dogmatism or you can believe the truth, it's up to you. The US is staying out of it because it knows patently well that if there's any sniff that the US is involved, the Arab League will pull out on the spot, and take any sort of political validity to the action with them. But hey, what's realpolitik and basic logic against your certainty eh?


I believe so, because bullets cost a lot less than smart bombs. if you wanted to kill Saif Gaddafi, you'd wait until he was in transit and then machine gun the hell out of whatever vehicle he was in. It's quicker, cheaper, easier to do and you stand less risk of, you know, killing innocent people. You drop a bomb on a building when you want to take the building out.


I have no idea what intelligence they have, and actually nor do you. You can assume as to what the value of the building attacked if you like, I'm not going to. I'm going to wait and see the evidence. That will be explanation. Until then, all we have is assumption.


Excuse me? The only military target of value is one that already has bombs inside it?


I have no idea. Neither do you. One of is just assuming things and then getting angry about those assumptions with no analysis or evidence. Can you tell which one of us that is?


Care to do a bit less guessing and a bit more finding out?


Yup, there is. One is murder and one isn't. I assume you can figure out which side has been doing which in the conflict so far? Clue : one side has been stationing snipers on city building roofs with orders to shoot anyone who comes into view, one side hasn't.


Well, that's an interesting idea I admittedly hadn't considered. Me, I was going with the option that they're all equal, so whatever situation ends up with the least total number of them being dead was the better one.


The entire point is the NATO/AL forces are actually trying to avoid doing that, whereas the Libyan government forces apparently consider it a valid approach to crowd control. This is a regime that ordered jet fighters to machine gun crowds of protesters for christ's sake. If you can't recognise the difference between those two, I have only pity for you.


Just another clue; the ones who his government troops are shooting at? They're probably not going to be voting for him again. here's the solution which you'll possibly be in favour of : pull the air cover out and wait a few weeks. By then, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the population of Libya that is still breathing will be in favour of Gaddafi sticking around.

or, alternatively,read this.

Jon

maybe they were aiming at the garden

to destroy the gaddaffodils

Chances are that the family are not that safe in their own homes and knowing the mentality of Gaddafi that he would happy use anyone as a human shield. Nato would not have targeted the building knowing that there would be civilians present. They have already stopped raids where they knew that civilians were present.