A stray NATO missile that was not targeting Muammar Gaddafi in his compound in Tripoli accidentally struck Gaddafi's compound - even though NATO is not targeting Gaddafi - and reportedly killed his son.

Did I mention that NATO is not targeting Gaddafi?

The BBC:

A Nato air strike in Tripoli has killed the son of Col Muammar Gaddafi, a Libyan government spokesman has said.

Saif al-Arab and three of Col Gaddafi's grandchildren died at a villa in the Bab al-Aziziya compound, he said.

The Libyan leader himself was there at the time but was unharmed, he added. Nato said it had hit a military target but denied targeting individuals.

[...]

Earlier on Sunday, Nato acknowledged that there had been a strike in Tripoli late on Saturday.

A spokesman, Lt Gen Charles Bouchard, said a "command-and-control" building had been hit, and that all targets for Nato attacks were "military in nature".

He added that he was aware of reports that members of Col Gaddafi's family had been killed, but made no further comment.

If NATO could fight as well as it split hairs, the war would have been over long ago.

Of course, we're targeting Gaddafi. We should be targeting Gaddafi. Either SAS or Delta Force should go into Tripoli and target Gaddafi. Gaddafi dies, the war is as good as over. Therefore, logic,  military necessity, and a quick end to the war all dictate that Gaddafi should be targeted.

But we're not, right?