Re: NEWS: Coalition launches Libya attacks

by **MarkyDMan** Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:11 am

I think it would be a GOOD thing if he attacked the fleet in the Med.

Lets face it, why waste precious fuel when you can bring the slaughter to you? His aging and malfunctioning aircraft would be downed in a matter of hours. Any not taken down by the frigates would be picked off by the far-superior Rafaels and Typhoons. Not to mention an F22 or two

by **Shardna** Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:45 am

I'm only after hearing about it on the radio two hours ago. That is complety bonkers! I hope somebody puts that nutjob down for good or someone is going to get hurt! Mad

by **Arkanay** Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:55 am

Shardna wrote:I hope somebody puts that nutjob down for good or someone is going to get hurt!

People are already getting hurt, I´m afraid.

Something´s blinding Gaddafi. Anger, greed, whatever. No sane person would do what he is doing.

by **Trick** Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:58 am

As long as the coalition keep bombarding, containing Qadaffi in his bunker, eventually his men will give in.

by **Aletrius** Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:58 am

Now the Arab League is cricising the Coalition bombings, stating that the action differs from the no-fly zone which the organisation supported.

So what do they actually want?

by **Trick** Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:02 am

What we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians

Apparently that.

by **Aletrius** Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:04 am

Except the coalition forces are bombing military sites and air defenses...

by **Greyskull** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:03 am

I hope the coalition gets what it deserves. They should NOT interfere.

by **Tyranidking** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:25 am

Despite the fact if the coalition did not interfere, that maniac would quite happily murder everyone to see he remains in power. Trust me. They did what they had to do. They could've been a bit more tactful, but it was needed.

I'm still wishing for a non-violent solution, but if gaddafi gets what he wants, non-violence will be a non-existant concept.

by **Greyskull** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:30 am

The rebels were doing well on their own, we should have left it for them to deal with.

by **Aletrius** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:32 am

Greyskull wrote:The rebels were doing well on their own, we should have left it for them to deal with.

Except Gaddafi's forces were already entering Benghazi, the centre of the rebellion after having captured all other major towns and cities from the rebels.

by **Greyskull** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:37 am

Yes but they were doing well. Now it is taken out of their hands.

by **Aletrius** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:38 am

They had done well, but they had no hope of succeeding.

by **Greyskull** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:41 am

Yes but now it will become an endless War.

by **Tyranidking** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:42 am

Which is what would have happened anyway, because of gaddafi.

by **Andeavor** Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:49 am

Not until someone kills Gaddafi or he kills himself. He is mentally ill and the fact he has a military at hand makes him currently the most dangerous man in the world. For the international community not to interfere is an insult to the people who are suffering because of that man's delusions.

It has become a war but he started it and the rebels have no chance of dealing with it all by themselves.

by **Pikachu** Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:52 am

Does Gaddafi have nuclear Weapons?

Serriously, Now Im all for the assassins creed. "the death of one stops the death Of many." we need a modern day assassin to kill him. then his support would colapse.

by **LordRemington** Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:07 am

Pikachu wrote:Does Gaddafi have nuclear Weapons?

Serriously, Now Im all for the assassins creed. "the death of one stops the death Of many." we need a modern day assassin to kill him. then his support would colapse.

Unfortunately this is not the middle ages. You're not going to be able to get someone close enough to Gaddafi to kill him without the use of a sizable force.

@Greyskull The only way it would be endless is if the coalition did nothing. The rebels wouldn't stand a chance on their own. Gaddafi has shown that he has no issue with slaughtering protestors, and it was crystal clear from the beginning that the only way Gaddafi would leave is if he was dead. The Coalition had to step in, otherwise no one would stop him.

by **Aletrius** Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:18 am

I just wonder how long it will be until he is dead.

by **Pikachu** Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:34 am

LordRemington wrote:
Pikachu wrote:Does Gaddafi have nuclear Weapons?

Serriously, Now Im all for the assassins creed. "the death of one stops the death Of many." we need a modern day assassin to kill him. then his support would colapse.

Unfortunately this is not the middle ages. You're not going to be able to get someone close enough to Gaddafi to kill him without the use of a sizable force.

*Cough*Sniperrifle*cough*

by **Goober09** Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:12 am

I have to say I don't still support this whole war thing. Any sensable person would see going against the U.S., France, and the UK is suicide, especially with the reletivily weak military he has. Who knows what else will come out of this war? Mental

At this point, one way or another, this entire episode will end in death, more or less. Sad

by **world_piece** Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:22 am

Pikachu wrote:*Cough*Sniperrifle*cough*

This isn't Black Ops

Anyway, I remember when Gadaffi was on Larry King (or some famous US talk show) a couple of years ago. He was delusional then as he is now. Only difference is, he came across as a stand up comedian to the public when in fact he's always been a madman. People laughed it off and went on about their daily routine.

Fast forward to the last couple of days...

It's sad that many innocent lives were lost since the Coalition came in anyway. They could have came in sooner.

And now Bahrain and Yemen are on the radar.

by **LordRemington** Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:29 am

Goober09 wrote:I have to say I don't still support this whole war thing. Any sensable person would see going against the U.S., France, and the UK is suicide, especially with the reletivily weak military he has.

This is Gaddafi we are talking about.... He knows full well he doesn't stand a chance, but he said he won't leave until he is dead. There is no other option. This isn't a sensible, logical human being we are talking about. This is a madman who will stop at nothing to retain his power, even if it means killing his own citizens to do so. He plans to be leader of Libya till his dying breath, and whether that be now or in 20 years, thats the only way he will leave power.

by **Vektrix** Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:37 am

He is more unstable than a rocking horse on a bucking bronco.

by **Pikachu** Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:08 am

world_piece wrote:
Pikachu wrote:*Cough*Sniperrifle*cough*

This isn't Black Ops

I know. I am not retarded. I am simpley stating there is no need to be close to somone to kill them.

most people here think I am so addicted to games I would refer to them in a serious matter. I know it would be hard to get close to Gadaffi. I know it would be hard to get a sniper in range to take him out, and I know this isnt SPOREing Black Ops. Please try to understand that while I may not understand everything about War, I know what is real and what is in a SPOREing game. I know you do not like Black Ops, But just because I do Does Not give you the right to Speak to me as though I Am a complete F-Tard who would think that war is a game.

(and yes, I know I reffered to assassins creed in an earlyer post, But that was to make the point that we have a genuine need to remove this man from our world.)

Do not make me Rage. I HATE RAGING. and thunder burns hurt, by the way.

by Sponsored content