News24

Zuma warns against Gaddafi 'assassination'

2011-06-26 15:25

Pretoria - President Jacob Zuma on Sunday warned Nato against using its military campaign in Libya for the "political assassination" of Muammar Gaddafi, at the start of talks on the war.

South Africa voted for the UN resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya, which Nato uses to justify its campaign, but in some of his sharpest language yet, Zuma warned the alliance against overstepping its mandate.

"The continuing bombing by Nato and its allies is a concern that has been raised by our committee and by the AU Assembly, because the intention of Resolution 1973 was to protect the Libyan people and facilitate the humanitarian effort," Zuma said, referring to an African Union peace mission on Libya.

"The intention was not to authorise a campaign for regime change or political assassination," he said in opening talks in Pretoria of the AU panel on Libya, according to a text of the speech provided to AFP.

"On the ground, there is a military stalemate which cannot and must not be allowed to drag on and on - both because of its horrendous cost in civilian lives and the potential it has to destabilise the entire sub-region," he said.

Democratic dispensation

"The people of Africa want to see an immediate end to the conflict in Libya and the beginning of the process towards a democratic dispensation there," he said.

Zuma urged both Gaddafi and the rebel's Transitional National Council (TNC) to make compromises to reach a deal.

"The solution in Libya has to be political and lies in the hands of the Libyan people. Our Libyan brothers and sisters - those in authority and those in the TNC - have to act boldly and show leadership," he said.

The meeting of the AU panel came after the Libya rebels said late on Saturday that they expected to receive a new offer from Gaddafi "very soon" through French and South African intermediaries.

Zuma met with Gaddafi in Tripoli on May 30 but was rebuffed in efforts to find a compromise.

Zuma was meeting with the leaders of Mauritania, Uganda and Mali as well as Congo-Brazzaville's foreign minister to find ways of pushing forward an AU "roadmap" for Libya.

The plan calls for a ceasefire and reforms "necessary for the elimination of the causes of the current crisis", but the rebels insist that Gaddafi end his grip on power before accepting any deal.

Gaddafi unmoved by AU efforts

Gaddafi has long used the African Union as a vehicle to promote his own ambitions on the continent, building a lavish complex in his hometown of Sirte which he dreamed would one day become the base of a United States of Africa.

Libya held the AU's rotating chair in 2009, but so far Gaddafi has appeared largely unmoved by the group's efforts to resolve the crisis since the special panel was established in March.

During the talks in Pretoria, Zuma will brief the panel about his meeting with Gaddafi in Tripoli, his spokesperson Zizi Kodwa told reporters.

Many African leaders have also criticised the Nato bombing, but Zuma has had tough words for Gaddafi, accusing Tripoli of a "heinous violation of human rights against [Gaddafi's] own people".

Mauritania's President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, who heads the AU panel, also told AFP on June 6 that Gaddafi "can no longer lead Libya", and that "his departure has become necessary".

The meeting includes presidents Amadou Toumani Toure of Mali and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, as well as Congo foreign minister Basile Ikouebe.

They are to prepare a report to deliver to a full summit of the African Union in Equatorial Guinea, which opens on Thursday, Kodwa said.

Comments
  • USSA - 2011-06-26 15:39

    Zuma have no political clout when he engages NATO. He cannot even control his own government and more so his ANCYL leader. He must rather focus on something more up his ally, like wives no's 5 and 6. He seems good at that.

      ???? - 2011-06-26 16:07

      Agreed,but NATO is overstepping its objectives as we speak.Zuma has a very good point,because where will this end? Sounds like recolonialisation attempts to me.

      slg - 2011-06-26 16:18

      The commands to kill civilians are coming from Gadhafi. Any and all steps necessary to protect civilians are authorized by UN Resolution 1973.

      chris van rensburg - 2011-06-26 16:31

      Yes,I agree because Malema is `killing hundred's of farmers indirectly through his statements and he keeps on singing "kill the boer kill the farmer","take the farms without compensation"the whites are criminals and thieves" etc.and our president is sitting next to him approving everything he says.I think he is now scared that the same might happen to Mugabe and the ANC regime if they carry on with their land grabs and corruption policies.Remember that in the end it is the money powers and not the politicians controlling everything.

      Larissa - 2011-06-26 16:54

      Should he rather concentrate on his own country, like land grabs, nationalization of mines???

      thobsion.ANC - 2011-06-26 16:54

      You made wait forever....

      ZACommentator - 2011-06-26 16:55

      Who does Zuma think he is? His regime is propping up Mugabe. hardly one to talk about what is right and wrong.

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:27

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

      slg - 2011-06-26 17:46

      Marco, you're still on the wrong side of reality, fudging and overlooking facts. Did you not hear Gadhafi publicly state again and again that he would show no mercy and hunt down like rats Libyans who wanted nothing more than the right to elect their leaders? Did you not hear him declare himself the King of Africa? Wake up man.

      marco - 2011-06-26 20:14

      @slg And that's the best answer you can come up with.You've got no substance mate,no legs to stand on to justify NATO's Double Standards where it comes to Libya,do you?Take Yemen for example:On May 25,2011 British Foreign Secretary William Hague(a NATO Bigwig)was begging Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to sign a "road map" as quickly as possible to save the situation the country.With what result?An attempt of a peaceful transfer of power has failed miserably.Instead of a peace deal the authorities in that country has responded to this by a brutal repression on it's people.Peaceful demonstrations were shot by police.Even at the lowest estimates of the Western media,hundreds were killed.Data from several local human rights activists says,over 150 people were dead among Saleh's opponents.Why did NATO that so zealously protected the armed Islamists who opposed Gaddafi not noticed the mass killings by Saleh in Yemen and then bomb them aswell?The answer is simple:Saleh is considered one of their own.He was skillfully fooling NATO,claiming that he is the only one capable of preventing the triumph of Al-Qaeda in his country.In return he received astronomical sums of money in the past to fight the terrorists amounting to half billion dollars a year.The fall of Saleh threatens to become one of the main shortcomings of NATO after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.Instability in Yemen poses a serious threat to all Arab oil producers in the entire Gulf region.

      ???? - 2011-06-26 21:47

      @Marco, "Slg" is a zionist Jew,and will try to counter any anti-israel comments u or others make.

      Virginia - 2011-06-27 10:31

      Was it not inthe Media a few days ago the civilians in Libyia are being killed with South African weapons?? Why is Zuma so worried about NATO bombing Libyia he is suppling them with weapons.

      penada - 2011-06-27 10:36

      @slg marco has a point...if in the uk, america or any other country once people try to change the incumbent militarily (ie coup) the incumbent will respond militarily and will make threats like "terrorists will be shown no quarter"...not to say that i endorse gadaffi's "legitimacy". i agree with marco that NATO is not acting in the good faith of the resolution

      Spyker May - 2011-06-27 11:43

      ???? and Marco.., You are missing the point by a million miles. Presenting ‘red herrings’, irrespective how elaborate, does not elude from the fact that Gaddafi is attacking his own people – iow a state that is turning its militia/military on its own people. This is the highest form of treason conceivable and punishable by the highest court on the planet – the International Criminal Court. The point is, - in fact there are several.., Inter alia: 1. One illegitimate government, who refuses to tangibly address another illegitimate government, is remarking on a further illegitimate government – ie the illegitimate Zuma government, who refuses to address the illegitimate Mugabe government, is remarking on the illegitimate Gaddafi government... Gaddafi by virtue of the fact that he is preventing free and fair elections. Mugabe by virtue of the fact that he is preventing free and fair elections. Zuma by virtue of the fact that he is preventing fair elections. Viz the last elections in SA may have appeared free, but was by no measure fair – it presented false results and did not reflect the will of those who voted. 2. Zuma has further nullified the international standing of his post-Polokwane-’07 fascist black nationalist regime, by virtue of its overt inability to take a stand on any issue – from the ANCYL/Nationalisation, through crime, xenophobia, corruption, an economy in collapse, to Zimbabwe, Libya, etc. cont. below..,

      Spyker May - 2011-06-27 13:32

      Nobody, that matters, for that matter, is interested in SA. Apart from a few ‘hippies’ who come to see- or hope to see Madiba, they could not care less. Eg the Zuma circus was (again) the laughing stock at Davos. A banana republic that is on an out-of-control slide back to the stone-age. Zuma, his cronies and whatever one of his floozies he dragged with, were (and still are) largely avoided by the international economic community. 3. The international community is busy alienating SA – fast approaching- and soon overtaking, the extent by which the international community alienated the NP regime. None less than the supposed “elite” group SA (now almost solely) claims to be part of – viz BRIC-S. Eg the recent case of a prominent Indian businessman who midway through a presentation, got up- and got straight onto a plane out of SA, when it became apparent what the ANC’s economic plans were. SA is for all intents and purposes in the same international economic position as the NP regime was before – ie under international economic sanctions. The key difference – at least the NP government had the cognitive capacity to have taken SA to be the strongest economy in the world at one time. The ANC, on the other hand, have taken SA to the top of the pile of rapists, murderers, thieves and corrupt tenderprepreneurs... cont. below..,

      Spyker May - 2011-06-27 13:33

      We need to be frank: if you are not ready for W@R, rather pack your bags now, even if you lose everything; as the alternative - ie sitting waiting for the next election, will bring a fate worse that any of the aforementioned. Eg – take that freak Bobby Godsell - he who wants to ‘NEGOTIATE’ with the ANCYL... The sheer inanity, of even the mere suggestion it would be possible, to engage in any form dialogue with entities that posses the mental capacity of a six months-old toddler, will soon be confronted with a reality that may just make drop the penny on Apartheid – FINALLY...

      marco - 2011-06-27 19:50

      @Spyker May Everywhere on News24 you always post s**t comments bigtime.It's time you get your head sorted out and come back onto News24 and start talking sense mate."the illegitimate Zuma government" for ****sakes this government despite all it's flaws is a recognized South African Government the world over so except that otherwise shut the **** up or emigrate elsewhere.

      slg - 2011-06-28 04:08

      Marco, it is the best I can come up with, and you have not answered. But anyway, you're so off-key and out of touch that it doesn't really matter. It's just sad that a fellow human being (that's you) would be so out of touch, strengthening obvious evil on our world. One more time: wake up man, before it's too late.

      slg - 2011-06-28 04:10

      No-name, now with the upside down horseshoes, count the number of thumbs-down to your comments. Fifty-three and counting. Do you need any more confirmation of how wrong you are!

  • trunkbutt - 2011-06-26 15:44

    If only the ANC was next on NATOs list

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:43

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

  • Sprinkaan - 2011-06-26 15:53

    Perhaps he must organise some of his comrades, the could go and toitoi and burn tyres. Don't knowwhere, but somewhere

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:43

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

  • Anonymus - 2011-06-26 16:03

    or else what Mr. Zuma??

      Macho Mike - 2011-06-26 16:56

      Yep agreed Anonymus. I'm sure NATO are quaking in their boots after Zuma's warning.Eish, the Almighty Wife Collector from North of the South Pole has spoken, and Paris, New York,Berlin and London must be having sleepness nights. Get a life Zuma, or rather get another wife. Leave Gadaffi the Killer alone - the sooner he is dead, the sooner Libya can move on again.

      william.botha - 2011-06-26 17:00

      He will find the military leaders of NATO and tell them not to do that anymore. LOL

      Joker - 2011-06-26 17:18

      Yeah Zuma you want to stop Nato? You and what army? The SANDF BHahahahaha

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:43

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

  • BOFFINBOB - 2011-06-26 16:16

    Zuma was meeting with the leaders of Mauritania, Uganda and Mali as well as Congo-Brazzaville's foreign minister to find ways of pushing forward an AU "roadmap" for Libya. lol....Some of the worlds " big players. " NATO Must be taking this " warning " seriously. Bombs away boys !

      Sprinkaan - 2011-06-26 16:45

      The African roadmap, the only sad part is they are travelling in a f**kup taxi

  • Digit - 2011-06-26 16:22

    Waste the desert rat and there will be no more problem .... hmmmmm, I can think of a few more SA'ns that could be wasted to solve many SA problems too .... food for thought !!

  • allan.clean - 2011-06-26 16:29

    Why ZUMA!! what are you going to do about it , should it happen?

  • Karoobloed - 2011-06-26 16:35

    Mr, Zuma your brother leader Gadhaffi has had over 40 years to institute democracy and he has not. He has been using tanks, heavy artillery and air strikes against his own civilians demanding democracy - that is the people NATO has been trying to protect. He has also sequestered billions of dollars in foreign bank accounts when the vast majority of his people has remained desperately poor. It seems the best roadmap forward would involve one perfectly aimed Tomahawk missile with no civilian casualties.

  • Digit - 2011-06-26 16:36

    Why is it "ghadaffi's" people ????? since when were they his possessions ???? This is just the problem. This dictator sees himself as the OWNER of all he presides over and its people that live there ...... Just like BOB. Zuma has dealt remarkably there, now wants to do the same in Libya ..... NOT !!!!

  • freedom - 2011-06-26 16:36

    Ag Zuma big mouth hey what about warning your boytjie Juju to stop his sh*&*or you maybe talking to Nato in the not to far distant future about controlling the crap in your own country that you and he has caused!!!!!!Wake Up Nato fells just as much for you as theworld feels about your neighbouring gorilla

      Anton - 2011-06-26 17:55

      MARCO, GO AND SEE A SHRINK !!

  • Anton - 2011-06-26 16:39

    So we rather see that thousands of Africans get killed by a murderes tyrant, than that a bomb falls on HIS head ??? No wonder , even in Africa, few take the AU serious

  • Allin - 2011-06-26 16:50

    Zuma has less credibility than Julius Malema. At least they are taking themselves seriously

  • Vlooi - 2011-06-26 16:51

    If we find something that can still fly in our arsenal we can drop that useless piece of scrapmetal (also known as a submarine) on one of the NATO countries. That should really rattle them.

  • Joe - 2011-06-26 16:54

    And what will the clowns at the AU do - attack the USA, UK etc - Hahahaha Remember Ghadaffi killed his own people, like Mugabe did. How the hell can you negotiate with them? Is it just OK the people he killed? You go NATO and then turn the guns on Zimbabwe.

  • crackerr - 2011-06-26 16:54

    "The intention was not to authorise a campaign for regime change or political assassination," __________________________________________________________________ What precisely is a POLITICAL assassination? A general sitting at the back and dishing out orders to his troops (note HIS because they are this evil spirit Gaddafi's possessions and toy soldiers)to kill should not be above danger and reproach just because he happens to find himself safely in the background. Gaddafi is the general. Where in the world have you heard that snipers for example are not allowed to find and target the general? Now how come it is suddenly a political assassination to target and kill him? The truth is that leaders throughout the world must stop using others for their dirty tricks while they (the leaders) are safe out of harms way and can count on their comrade leaders to protect them. A 'political' assassination is nothing more than an invention by those political leaders who find themselves in similar potential high risk circumstances.

  • sean.redmond3 - 2011-06-26 16:56

    "Zuma warns against Gaddafi 'assassination'" Just love the "Warns" part. What could Zuma do? Bring me my machine gun? What a chop.

  • Pryce Johnson - 2011-06-26 16:59

    Yeah right! Nato cares what Zuma think.

  • maya die by - 2011-06-26 16:59

    yes I agree ... boms away Nato!

      WarPig - 2011-06-26 19:39

      Yeah...bomb all African dictators....kill 'em all!!

  • sean.redmond3 - 2011-06-26 17:01

    AU: Assh*les United

  • CPII - 2011-06-26 17:09

    Assassination....yup....shoot the dog....with one of the sniper rifles he imported from Truvelo.

      Worldwise - 2011-06-26 18:23

      Thanks Marco for telling us your views 23 times. If you feel so strongly about it, why not join Gadaffis' army and help him out against those terrible people in NATO? Or do you just shout loudly and repetetively?

      slg - 2011-06-26 18:52

      Talk about narcissism, Marco. Exactly how many times are you going to glorify your thoughts to us?

  • Newsferret - 2011-06-26 17:15

    Shame as is his wont Zuma wants to protect people by lying down instead of defending by whatever means - vis the farm murders we are suffering. Zuma has no concept of what is taking place in Libya, @0 years ago the ANC called it a liberation struggle --- now because it is one of its financial supporters of way back it is called a do not interfere. Double standards? No not at all, it is multi-faceted standards like in please all for ones own benefit.

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:50

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

  • LuCypher - 2011-06-26 17:22

    Anyone who has the slightest interest in what is really happening in Libya would support Zuma - even if they didn't like the man himself. The western media is lying about what is happening and NATO are killing civilians. Read this: http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

  • Joker - 2011-06-26 17:23

    My quarrel with Nato is that they have been putting the cart in front of the horse. They first should have assassinated Gadaffi, politically or otherwise and then focused in protecting the civilians. That war would have been over a long time ago already.

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:50

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

  • marco - 2011-06-26 17:27

    Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government. Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly 3 months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

      J.B - 2011-06-27 07:34

      Well done Marco, you are so intelligent - you just discovered how to copy and paste on a pc. Seems like that's all you know.

  • Kwatsha - 2011-06-26 17:31

    Good move by Zuma. Repeated military attacks on the residence of another countrys leader is unacceptable in ANY society.

  • crackerr - 2011-06-26 17:39

    Why is Gaddafi still in power? What entitled him to hijack the country and the peoples and hold them to HIS will? He is guilty of atrosities. It makes no sense to now draw up a scorebord of killings to justify his continuous thieving activities. Horrendous acts of barbarism will now of course follow. He could have prevented it. What is it with the world that they allow such blackmailing by dictators where the dictators in effect can get away because of the risk to the population. Take the dictators out first thing and reduce the risk to everybody. I for one will much rather believe Nato than the man whose performance in front of the TV cameras convinced me of what he is and that he and his family / cronies are no goods and must just go. By any reasonable and decent standards.

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:48

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

  • Ndlovu - 2011-06-26 17:40

    To eliminate Ghadafi is not assassination. It's eliminating a disease. Not more nor less. Oh one point is clear.. there is OIL.. If Syria or Zimbabwe would have a lot of oil... this countries would have been freed of its "disease" a long time ago

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:48

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

      crackerr - 2011-06-26 17:57

      The truth is preferable. Why is Gaddafi still in power? What entitled him to hijack the country and the peoples and hold them to HIS will? He is guilty of atrosities. It makes no sense to now draw up a scorebord of killings to justify his continuous thieving activities. Horrendous acts of barbarism will now of course follow. He could have prevented it. What is it with the world that they allow such blackmailing by dictators where the dictators in effect can get away because of the risk to the population. Take the dictators out first thing and reduce the risk to everybody. I for one will much rather believe Nato than the man whose performance in front of the TV cameras convinced me of what he is and that he and his family / cronies are no goods and must just go. By any reasonable and decent standards.

  • Tommy - 2011-06-26 17:40

    Assassination is not such a bad idea.

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:49

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

      crackerr - 2011-06-26 17:58

      Let honesty be the victor. Why is Gaddafi still in power? What entitled him to hijack the country and the peoples and hold them to HIS will? He is guilty of atrosities. It makes no sense to now draw up a scorebord of killings to justify his continuous thieving activities. Horrendous acts of barbarism will now of course follow. He could have prevented it. What is it with the world that they allow such blackmailing by dictators where the dictators in effect can get away because of the risk to the population. Take the dictators out first thing and reduce the risk to everybody. I for one will much rather believe Nato than the man whose performance in front of the TV cameras convinced me of what he is and that he and his family / cronies are no goods and must just go. By any reasonable and decent standards.

  • maseratifitt - 2011-06-26 17:46

    So, Mr. Zuma. Gaddafi must be left in peace to carry on killing his own people. Then one day he must be offered a luxurious retirement at the cost of other people?

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:49

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

      crackerr - 2011-06-26 17:58

      The truth is the right way. Why is Gaddafi still in power? What entitled him to hijack the country and the peoples and hold them to HIS will? He is guilty of atrosities. It makes no sense to now draw up a scorebord of killings to justify his continuous thieving activities. Horrendous acts of barbarism will now of course follow. He could have prevented it. What is it with the world that they allow such blackmailing by dictators where the dictators in effect can get away because of the risk to the population. Take the dictators out first thing and reduce the risk to everybody. I for one will much rather believe Nato than the man whose performance in front of the TV cameras convinced me of what he is and that he and his family / cronies are no goods and must just go. By any reasonable and decent standards.

  • longgone - 2011-06-26 17:48

    Let News 24 censor this as they do my other mails. Just say any key work and out it goes. Here SA government goes again wanting to protect the Criminals. Gaddafi has and till the day he stops breathing will be a criminal. I am sure Zuma has asked Gaddafi to live in SA. Maybe give him a position as Minister of Police.

      marco - 2011-06-26 17:49

      Zuma is right.Nato can't be ****ing hiding behind wanting to protect civilian lives(UN Resolution 1973)and then have a different agenda of going out to kill Muammar Gaddafi.After 100 days of bombing Muammar Gaddafi,this humanitarian "hoax" by NATO on Africa’s richest oil country is showing itself out to be arrogant,reckless,cowardly,wasteful,foolish—and illegal. To claim that Gaddafi is overseeing a deliberate policy to attack innocents even as he battles against the might of NATO and the western-backed rebel forces is brazenly deceptive.The New York Times said this week that the rebels were "making vastly inflated claims of(Gaddafi’s) barbaric behavior," and had "no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda,"after the much promised "bloodbath" in Benghazi never materialized. Wordpress.com says •Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya. The Boston Globe says this...NATO grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya,”highlighting the fact that the evidence clearly indicates Gaddafi is “Not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.“Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000.In nearly two months of war,only 257 people—including combatants—have died there.Of the 949 wounded,only 22—less than 3 percent—are women.If Muammar Gaddafi were indiscriminately targeting civilians,women would comprise about half the casualties.

      crackerr - 2011-06-26 17:59

      Decent people who detest tyranny prefer the truth. Why is Gaddafi still in power? What entitled him to hijack the country and the peoples and hold them to HIS will? He is guilty of atrosities. It makes no sense to now draw up a scorebord of killings to justify his continuous thieving activities. Horrendous acts of barbarism will now of course follow. He could have prevented it. What is it with the world that they allow such blackmailing by dictators where the dictators in effect can get away because of the risk to the population. Take the dictators out first thing and reduce the risk to everybody. I for one will much rather believe Nato than the man whose performance in front of the TV cameras convinced me of what he is and that he and his family / cronies are no goods and must just go. By any reasonable and decent standards.

      Anton - 2011-06-26 20:40

      Gaddafi may be fruitcake number one in Africa, but you Marco, are a close second!!!!

  • umlaut - 2011-06-26 17:51

    Maybe Nato must withdraw immediately just to proof a point to zuma.Gadaffi will immediately take revenge on the rebels and wipe out 2 million people, because they must never threaten him and the dictatorship again. Then Gadaffi will become a real terrorist and he will support strikes against the west and he will deny them getting any of his oil. zuma probably thinks that the assissination of a part of the nation is the better choice than ousting a dictator. Again we see the REAL respect for human rights and the rights of citizens by the anc. Britain should have assissinated Gadaffi when he ordered the Lockerbie bombing long time ago. Maybe zuma is planning another "peace mission" to Libya as make another delivery of the weapons still outstanding. zuma will be richly rewarded by friend Gadaffi If he controls libya again. If he is ousted then zuma wouldn't have lost a lot--maybe he would have lost just more respect from countries who wanted to protect the citizens of Libya. If the citizens win then they will probably feed zuma to their camels if he sets foot again in Libya.

      crackerr - 2011-06-26 18:01

      @ marco You now tired of your little childish game? I have the rest of the next 24 hours available. So go ahead, make my next 24 hours, punk!

      Anton - 2011-06-26 18:20

      I think Marco has been reading too many posts by ,,Dortnas / Barr /Datmanfromtripoli,, and just wants to copy them. repeat-repeat-repeat-repeat-repeat-repeat-repeat, the same over and over and over again !!!

  • WarPig - 2011-06-26 18:41

    Zuma, our dictator, brother of Castro, Mugabe, Gadaffi and other tyrants now "warns". He's just another tinpot African despot who wouldn't recognise human rights if he fell over them. Would someone tell this dingbat no one really cares waht he thinks. And his regime just may be a NATO forthcoming attraction very soon.

  • WarPig - 2011-06-26 18:52

    Zuma.....why don't you and your fat boy fly up there in one of the Grippens (and don't deny we have them), if any of them are likely to be flight ready within the next few months, and take NATO on?

  • Lefty - 2011-06-26 18:57

    Onse 'Stille President" wanneer hy moet praat - soos wanneer Malema voor hom snert kwytraak - praat nou met die buiteland. Miskien moet hy sy "speech" skrywer by hom hou vir sy "stiltetye". Wat 'n skreiende skande!!

  • COCSA - 2011-06-26 18:59

    This statement from President Zuma is very good. I might not be a politician but have brains. USA has its ambitions; oil is the factor. They will do whatever in their power to change the regime of Mr Gaddafi. We have seen this less than in 2003, Iraq. I do not support Mr Gaddafi to cling onto power make no mistake. I highly criticize AU for reacting very slow, if USA mobilized in the name of NATO to bomb Libya and they simply dragged their feet. USA is now thinking of the money they have lost over there not innocent lives lost so for them to retreat is almost impossible.All AU countries that are against what USA is doing must rather go protect the borders of Libya, Africa must stand as one.Why are they not helping in Zim...NO OIL...They are addicted to oil!African leaders must stop being corrupt and protect their people, the reason they do not stand up against this massacre is because they are afraid of losing financial aid from US.Stand up politicians against bullying!

      crackerr - 2011-06-26 20:09

      The Gaddafis of this world should not be allowed any space whatsoever to practice their hihacking of others. It doesn't really matter what the motives of others are as long as they assist to liberate the world of the hijackers. The oil saga? No. Work it out for yourself. Oil supplies were not under threat. The same with Iraq. It was a lie that oil was the motivation. Oppression and dictatorship have no melanin or geoghraphic characteristics. They are the same everywhere and require the same response from everyone from everywhere in unison to help all citizens of this world regain and retain their dignity and freedoms. It is not a unique African problem and so far we have seen very little evidence of Africa dealing with the problem sensibly and urgently.

      Anton - 2011-06-26 21:00

      Cocsa, I think you got the second sentence mixed up, Id do think you talk like a politician, but.....................!!

  • stephen.cole1 - 2011-06-26 19:00

    Zuma is bringing South Africa into the same band of thugs as Gadaffi !

  • WarPig - 2011-06-26 19:36

    And so our dictator, brother of castro, mugabe, gadaffi and other despots,warns NATO. He and the fat boy should up there and take them on. Who knows, zuma's regime may be a forthcoming attraction for NATO in the not too distant future.

  • Gundaan - 2011-06-26 20:36

    Hey Zuma ..what happened to the SA navy ..oh sorry the submarine has a blown fuse ..OK the army ..on strike & too much AIDs , Airforce ...2 jets out of 24 & no pilots ...Haaibo !!!!!!!!!

  • Gundaan - 2011-06-26 20:42

    Hey marco ..for goodness sake ,,,give it abreak ...does your top jaw meet your bottom jaw ..or vice versa ...what on earth are you rambling on about ...the facts speak for them selves ...Gaddafi is a Terrorist , He sanctioned the Lockebie bombing & nato is after him ...simple Why ..because they can ...why do you try & defend this a**se hole ???

  • Gemini101 - 2011-06-26 20:55

    LMAO this coming from a guy who can't even run his own country. Whateva Zuma!

  • olaas - 2011-06-26 21:57

    @marco klein t@ttiesimdroom???ons is nie blind nie en kan almal lees...next time go play in the traffic!!

  • shatzi - 2011-06-26 23:36

    Makhuluskop is worried that if they can take gadaffy out then no place is safe for the corrupt african leaders -

  • Datbrotherfromthestates - 2011-06-27 02:54

    why dont zuma go and defend him or shut the hell up!

  • vandermerwe.martin - 2011-06-27 10:27

    No monkey will ever have a say over Nato, who does this guy think he is??? If they over step, what is he goign to do send in the Army????

  • Andre - 2011-06-27 12:16

    my dear Zuma, whilst us AFRICANS hold the begging bowl poised and directed at the western world how dare you make demands. Your demands are an insult to the intelligence of the west. Keep begging as this is the ONLY way.. the 'AFRICAN WAY' of letting the world know we are still here and WE DEMAND assistance and sustenance...better you look after your ever growing minagere of wives, girlfriends, children and others...

  • Lionel - 2011-06-27 12:19

    How embarrassing for South Africa - let's stick to our affairs.

  • Zupta - 2011-06-27 19:28

    Zum Zum there's no time to pussy foot, like we have done with mad bob. It's time to take this wa nker out. The UN has bols unlike ur so called leadership. And they r going to use it. Sorry for u and ur chommies there ain't going to be any more handouts from gaddaffi you've got to look for another Sugar daddy.

  • Snoopy88 - 2011-06-27 20:03

    Unbelievable... There he goes again, mouthing off about nothing of importance. His 'warning' has about as much relevance as if he had shouted out 'The sky is blue!' What is it with African despots and the way they refuse to take decisive action against murderous, thieving gansters masquerading as leaders... Zuma is hardly the bastion of morality now is he? Clean up your own backyard first.

  • pages:
  • 1