The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Gaddafi threatens to attack Europe
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6643
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  Gaddafi threatens to attack Europe

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/01 ... ed-killed/

Quote:
TRIPOLI, Libya -- A defiant Muammar al-Qaddafi threatened Friday to carry out attacks in Europe against "homes, offices, families," unless NATO halts its campaign of airstrikes against his regime in Libya.

The Libyan leader, sought by the International Criminal Court for a brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters, delivered the warning in a telephone message played to thousands of supporters gathered in the main square of the capital Tripoli.

It was one of the largest pro-government rallies in recent months, signaling that Qaddafi can still muster significant support. A green cloth, several hundred meters long and held aloft by supporters, snaked above the crowd filling Tripoli's Green Square. Green is Libya's national color.


March 16: Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, son of Libyan Leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, smiles during a TV interview in Tripoli.

RELATED VIDEO



Qaddafi's Future in Libya

Tracking down Libya's leader


Qaddafi spoke from an unknown location in a likely sign of concern over his safety. Addressing the West, Qaddafi warned that Libyans might take revenge for NATO bombings.

"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.

"We can decide to treat you in a similar way," he said of the Europeans. "If we decide to, we are able to move to Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to retreat before you are dealt a disaster."


It was not immediately clear whether Qaddafi could make good on such threats.

In the past, Qaddafi supported various militant groups, including the IRA and several Palestinian factions, while Libyan agents were blamed for attacks in Europe, including a Berlin disco bombing in 1986 and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people, mostly Americans. Libya later acknowledged responsibility for Lockerbie.

In recent years, however, Qaddafi was believed to have severed his ties with extremist groups when he moved to reconcile with Europe and the United States.

Al-Qaida and other jihadi groups have opposed Qaddafi since he cracked down in the late 1990s on the Islamist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group which sought to replace his regime with an Islamic state.

In Tripoli, supporters unleashed repeated barrages of defiant gunfire into the air after Qaddafi's speech.

A series of powerful explosions later rattled the heart of the capital as supporters cheered and honked car horns in the street. Black smoke could be seen rising from the area near Qaddafi's Bab al-Aziziya compound. It wasn't clear whether the blasts signaled renewed NATO airstrikes or were bursts of celebratory fireworks.

A U.S. State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, said the U.S. would take Qaddafi's threat of attacks seriously, as his regime carried out such actions in the past. Toner said he did not know if there was intelligence to indicate Qaddafi's regime would be able to carry out such attacks.

"This is an individual who's obviously capable of carrying these kinds of threats, that's what makes him so dangerous, but he's also someone who's given to overblown rhetoric," Toner told a news conference in Washington.

Friday's rally came just four days after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Qaddafi, his son Seif al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi for crimes against humanity. International prosecutors allege government troops fired on civilian protesters during anti-Qaddafi street demonstrations earlier this year.

The popular uprising has since turned into a protracted civil war, with anti-government rebels controlling much of eastern Libya and parts of Libya's western mountains. NATO has been bombing government-linked targets since March.

In his speech Friday, Qaddafi denounced the rebels as traitors and blamed them for Libya's troubles.

He said Libyans who fled to neighboring Tunisia are now "working as maids for the Tunisians."

"Tunisians used to work for Libyans. What brought you to this stage? The traitors," he added.

He called on his supporters to march on rebel strongholds, including the western mountain area and the port city of Misrata, both in the otherwise Qaddafi-controlled western Libya. "We must end this battle fast," he said of the attempts to oust him from power, which began with an uprising in mid-February.

Qaddafi's speech signaled that mounting international pressure, including the arrest warrants against him, have made him only more defiant.

His son, Seif al-Islam, who like his father is a wanted man, denied in a TV interview that either of them ordered the killing of civilian protesters in Libya, as prosecutors charge.

The younger Qaddafi told Russian news channel RT in an interview posted online Friday that "most of the people" died when they tried to storm military sites, and that guards fired on them under standing orders to protect the bases and themselves.

However, documents from the International Criminal Court outline multiple instances in which the tribunal prosecutors allege government troops fired on civilian protesters during anti-Qaddafi street demonstrations earlier this year.

The younger Qaddafi had once been viewed as a reformer by the West and was being groomed as a possible successor to his father.

Seif al-Islam wore a thick beard and traditional clothes in the interview. He denounced the international court seeking his arrest as controlled by the NATO countries now bombing Libya.

"This court is a Mickey Mouse court ... For me to be responsible for killing people, it was a big joke," he told the Russian state-funded network.

The Netherlands-based tribunal on Monday issued arrest warrants against the Libyan leader, his son Seif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi.

The three are accused of orchestrating the killing, injuring, arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of civilians during the first 12 days of an uprising to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi from power, and for trying to cover up their alleged crimes.

Presiding Judge Sanji Monageng of Botswana has said that hundreds of civilians were killed, injured or arrested in the crackdown, and there were "reasonable grounds to believe" that Qaddafi and his son were both responsible for their murder and persecution.

But Seif al-Islam denied that he and his father specifically ordered protesters to be killed.

"Of course not," he said, arguing that government troops fired on protesters out of self-defense.

"Nobody ordered. Nobody. The guards fired. That's it. ... The guards were surprised by the attacking people and they start ... firing. They don't need an order to defend themselves," he said.

Seif al-Islam accused Western nations of intervening in Libya because they are after the country's oil and other resources. He said the goal is "to control Libya," and he vowed to fight on.

"Nobody will give up. Nobody will raise the white flag," he said. "We want peace, but if you want to fight, we are not cowards. ... We are going to fight."


Libya versus Europe... who would win?

His son also claims that no civilians were ordered killed, which I think is plausible. He was mainly (or entirely) was targeting the insurgents, and any civilians that got in the way were accidental.

Author:  Micheal [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 

Europe.

Of course not, but they weren't ordered to try not to kill civilians either. Whatever it takes to get the insurgents, no matter who gets in the way.

Author:  Hannibal [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Again, who was this coalition to go into a sovereign nation and begin blowing up stuff? I hope he carries out his threats and reminds the coalition to keep its collective nose out of other countries business.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hannibal wrote:
Again, who was this coalition to go into a sovereign nation and begin blowing up stuff? I hope he carries out his threats and reminds the coalition to keep its collective nose out of other countries business.


It's the New World Order... they are trying to eliminate all the dictators and rogue states until the world is stable, peaceful, and democratic.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gaddafi threatens to attack Europe

Heh. Ok, good luck with that, Ghaddaffi. I don't think Libya is the terrorist training mecca it was 25 years ago and since you're having to start training women to fire weapons I'm pretty confident you won't have the manpower to be doing this.

Manpower has been Ghaddaffi's big limiting factor since this war began, and from what else I've read he's running out of money to pay his mercenaries. I'm not looking forward to seeing fat elderly women and young girls slaughtered if he actually commits them to battle, but hopefully this is just a desperation propaganda move. Either way, I don't see him making a whole lot of attacks on Europe.

Author:  Hannibal [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 

Didn't take a well trained army to make a mess over lockerbie.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

No, but that was over 20 years ago, when he still had a lot of the infrastructure to support training terrorists, not in the middle of a war where's he's running out of men and money, and under air attack from nations with a massive technological advantage.

Ok, he blows up one or two more airliners.. all that does is give the Europeans even more incentive to get involved. At this point, almost any of the involved European allies have the amphibious assets and forces to deliver a knockout punch on the ground. The only reason they haven't done so is.. well, lack of desire to get involved on the ground, as far as I can tell.

Author:  Hannibal [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

The question is why is libya all of the sudden a priority. The humanitarian angle is bs. There are african nations which we turn a blind eye to. So what asset is in libya that the un needs to preserve? Actually scratch that I don't even care. When their cities start getting random terrorist attacks it's their own fault.

The ultimate point being that you don't need massive troops or equipment to do a lot of damage anymore. All you need is a hacker with a computer and some time or a zealot with nothing to lose and a bomb.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hannibal wrote:
The question is why is libya all of the sudden a priority. The humanitarian angle is bs. There are african nations which we turn a blind eye to. So what asset is in libya that the un needs to preserve? Actually scratch that I don't even care. When their cities start getting random terrorist attacks it's their own fault.

The ultimate point being that you don't need massive troops or equipment to do a lot of damage anymore. All you need is a hacker with a computer and some time or a zealot with nothing to lose and a bomb.


The hacker threat is something of an unknown. A lot of stuff that's really worth damaging isn't attached to the internet - for obvious reasons. Hacker organizations talk a big game, but then when they make a denial of service attack, they attack stupid **** like EVE Online's login server. Stuff like in Eagle Eye is just not going to happen; no one would, for example, make it so you could remotely eject a pilot from an F-16; the system is purely mechanical and doesn't need hackable electronics at all. It also wouldn't be possible to make a power cable fall on someone by remote control; why build the phyiscal ability to do that into it?

On the other hand, there have been some pretty embrassing occurances like the hacking of UAV feeds by the Taliban.

As for bombs, you can do a fair amount of localized damage and get people all up in arms, but you have to get the bomb there in the first place and avoid detection and the bigger the bomb gets the harder that is to do, especially when you've announced your attention to do so before hand like he just did.

Let's say though, that you can deliver a fairly serious terrorist-style bomb attack, like the Madrid bombings. Okay, so what? It isn't like that can be done over and over; they're each a fairly complex covert operation, and meanwhile you're getting your *** bombed off or being overrun by Royal Marines. You're also not doing serious damage to the ability of the Europeans to keep bombing your *** off or overruning you; in fact you're not impacting that at all.

So, you're likely to get overrun before you can even put this together, and even if you do get it together before that, all you've done is give them more incentive to kick your ***.

You might get some people who really really liked your regime to do a revenge bombing or two after that but.. who cares? You're out of power and it isn't like Ghaddaffi is going to become some cult leader that will spawn an intractable band of terrorists determined to keep bombing European bus stations until he's restored to power. Most Libyans are going to lose interest in bringing him back pretty quickly, even if they support him now.

As to why it's a priority, Italy and France have all kinds of ties with Libya that date back to their colonial history in North Africa. Oil is a large part of it, the rest are interests that an Italian or Frenchman could probably explain better than I can. The same is true of Britain to a lesser degree.

Author:  Corolinth [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Probably because Libya is where they bought all the slaves they shipped to the New World back in the 1600s.

Author:  Micheal [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

Not sure about the French and Italians and if they shipped slaves to the new world or not, but for most of the slave traders it would have been West Africa, below Morocco, rather than anywhere on the Mediterranean.

Author:  shuyung [ Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Diamondeye wrote:
The hacker threat is something of an unknown. A lot of stuff that's really worth damaging isn't attached to the internet - for obvious reasons.

It's not that unknown. People put a lot of ridiculous things on the internet for stupid reasons. A lot of stuff that's worth damaging is accessible from the internet. Maybe not directly, but there's a path.

Author:  Müs [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Let Europe deal with it. Not our business.

Author:  Wwen [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

While I can't imagine that he's a real threat, I can see how he would have a just cause to declare war against them.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:07 am ]
Post subject:  Gaddafi threatens to attack Europe

When are we gonna learn we need to deal with these petty rinky dink wannabe dictators the first time around?

Why did we leave this guy breathing after Lockerbie? Just like Saddam and I have the feeling this is gonna be the same kind of mess.

Author:  Micheal [ Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:54 am ]
Post subject: 

Because most Americans still think we are the good guys. To make sure we took Gaddafi out would have taken one of two things: 1) massive civilian deaths as bombing him would have meant killing a lot more than just him, or 2) sending an assassination team into Libya and we don't want to start that tradition for dealing with our enemies, lest they do it to us.

After Clinton destroyed our existing black ops network, we haven't really rebuilt it, no matter what our video games, novels and movies say.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Micheal wrote:
Because most Americans still think we are the good guys. To make sure we took Gaddafi out would have taken one of two things: 1) massive civilian deaths as bombing him would have meant killing a lot more than just him, or 2) sending an assassination team into Libya and we don't want to start that tradition for dealing with our enemies, lest they do it to us.

After Clinton destroyed our existing black ops network, we haven't really rebuilt it, no matter what our video games, novels and movies say.


It wouldn't necessarily take massive civilian deaths to kill him with an air attack, unless we wanted to nuke him. Using a nuke would have been pretty certain to kill him, but would obviously be more than just a bit excessive. Dropping an assload of bombs all over the place doesn't offer any increased chance of killing him; just of getting a hit on whatever structure he's in at the time if we're not already sure. It's not quite the same situation as in Afghanistan/Pakistan where we can loiter a UAV and then basically make a sniper attack using a Hellfire as a really big bullet. He's got a lot of residences and official buildings to live in that are bigger than most places insurgent leaders in Pakistan live, and probably have underground shelters too; so it's a matter not just of knowing where he is, but hitting that structure with something that will kill him inside a bomb shelter. Libya is still an organized country offering resistance too; his long-range sir defenses are gone but old-fashioned gunfire still precludes flying around low and slow looking for him.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gaddafi threatens to attack Europe

Lex Luthor wrote:
Libya versus Europe... who would win?

It depends. Who persuades America to intercede on whose behalf?

Author:  Wwen [ Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:15 am ]
Post subject: 

I recommend Libya start with Greece.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/