Speaking to CNN on Thursday, a top NATO official confirmed that the alliance considers Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi a “legitimate target.” Officials had previously denied targeting Gadhafi and were vague about whether or not he might be targeted in the future.
But of course, after the past two months of escalations, NATO has destroyed virtually all of Gadhafi’s compound as well as assassinating one of his sons and several grandchildren in their home. NATO denied targeting residences.
The official pointed to the UN Resolution 1973’s call to use “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and claimed that this would include assassinating Gadhafi as head of the military. The resolution was intended to authorize a no-fly zone but its scope has grown massively since then.
Despite two months of attacks, the situation on the ground in Libya is little changed, and officials have even conceded that the war could last through the end of the year and beyond. The latest suggestion about killing Gadhafi will likely spark concerns from UN Security Council members who would never have approved the resolution if this was the result, but shows NATO is increasingly desperate to find something that will appear to be a major change on the ground.
Let's stop playing stupid. They'd been trying to pick off Ghadaffi since the bombing started.
They will try even harder now that their quick war is turning out to be longer than expected.
Beside for NATO being a military regime, NATO is also a criminal organization by nature, after all is a military organization and illegality is their priority, they have done this in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya. France, England and US are part of that organization so it goes for their presidents and minsters, acting illegal is in their nature, after all they are part of capitalism social economics structure's. For last 60 years US been at wars based on thievery and falsified democracy, now England monarchism and France government are directly involved, they work as partners using Muslim Brotherhood, the illegitimate child of Saudis and Arab emirates and its affiliated terrorist groups to steal the $53 billion dollars which belongs to Libyan people and is designed to be used for African Union.
NATO is definitely not a criminal organization, it is the world's number one terrorist organization that makes Al Qaeda look pathetically amateurish in methodology and numbers of innocent victims.
Terrorism=gang killing=criminal=NATO one more terrorist gang. Clear now?
Now they don't have to admit that his family have also been 'legitimate targets;' like they would be for the lowest form of mobster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
Here is the funny part: What happens if NATO bombs Libya for months destroying the country and killing thousands of civilians and in doing so damages so much infrastructure that they cannot fix it? What happens when the infrastructure needed to run a country no longer exists and NATO, which is now admitting it is too broke, weak and fractured to win a war against Libya while it supposedly has a rebel army at its call and beckon, does nothing more then destroy the place. How is the new government, made up of some goofy rebels and al Qaeda, going to govern and provide for the people after having served as the casus belli for destruction of the country. Good luck to their political party!
Occupy Washington – http://www.october2011.com
OCCUPY WASHINGTON D.C.!
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/462/358/Americans_…
Why are we waiting until October?
these things have to be carefully organized and advertised to be effective.
It is amazing that the old colonial powers AKA NATO stated a war to help stop the killing and now they admit they want to kill someone. NATO is an organization which only reason to exist is it can start military attacks without the hassle of the United Nations. It is not America, france or England that is bombing the former colony but NATO. Obama is not bombing Libya but saving lives by killing. NATO much have pulled out the play book of the crusades. Long time ago the good christians murdered by the thousands the jews of Jerusalem in the name of God. I just do not understand the excuse for this attack. Is NATO just getting so far out of reality to have people accept killing to save lives?
Gee…., I wonder how every NATO-country head-of-state feels about being a "legitimate target"? I wonder how quickly they'd negotiate if they were being shot at, too? What would NATO say if Libyan commandoes were to kill Sarkozy, for example–I bet they'd call it an Act of Terror, not a "legitimate" act of war.
I wonder how the press would cover harry the recently married hero being killed? He is a leader and in the military. Kate was so beautiful in white. I think she would be amazing in black.
These former colonial leaders aka nato are too much. The entire attack on libya is a form of economic war because libya was going to go on the gold standard.
Is anyone surprised at this?
I'm just old enough to remember that some time back before I was born there was indeed a time when most of the people in the world would have been very surprised to learn that the US was assassinating foreign leaders.
For America to be the America I'd want it to be, a solid and respected nation in the world, we need to somehow get back to the point where people would be shocked if they learned America was trying to assassinate someone. Which means a very long time during which we don't kill.
Giving a state the power to kill is the worst mistake possible.
It would probably be more helpful and instructive if you separated the US government and the American people when using the term America. For a very, very long time the US government has been doing things many people in the world would (and are) find despicable – like targeting assassinations and torture. It's only in the recent past that the American people have been bullied into believing that those despicable things are now OK and good for America's standing in the world – that it's the right thing to do. Some people will believe anything they're told (to believe.)
Since NATO has attacked Libya and therefore the parties are in a state of war, it is consistent to say that Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron are also legitimate targets.
I knew something was seriously wrong with this whole situation when I learned that there are only about 1000 "rebel" fighters on the ground. You would think a supposedly popular uprising would garner more support and indeed, world media was telling us back in Feb/March that ordinary Libyans were flocking to take up arms against Gaddafi. Really? I don't think so. Gaddafi's troops recently killed about 96 rebels, so he just wiped out 1/10th of their forces. No wonder NATO shills like Clinton are gettings so desperate in their pronouncements.
I think this actually sets a good precedent. Instead of starting wars and killing a lot of innocent bystanders, our leaders could go directly at each other, mano a mano, and leave the rest of us out of it. .