Sources: Qaddafi may be lying about the airstrike that killed his son
But the details on the Gaddafi hit don’t add up, and they make me—and a half dozen sources I talked with last night, including several in Libya—skeptical about how close we came to hitting the dictator. Or that three grandchildren were actually killed, as Gaddafi’s embattled government claims…
Like most of what the spokesmen there say, the regime has so far failed to provide any proof of its claim, except to guide the Western journalists in a tour of a facility bombed by NATO. The lack of clear evidence of any death, except spots of blood, just increases cynicism.
My Tripoli sources confirm an attack on one of the regime’s buildings frequented by another of his sons, Hanibal Gaddafi—but not Gaddafi himself, his wife or the other sons. In fact, one of my sources, acquainted with the family’s habits, maintained that the family almost never gets together, especially given the current circumstances, which makes the idea of a NATO strike that somehow hit a nest of Gaddafis (sparing the leader, of course) seem a bit far-fetched.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
That was the first thing that came to mind when I heard the news: lie.
PattyJ on May 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM
The first casualty in war is … the truth.
OldEnglish on May 1, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Gaddafi strikes back
Shy Guy on May 1, 2011 at 11:14 AM
This is more macabre Kaddafi klan theatre. These “grandchildren” are likely “human shield” orphans.
It is no secret that the coward Kaddafi intentionally (as a rule) surrounds himself with women (bodyguards) and children (orphans).
After Reagan’s 1986 airstrikes, Kaddafi “adopted” (post-humously) the child human shield, Hannah.
Every year, Kaddafi monstrously exhumes the memory of that child’s corpse to shake at the West– and mainstream media dutifully parrot his terrorist propaganda lies as fact.
Don’t drink Kaddafi’s Kool-Aid. Kaddafi is no victim. The deaths of his human shield victims remain on his blood-soaked hands.
Terp Mole on May 1, 2011 at 11:26 AM
The British are a bunch of idiot. You are bombing him, and killing his children and you expect him to protect your embassy. What a bunch of idiots. I hope the moron we have in DC has pulled out our embassy staff from Libya.
This is just the beginning, and if Obama is not careful this war will bring him down during the election next yr. I hope he loses by the way, but I will find particular enjoyment from it, if this non-war plays a huge role in his loss.
Chudi on May 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM
I think many people here are extremely delusional. The ignorance that I see exhibited here is funny. This whole non-war is illegal, and there is no way it will turn out good.
Of course, ignoramuses will say the blood is on his hands, but what does the rest of the world think. They see it differently…
Chudi on May 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Chudi: F*** O**!
Blake on May 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM
So much idiocy.
1) We probably didn’t kill his kid. He claimed back in the 80s that we killed his daughter and, lo and behold, he was lying.
2) There’s a difference between “protecting” and “not actively attacking”. It’s his thugs attacking embassies, which are sovereign soil.
3) We’re bombing him because he’s in violation of international law by indiscriminately massacring innocent people who are fight for liberty from his tyrannical rule.
Someone like Gaddafi who wants international brotherhoods, launches international organizations, and very willingly participates in the UN — including its Human Rights Council — should understand as much. He should also be open to internationally-willed action.
amerpundit on May 1, 2011 at 11:42 AM
I’ve got a secret for you. The rest of the world, outside of the countries supporting this endeavor either in force or in morale, will think ill of us no matter what we do.
In fact, we don’t even have to do anything. Our mere existence leads to conspiracy theories and hatred.
So people who don’t like us will continue not to like us? But at the same time we’ll knock off a terror-supporting dictator who’s killed Americans and then, after we’ve tried being nice to him again, honors those who have killed Americans?
Gee, let’s see where I stand on that.
amerpundit on May 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM
…and Chudi is aping the Kaddafi klans’ propaganda machine.
Don’t drink Kaddafi’s Kool-Aid. Kaddafi is no victim. The deaths of his human shield victims remain on his blood-soaked hands.
Terp Mole on May 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Wow- I’m not sure which site this is all the sudden. Is it safe to say that the consensus here think the Libyan operation is a worthwhile exercise?
BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM
Nobody is interested in your obsession with defending Kaddafi: “King of kings of Africa.”
sod off
Terp Mole on May 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM
Why is it so difficult for non-interventionist to wrap their heads around the Bolton doctrine?
Kaddafi has publicly VOWED to resume targeting civilian airliners.
Does any serious person doubt the sincerity of Kaddafi’s vow? Do you honestly imagine he’s NOT going to try to “settle scores“? Are you willing to put innocent Americans’ lives at risk on some conceit that Kaddafi isn’t as evil as (say) al-Awlaki?
Wake up, hand-wringers. The clock is now ticking, again.
If Americans learned anything from 9/11, it’s that we can’t afford to wait for terrorists to follow through on their threats.
America now has a duty to bring Kaddafi to justice; or justice to Kaddafi.
I don’t much care whether Kaddafi meets a Predator drone or Mussolini’s fate on a meat-hook. But Kaddafi (personally) must answer for his actions.
Mark these words: Anything short of a Kaddafi dirt-nap will be a grave mistake.
Terp Mole on May 1, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I would say the opposite, except for a few vocal supporters. Fact is, it is an illegal use of American force and a violation of the Constitution and the war powers act.
Moreover, it’s just plain stupid – even if, in the highly unlikely scenario we kill Qaddafi and the regime is changed: it will just become an outpost of al queda.
There is no scenario where we win this.
Rebar on May 1, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I don’t talk to stupid uneducated imbeciles.
Chudi on May 1, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Like I said, there are a bunch of stupid uneducated imbeciles here making a lot of noise. I love your passion supporting the US dropping bombs on innocent people from ur living room, on behalf of Al qaeda members who have killed US soldiers.
Stupid internet warrior. I think you and ur ilk need to go to school, and learn about the world. Moron.
Chudi on May 1, 2011 at 12:03 PM
I really think you need have ur head examined. Say you knock off this guy who has killed Americans and who are doing it for…oh yes, a bunch of Al qaeda guys who have killed Americans too. And when you knock him off, what happens? We just kill him and then take our ball and go home right? What happens to Libya after you kill him. Have you and ur fellow internet warriors thought about it?
You guys are just the same as Obama. Very delusional…
Chudi on May 1, 2011 at 12:07 PM
I want the current regime gone, but not the rebels to win.
OldEnglish on May 1, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Yes, that’s it.
Or we could not do the same thing as we did with Afghanistan, and instead have an international coalition oversee the development of some sort of non-terrorist aligned government.
Good contenders? Nations like Britain and Italy, which have massive financial and strategic interest in having a friendly and stable Libyan government.
Also, a message to the new governmental members. We’ve shown in Afghanistan the willingness to treat terror-aligned governments in the same manner we treat actual terrorists. Don’t test our willingness to hand you the same fate we handed Gaddafi.
amerpundit on May 1, 2011 at 12:18 PM
I am afraid that the author of this article is correct. Gaddafi and his den of liars are not telling the truth about the results of this air strike.
SC.Charlie on May 1, 2011 at 12:20 PM
I see. Our brave American pilots are now targeting innocents on behalf of al-Qaeda? Nice troop slander. Tell us more.
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, General Patton “supported” Marxist-terrorists.
Do local Kaddafi-huggers ever tire of parroting Farrakhan?
Or did Chudi forget to take her Metamucil again?
Terp Mole on May 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM
BEFORE any NATO action, Kaddafi publicly VOWED to resume targeting civilian airliners.
The clock is now ticking again. Kaddafi’s typical retaliation turnaround time is measured in mere weeks or months.
Contrary to popular belief, Kaddafi clearly bested Reagan.
Anyone imagine Kaddafi is now intimidated by impotent Obamateur gestures?
Wake up, hand-wringers. The clock is now ticking, again.
If Americans learned anything from 9/11, it’s that we can’t afford to wait for terrorists to follow through on their threats.
America now has a duty to bring Kaddafi to justice; or justice to Kaddafi.
I don’t much care whether Kaddafi meets a NATO drone or Mussolini’s fate on a meat-hook. But Kaddafi (personally) must answer for his actions.
Mark these words: Anything short of a Kaddafi dirt-nap will be a grave mistake.
Terp Mole on May 1, 2011 at 12:28 PM
You are a stupid uneducated imbecile and a troll. Stop trolling, frumbag!
Blake on May 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Don’t be so modest. Of course, you do! Chudi leads a small pack of Kaddafi TigerBeat! groupies in Nigeria. Here’s a BBC report on Chudi hocking t-shirts for his King of Kings of Africa.
It’s sad how former Obama voters make a living these days.
Terp Mole on May 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM
I asked about the Libyan operation and I’m glad to see what seems to be some sane responses. First- the operation as it stands is irrevocably misguided. It has little if any chance of success going forward, even if we alter the objective to regime change. Without “nation-building” with a heavy hand, we’ll likely still not have anything resembling an American-friendly outcome. So Terp Mole, I understand where you’re coming from but I don’t think the nation -and I’m quite sure the White House- doesn’t have the stones to take it to the necessary levels.
What we should be doing in the Middle East, in my opinion, is looking out for the best interests of America, and Israel. Anything short of that -which is what we’ve been doing since 2009- is only fueling the fires of radical Islam. Our “intervention” in Egypt was an utter failure and very likely detrimental to our future, and our blind eye to Iran the year before was willful ignorance on the part of the White House and their misguided belief that The One could make the world a happier place with his superior intellect and negotiating skills.
Kaddhafi or Qaddafi or Gaddafi -or however we choose to spell his name- was in a box. He had come forth with his weapons program after seeing the shock and awe of US military might in Iraq and the willingness of a president to use it. He disarmed and attempted to reintegrate into the international community. I’m not defending him, but he was no threat to the US and, if not cooperating, at least he was not impeding our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Additionally, there is no real indication that anything resembling democracy is on the minds of the rebels. Someone above said, “We’re bombing him because he’s in violation of international law by indiscriminately massacring innocent people who are fight for liberty from his tyrannical rule.” Well, once these innocent people picked up arms, they became enemy combatants. Whether they’re dentists and lawyers and shopkeepers, or professional mercenaries sent by Iran is immaterial; they became an armed uprising aimed at the overthrow of a sitting government- not innocent civilians. I’m not justifying the colonel’s tactics, I’m simply saying that we shouldn’t characterize these people as innocent civilians any longer. This is not Egypt, this is a civil war in which we voluntarily chose a side which seems indiscriminate and based upon false pretenses.
BKeyser on May 1, 2011 at 12:51 PM
TigerBeat! LOL!
Blake on May 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM