[Dilmah G]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-gaddafi-finalhours-idUSTRE79J5Q720111020

Seems like a good summation of the reported events.

Cheers. Hmm, yes, doesn't seem to be looking to be their brightest hour indeed.

[Bobboau]

nope

[Nuke]

another dictator slain. so, who's next?

[Bobboau]

well, the one I would most like to see is ole kim, but that isn't going to happen, Obama seems to be gearing up for a confrontation with Iran with all this assassination stuff, but Pakistan has been getting quite the lashing since we found osama living in a luxury condo there.

[Luis Dias]

I vote for Merkel. ***** has been ruining Europe for too long.

[StarSlayer]

Narf the UN wants to investigate...

Derp, Derp, Derp, how the hell do they think it was going to play out?  We are not dealing with professional soldiers but irregulars that just fought a long bloody revolt against someone they despised, of course it was likely going to end with him getting shot, beaten and dragged through the streets.  If he didn't decide to man up and go out like Tony Montana then it should have been obvious ignominious death was in the cards. 

Acting surprised and indignant about it afterwards doesn't do world leaders any favors.

[Bobboau]

to the Libyans' credit, at least one guy was supposedly shouting something to the extent of "don't shoot him! we need him alive!"

[Scourge of Ages]

I was reading this article and came across an interesting statement, "Since the operation began on March 31, getting to Qaddafi's final stand required 7,725 air sorties and 1,845 strike sorties, 397 of which dropped ordnance, and 145 Predator drone strikes."
My question is: What is the difference between an air sortie, a strike sortie, and a strike sortie which dropped ordnance?
I understand that an air sortie is any single flight of a single aircraft, including helicopters and drones. I understand that a sortie which dropped ordnance is one where... some ordnance was dropped. Is a strike sortie an air sortie intended to attack something?

[redsniper]

Makes sense to me.

[MP-Ryan]

I vote for Merkel. ***** has been ruining Europe for too long.

Yeah, shame on her for being the only European leader to actually give a **** about financial stability.  Clearly she's gotta go.  Rumour has it that Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, or Ireland may all have suitable replacements...

*runs*

[headdie]

I vote for Merkel. ***** has been ruining Europe for too long.

Yeah, shame on her for being the only European leader to actually give a **** about financial stability.  Clearly she's gotta go.  Rumour has it that Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, or Ireland may all have suitable replacements...

*runs*

[Luis Dias]

Run for your life, you sympathizer scum (rebel scum doesn't work well does it?). We will find you eventually.

(And if Merkel isn't worried by the mess created by her own incompetence then she would be running for doctor evil status herself).

[Mongoose]

It is a bit bizarre to see the UN making statements about wanting to launch a full investigation.  As StarSlayer noted, what happened wasn't exactly a shock.

[Slasher]

If James Bond taught me anything, it's that the good guys never carry the Golden Gun. 

[Dilmah G]

I was reading this article and came across an interesting statement, "Since the operation began on March 31, getting to Qaddafi's final stand required 7,725 air sorties and 1,845 strike sorties, 397 of which dropped ordnance, and 145 Predator drone strikes."
My question is: What is the difference between an air sortie, a strike sortie, and a strike sortie which dropped ordnance?
I understand that an air sortie is any single flight of a single aircraft, including helicopters and drones. I understand that a sortie which dropped ordnance is one where... some ordnance was dropped. Is a strike sortie an air sortie intended to attack something?

Yes, I believe it is. A lot of the time, especially elsewhere in the Middle East, strike sorties are called off because of an inability to identify targets, distance from friendly and civilian areas, etc. Especially if the strike sortie was dispatched to neutralize a convoy or something, that convoy may have been present in such an area that a strike mission would be impractical and would violate any rules of engagement by the time the strike element got there.

[zookeeper]

Narf the UN wants to investigate...

Derp, Derp, Derp, how the hell do they think it was going to play out?  We are not dealing with professional soldiers but irregulars that just fought a long bloody revolt against someone they despised, of course it was likely going to end with him getting shot, beaten and dragged through the streets.  If he didn't decide to man up and go out like Tony Montana then it should have been obvious ignominious death was in the cards. 

Acting surprised and indignant about it afterwards doesn't do world leaders any favors.

It is a bit bizarre to see the UN making statements about wanting to launch a full investigation.  As StarSlayer noted, what happened wasn't exactly a shock.

Who's acted surprised? What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?

I've never understood why some people make some sort of connection between indignation and predictability in such a way that it'd be somehow invalid to be indignant towards something that was predictable, and that it's somehow fair to assume that if someone's indignant towards something, they must have thought it to be unlikely to happen. That just doesn't make any sense, there's no connection between the two.

[Nemesis6]

"He called us rats, but look where we found him," said Ahmed Al Sahati, a 27-year-old government fighter, standing next to two stinking drainage pipes under a six-lane highway near Sirte.

All things aside, this is a bit ironic indeed.

[NGTM-1R]

What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?

Predictable events are just that: predictable. Investigation is about determining causes and sequences of events. There is no point to investigation, for it will tell us what we already know happened for reasons we are already aware of.

What you and the UN are actually asking for is punishment of perceived wrongdoing.

[StarSlayer]

s

What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?

Predictable events are just that: predictable. Investigation is about determining causes and sequences of events. There is no point to investigation, for it will tell us what we already know happened for reasons we are already aware of.

What you and the UN are actually asking for is punishment of perceived wrongdoing.

This, NATO pretty much sealed his fate when they threw in their support with the rebellion.  It was fairly evident that if he didn't make a stand he was probably going to be caught and killed in some ditch.  If they truly were concerned about apprehending him alive they should have used professionals.  Putting on some song and dance post mortem about how unfortunate an outcome it is and needing to investigate is like putting a coyote in a chicken coup and acting miffed when all the hens are eaten.

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"

[zookeeper]

What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?

Predictable events are just that: predictable. Investigation is about determining causes and sequences of events. There is no point to investigation, for it will tell us what we already know happened for reasons we are already aware of.

As soon as the news broke, there has been multiple variations of what exactly had happened. I have no idea whatsoever how you can say that "we already know what happened", when it's simply quite obvious that we don't. The only way to know (or to be more certain if you don't think we can ever know for sure) is by doing an investigation.

Seriously, how are you, me or the UN supposed to already know what happened? Where does the information magically come from?

What you and the UN are actually asking for is punishment of perceived wrongdoing.

I'm not asking for anything, and the UN apparently wants to investigate what happened.