Talk:Bombing of Libya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bombing of Libya article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Renaming

Why on Earth was this renamed? This should be removed and changed back to "Operation El Dorado Canyon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp1187 (talk • contribs)

Although I didn't do the moving - probably because operation names are bad titles for articles related to military actions - since there are two sides involved. To title the article as the name of the operation would show some bias to one side or the other. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#PC_event_titles_-_.22conflict.22_instead_of_.22War.22 Megapixie 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In which case the article should cover the entire history of US-Libyan interactions, including terrorist attacks supported by Libya, air battles over Gulf of Sidra in 1981, etc. The article does NOT do this and refers specifically to Operation El Dorado Canyon. Jkp1187 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Further point -- this means that a series of military operations will now be subject to odd names. Should Operation Entebbe be renamed: "Israeli rescue of hostages taken by Palestinians aided and abetted by Idi Amin]]? I am changing this back to El Dorado Canyon. If nothing else, it is a bit high-handed to change the name of this article without any discussion whatsoever. Jkp1187 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, please do not re-name this article again without any discussion. Jkp1187 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

Tfine80 asks for chapter and verse on the Queen's view of Operation El Dorado Canyon. The Sunday Times has been cited—admittedly, no date or page number. But none of the other assertions in this "aftermath" section is properly cited either: why, therefore, make an example of this one?Phase1 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Why did the Queen call the PM "uncaring"? Need more elaboration here for those of us who weren't aware of the controversy in the UK back in the day.

[edit] Do we have any sources that state Ghadiffi was a target?

I had family that was on a couple of the US 6th Fleet staffs and out to sea when this went down. They recieved the orders from the Pentagon. They don't remember seeing anything about Ghaddafi being a target. Let alone the fact that by EO 12333 assissnation of a foregin leader is forbidden. So the question in my mind is do we have any primary source material that states the US Government gave the go ahead to assissnate Ghadiffi?Southernap 09:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is pretty clear that he was the target. His house in Tripoli was bombed (though he wasn't in it at the time) and members of his family were injured. The 20th anniversary concert – held in front of his bombed-out house – is testimony to that. See Libya concert marks US bomb raids.Phase4 11:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)~That doesn't seem to answer my question. Because as I read US Law, it would of been against the law for President Reagan to order the hit againt Ghadiffi. Second of all, from some news segements I remember seeing talking about Ghadiffi, he lived just like most other Arabic rulers in the Mid-East. In that they have mulitple houses all over the place and the rest of the inner circle doesn't know where they are going to stop until they stop for the night. This article here A USAF magazine article mentions how one of the homes was located inside a military barracks in Tripoli. Yet everything else I run across mentions the target was the Azzizy barracks and that was where one of his homes was. I can't seem to find one primary source that states the President gave the order. Even skimming former Sec of State Shultz's autobiography, he states that the National Security Council thought of it. However, it was dismissed because of the international relations fiasco if it happened and there was no guarentee that he was going to be there. So my question remains is there hard primary source evidence that Ghadiffi was a target that night?


The answer to your question, Southernap, might be available under the US Freedom of Information Act. You could try the following website:[1].Phase4 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your question is easy to explain. EO-12333 is an Executive Order - that means it is a directive given to the military and federal employees by the President of the United States. As President, Reagan was free to make an exception to this Order if he wanted to. However, he did not need to. Ghadaffi was not just a leader of a nation, he was the military commander of Libya as well. This would make him a valid target under the direction of EO-12333.
Your article link is dead, but it is not a "USAF magazine article". The Air Force Association is private and non-profit. Its views, editorial and otherwise, are its own. It has no sanctioning from the US Government or any part of it.--Buckboard 15:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not target foreign heads of state. But sometimes bombs may miss their intended target and hit his house. We also do not target foreign embassies although sometimes a cluster bomb may fall off the bomb rack while the aircraft are doing violent evasive manuvers to avoid AAA fire. This can sometimes occur even if the aircraft attains complete surprise of the enemy by its use of terrain following radar and uses lazer guided bombs.

[edit] Reaction in American Popular Media

Should we add a section that contains the following, or similar info, to the article?

The comedian Sam Kinison had some funny (and disturbing) comments on the bombing.
Kinison: "That was too f***ing cool! American bombers going in there going, 'WHERE'S THE BABY'S ROOM?' BLAM!!!"
"'Where do keep the little girl?' (ballistic whistling) BLAM!!!"

If the Kinison comments are added it should done in a tasteful manner.

69.39.172.48 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice bit of troll work there, 69.39.172.48! And what about those hilarious car stickers that were so popular in 1986:
Libya
I'm
Bombing
Yer
Ass ?
Phase4 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

Hi, you might want to include some information on the weapons Libya proceeded to ship to the PIRA after the attack Provisional IRA arms importation has a good write up on it which ive just added too Fluffy999 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, Fluffy999, please set out below what you have in mind.Phase4 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the arms shipments to the PIRA were as a direct result of Operation El Dorado canyon. Anyway, details to give would probably detail in a paragraph what al-Qaddafi shipped, when, and what the PIRA used them for- there was a lot of ordnance- enough for 3 infantry battalions. Also there is currently a court action launched in USA by the victims suing al-Qaddafi for shipping the arms, so it might become news there? His aim was to strike at the british.
There might be other paramilitary groups he shipped arms too as well- ones that would strike at american targets? Not sure- probably worth investigating. Anyway just thought i would mention it. Fluffy999 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, so you have links, sources and evidence for these assertions?Phase4 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just brought the article to your attention, check the citations. I think you misunderstood though- I wont be adding to the article. Some details in the aftermath section of this article (considering it has one) on the massive export of heavy weaponry and explosives al-Qaddafi made in retaliation to the airstrike might be in order however. Up to whoever is looking after the article. Fluffy999 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've included a reference to the significantly increased PIRA arms shipments under the heading Retaliation.Phase4 11:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, I did have a google around and found some other things that might be relevant to this article:

  1. "Between 1975 and 1981, the government of Czechoslovakia exported nearly 700 tons of Semtex to the Libyan Arab Republic" See here and
  2. an Israeli report about an increase in terrorism sponsored by Gaddafi immediately after Operation El Dorado, See here - describes his aid to groups attacking American citizens in response to the Operation. Fluffy999 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the "war on terrorism" reference is accurate or appropriate as written. Backwards-applying a term like that is never ideal, and in this case is a total misnomer. US-Libyan history of that period is overwhelmingly affected by the Cold War and Libya's status as a USSR client state- any use of the word terrorism from that period is of a secondary nature compared to current uses of that word and phrase, specifically against trans-national, non nation-state actors. So in summary I ask for a re-phrase.208.100.144.202 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming 2

Hey, move it back! [2]!!!! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please address the points I listed earlier prior to any further attempts at moving. Jkp1187 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


From military history wikiproject: [3] Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). So US- POV name. Wikipedia means WP:NPOV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
oh, I forgot, Operation Entebbe was the name given by the world press to the incident. The Israelis gave the name Operation Thunderbolt, so it's worldwide POV and not Israeli as El Dorado Canyon is US-POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Except that the title "United States Bombing of Libya" tends to 'other-ize' the United States, and implies that it is doing SOMETHING to Libya, without reference to Libyan actions. We can go round and round about this, but I am going to continue to move this back to El Dorado Canyon unless and until other participants offer their views on renaming this subject. Jkp1187 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Operation El Dorado Canyon" pulls up 12,500 hits on Google, "United States Bombing of Libya", 110.

Also: the Wikipedia guidlines cited above do not state that operational titles CANNOT be used for article titles, merely that others should be considered. Jkp1187 16:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

note that you have been already been reverted by an administrator and your actions are considered vandalism. Watch out for possible penalties. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Did not realize that you spoke for the administrators. As pointed out above, initial changes (i.e., vandalism) were carried out by TheFEARgod. Are you able to address above points? Jkp1187 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we call Iraq War - Operation Iraqi Freedom....? This is also a war by itself. See also: NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NATO campaign against the Army of Republika Srpska--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember the (UK) reporting of this bombing very clearly - it was one of the most notable and oft-cited appearances of the famous BBC reporter Kate Adie. To me, and I suspect to the vast majority of the UK, the phrase "Bombing of Libya" would evoke memories of this event, whilst until I read this page just now I'd've had absolutely no idea what "Operation El Dorado Canyon" referenced. 195.58.94.172 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retaliation factual error

In the text on Retaliation it states that: "Alec Collett and Leigh Douglas, along with an American named Philip Padfield were hanged in revenge."

This is not quite true. All three of the men were British. Philp Padfield is a distant relative of mine. His father and my mother were first cousins and I met him in the early 1960's on his family's farm in the small village of Luckington, Wiltshire, UK. Leigh Douglas and Philip Padfield were in fact kidknapped together, shot dead and left on a roadside outside Beirut. Alec Collett was hanged in a separate incident.

This information can be verified for accuracy at other websites including the BBC. It may be better to state simply that three British men were murdered in retaliation.

I hope that someone may find time to correct the report. I have no wish currently to become an editor.

Robert Hellier, London, UK

[edit] Cable transcripts

Were those cable transcripts ever released? I don't understand why they have been kept secret for over twenty years unless they give away a secret method to obtain them. Richard Cane 08:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bombing called 'conclusion' of reciprocal actions The article states "The bombing raid was the conclusion of a period of escalating reciprocal actions by the United States and Libya."

How can this possibly be considered the conclusion of reciprocal action given the subsequent downing of Pan Am 103, discussed further down the article under the headline "Retaliation?" Would it not be more accurate to state that it was an element of the reciprocal action, not the conclusion of it? The article currently gives the false impression that the US strike brought an end to the conflict, which it most certainly did not.

[edit] Retaliation:

The Libyan Government formally accepted responsibility for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing on May 29, 2002, and offered $2.7 billion to compensate the families of the 270 victims.

This is writen here, i just want people to know that i find this fact obscene. Just think all the millions of civilians killed by Americans in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, all the pseudo-covert ops in Central and South-Americas so on. When the fuck is the goverment the USA going to pay survivors and families of these incidents, and one more thing, with pricing like this, they wouldnt get a way with just few billions of dollars but would have to pay billions of billions dollars, alone in Iraq and Afganistan hundreds of thousands of civilians (and other people who didnt have to die had it not been for american aggressions, friend and foe alike) have lost their lifes because american actions.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naval Action:

Perhaps an article should be created and added to the templete box concerning the march 1986 incident where the united states 6th fleet engaged and destroyed several libyan gunboats as well as bombed a radar station? XavierGreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN General Assembly Discrepancy

The part about the UN declaration about the indicent says that the attempt to do so went on between 1994 and 2006, but ended in 2005. Er? The linked source provided isn't any use. I couldn't find any sources for this besides what's on wikipedia.

Agamemnus (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "many nations condemned the attack"

The statement that merely "many nations" condemned the attack is misleading. The attack was condemned by the United Nations General Assembly as resolution 41/38 demonstrates, the Non-Aligned Movement, and virtually every country in Asia and Africa. It is necessary to incorporate the viewpoints of these sides in order to accurately reflect the international response to this incident. Nierva (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)