PDA

View Full Version : Gadhafi killed in Libya


*JR*
Oct 20th, 2011, 01:25 PM
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/20/libyan-fighters-say-they-have-captured-gadhafi/?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1

Libyans are celebrating in Tripoli as reports spread that Moammer Gadhafi is dead.
October 20th, 2011 09:11 AM ET

There are reports that deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has been either captured or killed.

[Update 9:04 a.m. ET] Most Western governments declined to comment on the reports Thursday, with the U.S. State Department saying they could not confirm the media reports were correct. One exception was Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, whose country took part in the NATO-led air operation in Libya, who said Gadhafi was in custody. "My assistant has just told me that Gadhafi really has been captured," Rutte said during a visit to Moscow. "I am glad that he has been captured." Listen to why Washington is hesitating to confirm reports. If reports are true, it is positive news for U.S. national security, CNN's Barbara Starr reports.

[Update 8:56 a.m. ET] Mahmoud Shamman, Libya's information minister, tells CNN that a press conference will be happening soon about the alleged death of Gadhafi. Shamman said Gadhafi is dead and that is "a great victory" for the Libyan people. CNN's Dan Rivers spoke to him in Tripoli where crowds are cheering, shooting guns in a celebratory way and honking their horns.

T6A5WXVuy_o

================================================== =========================================

juki
Oct 20th, 2011, 01:30 PM
He's dead, not captured ;)

Al-Jazeera showing pictures of the corpse: http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvplive/cvpstream1#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1

Just Do It
Oct 20th, 2011, 01:35 PM
I will never understand why didn't he leave the country ?

delicatecutter
Oct 20th, 2011, 01:45 PM
Because he vowed to fight to the death.

Mistress of Evil
Oct 20th, 2011, 01:49 PM
He was mad and decided that he could have got away with everything, every normal human being would have run away but he chose to stay :shrug: I would have preferred for him to have served his time in prison; Next few years will gonna be quite tough for Libya :awww;

ElusiveChanteuse
Oct 20th, 2011, 02:03 PM
So it finally ends?:yawn:

Dani12
Oct 20th, 2011, 02:12 PM
Wow! Big news...!

Londoner
Oct 20th, 2011, 03:31 PM
I'm torn about this. I did not like the footage shown on the BBC of his bloodied body. However according to the BBC the Libyan people want to see it.

I also do not like the West's involvement in so many foreign countries, in particular Muslim countries. I think it gives out the wrong messages. Countries should be left to resolve their own issues unless they are threatening to invade.

More importantly, I worry for the people of Libya, Syria etc. What they get in place of the current regimes may be no better. 2 years ago a colleague went on a weeks tour of Libya and she loved it and thought the people were very friendly and far more polite than at home. I'm just not convinced that the West's fantasy of bringing Western culture to other countries is what is best.

Londoner
Oct 20th, 2011, 03:33 PM
Wow! Big news...!

It will have repercussions for the World far greater than if your PM or the UK's PM was killed.

njnetswill
Oct 20th, 2011, 03:51 PM
This wouldn't have been possible if not for NATO air support. Interesting to see what happens in Libya now.

Dani12
Oct 20th, 2011, 03:51 PM
It will have repercussions for the World far greater than if your PM or the UK's PM was killed.

I was being serious? :confused:

antonella
Oct 20th, 2011, 03:55 PM
Sad that he died never being promoted to 'general'.

miffedmax
Oct 20th, 2011, 04:06 PM
Hopefully this will be a positive thing for Libya and much of Africa. Ghadaffi had a long if underreported history of propping up strongman dictators in sub-Saharan Africa and contributed to much of the civil war and strife that has cursed that continent for the last quarter-century or so.

While I agree that Western intervention in the internal affairs of other countries is generally a bad thing, there does seem to be a lot of support from most Libyans (and of course I'm getting this from Western media sources, but also from al-Jazeera) for our role so far. The fact we've sent in very few ground troops (mostly to coordinate the air attacks and provide aid) is a rare show of intelligence, because this means that the Libyans have continued to see this as "their" revolution--quite justifiably, as they are the ones who have done all of the ground fighting and suffered all of the casualties.

Another benefit of this is that the TNC has actually had some time to work things out--they've had to run a big part of the country and a major military campaign, which has meant coordinating tribal and regional efforts and dealing with historic rivalries. In some ways, this experience may have been better preparation for assuming power than any of the other groups involved in the Arab Spring have gotten.

This could be a huge step forward for all of the region. It may not be exactly what NATO had in mind when it intervened, but hopefully it will be at least something closer to what the Libyan people define as their idea of a just and representative government.

Lena's bangs.

Just Do It
Oct 20th, 2011, 04:56 PM
Hopefully this will be a positive thing for Libya and much of Africa. Ghadaffi had a long if underreported history of propping up strongman dictators in sub-Saharan Africa and contributed to much of the civil war and strife that has cursed that continent for the last quarter-century or so.

While I agree that Western intervention in the internal affairs of other countries is generally a bad thing, there does seem to be a lot of support from most Libyans (and of course I'm getting this from Western media sources, but also from al-Jazeera) for our role so far. The fact we've sent in very few ground troops (mostly to coordinate the air attacks and provide aid) is a rare show of intelligence, because this means that the Libyans have continued to see this as "their" revolution--quite justifiably, as they are the ones who have done all of the ground fighting and suffered all of the casualties.

Another benefit of this is that the TNC has actually had some time to work things out--they've had to run a big part of the country and a major military campaign, which has meant coordinating tribal and regional efforts and dealing with historic rivalries. In some ways, this experience may have been better preparation for assuming power than any of the other groups involved in the Arab Spring have gotten.

This could be a huge step forward for all of the region. It may not be exactly what NATO had in mind when it intervened, but hopefully it will be at least something closer to what the Libyan people define as their idea of a just and representative government.

Lena's bangs.

I highly doubt it, I expect Libya to become a wild west state but we will see ;)

CillyUltra
Oct 20th, 2011, 06:27 PM
What a day of satisfaction for all those who suffered under this evil man.

edificio
Oct 20th, 2011, 07:29 PM
Hard to say what will happen in Libya now. It was time he was gone, but I have to say the news of his death surprised me. I thought for sure he'd join Papa Doc Duvalier in exile in France. :rolleyes:

Talula
Oct 20th, 2011, 07:32 PM
What a day of satisfaction for all those who suffered under this evil man.

While I agree, in such countries there are those that suffer and those that support. I just hope that what comes is better.

I'm just not keen on celebrating a death, particularly one that might just lead to worse. I would prefer he stood trial. Just as I would have wanted to see Hitler and Goebells to stand trial.

spencercarlos
Oct 20th, 2011, 10:11 PM
What does not bodes well is the fact that Gadafi was alive at first, captured.. then was murdered apparently.

3Bpw2qNevds

Infiniti2001
Oct 20th, 2011, 11:09 PM
Hard to say what will happen in Libya now. It was time he was gone, but I have to say the news of his death surprised me. I thought for sure he'd join Papa Doc Duvalier in exile in France. :rolleyes:

This!!

ivanban
Oct 20th, 2011, 11:27 PM
This wouldn't have been possible if not for NATO air support. Interesting to see what happens in Libya now.

What a day of satisfaction for all those who suffered under this evil man.

Surely it'll be like heaven now, like in Iraq and Kosovo :inlove:

dybbuk
Oct 21st, 2011, 12:06 AM
^^ That should really be behind a link or something.

Helen Lawson
Oct 21st, 2011, 12:50 AM
What will become of Beyonce and Mariah Carey?

ranfurly
Oct 21st, 2011, 01:30 AM
Poor Labia :-(

Lin Lin
Oct 21st, 2011, 01:47 AM
That was a screenshot of Aljazeera.

Lin Lin
Oct 21st, 2011, 01:50 AM
Ghadafi led the country of Libya to be the richest country in Africa,I feel sad for Libya people.Now let's see what will happen in Libya.Hopefully it won't be next Irap or Afghanistan,where people are still struggling against worsening safety and economic situation.

Melange
Oct 21st, 2011, 02:13 AM
That was a screenshot of Aljazeera.

You dont get it do you. It does not matter where it came from. Change it to a link.

Lin Lin
Oct 21st, 2011, 02:33 AM
http://photocdn.sohu.com/20111020/Img322868148.JPG

ranfurly
Oct 21st, 2011, 03:37 AM
the pic is resemblent of some hot porn leather daddy

MaBaker
Oct 21st, 2011, 08:37 AM
Hopefully this will be a positive thing for Libya and much of Africa. Ghadaffi had a long if underreported history of propping up strongman dictators in sub-Saharan Africa and contributed to much of the civil war and strife that has cursed that continent for the last quarter-century or so.

While I agree that Western intervention in the internal affairs of other countries is generally a bad thing, there does seem to be a lot of support from most Libyans (and of course I'm getting this from Western media sources, but also from al-Jazeera) for our role so far. The fact we've sent in very few ground troops (mostly to coordinate the air attacks and provide aid) is a rare show of intelligence, because this means that the Libyans have continued to see this as "their" revolution--quite justifiably, as they are the ones who have done all of the ground fighting and suffered all of the casualties.

Another benefit of this is that the TNC has actually had some time to work things out--they've had to run a big part of the country and a major military campaign, which has meant coordinating tribal and regional efforts and dealing with historic rivalries. In some ways, this experience may have been better preparation for assuming power than any of the other groups involved in the Arab Spring have gotten.

This could be a huge step forward for all of the region. It may not be exactly what NATO had in mind when it intervened, but hopefully it will be at least something closer to what the Libyan people define as their idea of a just and representative government.

Lena's bangs.
And now using the logic, how can anyone support you bombing the crap out of their country?
Surely it'll be like heaven now, like in Iraq and Kosovo :inlove:
Most likely.

McPie
Oct 21st, 2011, 11:20 AM
One Way Trip ;)

Helen Lawson
Oct 21st, 2011, 11:36 AM
the pic is resemblent of some hot porn leather daddy

I know. And let's face it, he looked like hot leather daddy in life as well. Sick to admit, but Helen speaks the truth as she sees it.

Brena
Oct 21st, 2011, 02:28 PM
I will never understand why didn't he leave the country ?

Perhaps because he had some moral integrity and wouldn't leave his people? This is the end for Libya as a normal country and the beginning of another banana republic with a marionette government, whose citizens will be suffering poverty, chaos, violence and death for many years to come. No words...

cowsonice
Oct 21st, 2011, 02:55 PM
I'm surprised by this news. The media had been quiet about Libya for the past week or so, and then I'm greeted by a picture of a dead, bloody Gadhafi on my front page...:o

(Come on, seriously...)

Anyways, I'm anxious to see where Libya goes after this..

M.S.F
Oct 21st, 2011, 02:57 PM
I'm torn about this. I did not like the footage shown on the BBC of his bloodied body. However according to the BBC the Libyan people want to see it.

I also do not like the West's involvement in so many foreign countries, in particular Muslim countries. I think it gives out the wrong messages. Countries should be left to resolve their own issues unless they are threatening to invade.

More importantly, I worry for the people of Libya, Syria etc. What they get in place of the current regimes may be no better. 2 years ago a colleague went on a weeks tour of Libya and she loved it and thought the people were very friendly and far more polite than at home. I'm just not convinced that the West's fantasy of bringing Western culture to other countries is what is best.

This.

Ashi
Oct 21st, 2011, 03:24 PM
How much of this is true?

http://ianpereira.posterous.com/interesting-fact-about-libya

Brena
Oct 21st, 2011, 04:11 PM
How much of this is true?

http://ianpereira.posterous.com/interesting-fact-about-libya

What I know for sure is the following: my grandfather was one among hundreds (or even more) of Yugoslav civil engineers whom Gaddafi hired to build irrigation canals and other necessary infrastructure in Libya during the 60s and 70s. Remember that Yugoslavia was not a poor country at that time and that Gaddafi had to offer all these highly qualified people excellent conditions and high salaries in order to turn a poor desert country into a viable and organised economy and drag its citizens out of poverty and nomadic life. What I also know is that he gave students scholarships to study abroad, and many of them came to Yugoslavia which had quality educational system at the time.
Investing in his country's hitherto non-existent infrastructure and promoting education is not what I'd call ''stealing money from his own people''.
One of the things I'd really like to know is what will truly happen to ''Gaddafi's'' (Libyan, that is) money which was ''confiscated'' by Germany and the US among others... Now, that's pillaging if I've ever seen one.

gentenaire
Oct 21st, 2011, 05:28 PM
How much of this is true?

http://ianpereira.posterous.com/interesting-fact-about-libya

I visited Libya less than three years ago. Believe me, the people weren't rich! Lybia has lots of oil money that they can hand out (pretty much like Saudi Arabia), socialism is very easy that way. But still, I didn't get the impression that the people were seeing much of it. Our guide had a tooth ache. He was very grateful for the aspirin we gave him. The only cure for a tooth ache is to pull the tooth (without sedation). He had no access to a dentist.

I found the Libyan people to be very nice people and I honestly hope things will improve for the better. Lybia under Ghadafi was a dictatorship, but it was stable. The link above paints a picture of Libya that is far too positive. When you read Ghadafi's green book, you'll find that it's full of good ideas, some a little too ideological, unrealistic, but it shows that originally, Ghadafi must have had good intentions, he must have fully believed he'd improve things, that he could save Libya.

Ghadafi was your stereotypical dictator. He was worse than the biggest stereotype you can think of. If you used Libyan reality in a comic show, people would think it unbelievable and over the top. Everywhere there were pictures of the great leader. Everywhere there were huge tacky billboards with the number 39 on it (number of years he'd been in power) with colourful balloons and birthday candles. In some areas, you'd find a billboard with the number 38, colours faded, one billboard they must have forgotten that year. There were no advertising billboards, just the ones with Ghadafi or the number. We'd make fun of it but had to be careful. I took a picture of a Ghadafi picture and was warned to be careful. If anyone saw me take the picture, they would have taken my camera.

That the west let Ghadafi have his way was because at least Libya was stable. I'm sure there are quite a few western countries who're very relieved that he's dead and can't stand trial. Who knows what dirty secrets would have come out.

azdaja
Oct 21st, 2011, 06:32 PM
The link above paints a picture of Libya that is far too positive.
i think you missed the point of it even though it's written in huge phat letters there. i will sum it up for everyone who might have the same problem:

(...)Libya was INDEPENDENT! That is the real reason for the war in Libya!



He may be a dictator, but that is not the US problem(...)
i didn't follow the situation in libya and i really don't know that much about north africa in general, but it is a rule of thumb that this is the main reason for the intervention no matter where. generally if something like this happens i only think if positives will overweigh the negatives, but i don't know much about the situation to be able to tell.

he was one of the kind of dictators that dominated the decolonisation process when people had hopes of a different world which proved to be vain.

gentenaire
Oct 21st, 2011, 07:24 PM
i think you missed the point of it even though it's written in huge phat letters there. i will sum it up for everyone who might have the same problem:.

someone on the internet says in bold letters that this is the reason, therefore that's the reason. uh uh

just like so many Americans seem to miss the point that is was NATO that went to Libya, not the USA. It wasn't the US's decision, it was NATO's. So no, the real reason for the war in Libya was NOT the same as the reason for the Iraq war. The west had more to gain with Gadhafi still in power. It wasn't until he started shooting his own people and until it became clear that the stability was gone, that NATO decided to intervene.

The link did paint a far too positive picture, made it seem like Libya was the land of milk and honey. Free health care for everyone, sounds very nice if there's decent health care to begin with.

Apoleb
Oct 21st, 2011, 07:48 PM
someone on the internet says in bold letters that this is the reason, therefore that's the reason. uh uh

just like so many Americans seem to miss the point that is was NATO that went to Libya, not the USA. It wasn't the US's decision, it was NATO's. So no, the real reason for the war in Libya was NOT the same as the reason for the Iraq war. The west had more to gain with Gadhafi still in power. It wasn't until he started shooting his own people and until it became clear that the stability was gone, that NATO decided to intervene.

The link did paint a far too positive picture, made it seem like Libya was the land of milk and honey. Free health care for everyone, sounds very nice if there's decent health care to begin with.

I agree with the bold part.

Whatever. It seems the majority of the Libyan population is in support of his removal, and that's all that matters. Even then, I can't imagine how the removal of such a disgusting fool by his own people can ever be a "bad" thing, regardless of what happens next. The Libyan people have more at stake in their own destiny more than ever before. It takes some amount of cynicism to dismiss this.

This is a monumental achievement, no less. Let's not forget that this would never have happened if the brave civilians with no weapons didn't go to the streets in masses and were shot down by his air fighter. Just a few years ago no one could ever imagine that he, among all the other dictators, will be the one to go.

gentenaire
Oct 21st, 2011, 07:58 PM
Whatever. It seems the majority of the Libyan population is in support of his removal, and that's all that matters. Even then, I can't imagine how the removal of such a disgusting fool by his own people can ever be a "bad" thing, regardless of what happens next.

Exactly. It started from the people itself, it was the Libyan rebels who captured him, not some foreign forces. That's a huge difference compared to Iraq (and I can't help but wonder, if there'd never been an Iraq war, whether the Iraqi people would have stood up against Saddam after seeing Tunesia, Egypt, Libya oust their dictators?).

But after 42 years of dictatorship, it's not easy to come up with a stable government out of the blue (+ decent opposition parties). This'll take a very long time, if it all. All the new leaders will be novices, unexperienced.

Apoleb
Oct 21st, 2011, 08:12 PM
Exactly. It started from the people itself, it was the Libyan rebels who captured him, not some foreign forces. That's a huge difference compared to Iraq (and I can't help but wonder, if there'd never been an Iraq war, whether the Iraqi people would have stood up against Saddam after seeing Tunesia, Egypt, Libya oust their dictators?).

.

Most likely, but what is also very likely is that Iraq would have been the scene of one the bloodiest civil wars in the history of mankind. Shiites vs Sunnis vs Kurds with so much history and hatred and the full involvement of most of the vicious states in the world: Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Turkey and Israel with a sprinkle of Al Qaeda. :help: Definitely would have been Lebanon/Yugoslavia part 2. Despite what Iraq suffered with the US invasion, I think it could have been 100x times worse cause now there's a semblance of cooperation. So yes, no good story could have came out from Iraq regardless. It doesn't mean that the Iraqi war was justified, but maybe a "blessing in disguise".

fifty-fifty
Oct 21st, 2011, 08:33 PM
Why is this not on the news?

-maArEMfImc&feature=related


OtTkLVERlfk&feature=related

azdaja
Oct 21st, 2011, 08:33 PM
someone on the internet says in bold letters that this is the reason, therefore that's the reason. uh uh
the main point remains - you missed the point of what that someone wanted to say. uh, uh. and yes, what that person says is the reason. it is pretty much laughable to think that people who courted this dictator until a few months ago are now there because of democracy. no need for bold letters to understand that.

like i said, i have no idea how this will turn out to be. i also don't think it's a bad thing he's gone. but the same thing can be said about saddam hussein. it depends on what comes next.

Ferg
Oct 21st, 2011, 08:56 PM
How easily people seem to gloss over the fact he supported international terrorism and probably killed thousends of dissidents over the years. The man was crazy, but apparently because he developed Libya in some manner he should be given a pardon? The majority wanted him gone and they did it. He got what was coming to him. One story that sticks out to me is reading about some family whose 12 year old son disappeared, presumed murdered for being found near some anti-Gadaffi graffiti. But apparently stories like that are ok as long as he isnt causing trouble to the West.

Apoleb
Oct 21st, 2011, 08:59 PM
the main point remains - you missed the point of what that someone wanted to say. .

No you missed the point of that article. The poster wants us to believe that Qaddafi was a lot of good for Libya, otherwise he wouldn't have lengthily recited his "achievements". He also makes it seem that this is America's war, which is entirely false.

The Libyan people lead this. And that's the bottom point. And :lol: @ "Libya was independent" with the big bold and font. Yeah, the Libyan people were so independent.

gentenaire
Oct 21st, 2011, 09:22 PM
No you missed the point of that article. The poster wants us to believe that Qaddafi was a lot of good for Libya, otherwise he wouldn't have lengthily recited his "achievements". He also makes it seem that this is America's war, which is entirely false.

The Libyan people lead this. And that's the bottom point. And :lol: @ "Libya was independent" with the big bold and font. Yeah, the Libyan people were so independent.

You say it so much better than I could.

azdaja
Oct 22nd, 2011, 09:41 AM
No you missed the point of that article. The poster wants us to believe that Qaddafi was a lot of good for Libya, otherwise he wouldn't have lengthily recited his "achievements". He also makes it seem that this is America's war, which is entirely false.

The Libyan people lead this. And that's the bottom point. And :lol: @ "Libya was independent" with the big bold and font. Yeah, the Libyan people were so independent.
look, i know a lot about the kind of argument presented in that article and i know that plenty of people go just for that little part. the article says clearly that libya was dictatorship, so there is no trace of the claim that libyan people were independent. it says that the country - the regime - was independent which is correct (though i'd describe it more as simply disobedient in its relation to those who ended up bombing the country). that is the main point of the article. the "achievements" were listed simply because plenty of morons picture dictatorships like oceania from george orwell's "1984", so it needs to be explained that dictators do something to buy the consent of the people in their countries and do not simply resort to the police and thought control. you and gentenaire did not understand the article, period.

disobedience or "independence" is the reason why some dictatorships are treated differently from others. some will get weapons in order to crack down on their own people from the very countries that bombed libya supposedly in order to bring democracy there. that doesn't mean that this won't bring any good. it can't be bad that a dictator is gone, the question is what comes next. that's where my understanding of the situation ceases to be sufficient in order to form an opinion.

Cajka
Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:00 PM
He also makes it seem that this is America's war, which is entirely false.


Entirely? I'm sorry, but how can you even say that?! Why is America involved in this case then?

Ferg
Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:05 PM
Entirely? I'm sorry, but how can you even say that?! Why is America involved in this case then?

Involvement does not equal 'their war'. Im sure he means people are comparing this to the scale of their involvement for example in Iraq or Afghanistan which is a ridiculous comparison. The US has been involved very little in Libya, it was mainly France and Britain pushing for NATO intervention, to say its 'their war' is silly.

Cajka
Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:15 PM
Involvement does not equal 'their war'. Im sure he means people are comparing this to the scale of their involvement for example in Iraq or Afghanistan which is a ridiculous comparison. The US has been involved very little in Libya, it was mainly France and Britain pushing for NATO intervention, to say its 'their war' is silly.

I marked the word entirely. My main question is: Why is USA, UK or any other country involved in the civil war? Is it because they want to provide happiness and well-being in the world? Or there are some other interests involved?

Boreas
Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:46 PM
I marked the word entirely. My main question is: Why is USA, UK or any other country involved in the civil war? Is it because they want to provide happiness and well-being in the world? Or there are some other interests involved?

duh:facepalm:
We're talking about the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama here. Of course it's for the sake of happiness and well being of the Libyans. That's the motto of the Material World we live in.:shrug: Peace, happiness, harmony in every corner of the World!

Dani12
Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:48 PM
duh:facepalm:
We're talking about the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama here. Of course it's for the sake of happiness and well being of the Libyans. That's the motto of the Material World we live in.:shrug: Peace, happiness, harmony in every corner of the World!

I'm thinking this is sarcasm....but I'm not entirely sure :lol:

Cajka
Oct 22nd, 2011, 12:59 PM
I'm thinking this is sarcasm....but I'm not entirely sure :lol:

I'm entirely sure it is. :spit: Otherwise he/she wouldn't say "material" world.

gentenaire
Oct 22nd, 2011, 03:01 PM
Entirely? I'm sorry, but how can you even say that?! Why is America involved in this case then?

Because the US is part of NATO.

It wasn't a case of the US suddenly deciding it didn't like the fact that Libya was independent (like that bollocks website claims). It wasn't a case of NATO suddenly deciding, "hey, why not have a go at Libya since we don't like them?". It wasn't a case of, "hey, lets get that Libyan oil". It wasn't a case of the US (or NATO) occupying Libya in order to get rid of Gadhafi.

The war wasn't started by NATO, it wasn't started by the US (unlike the Iraq war).

It all started when the Libyan people, after seeing Tunesians and Egyptians successfully overthrow their dictators, decided to stand up to Gadhafi. But unlike Mubarak and Ben Ali, Gadhafi would not resign. He decided to fight to the end, Gadhafi decided it would come down to a civil war, he started shooting his own people. And that's when NATO, and therefore the US also, decided to intervene. Had Mubarak or Ben Ali decided to shoot their own people, to turn it into a war, NATO would have intervened in those countries as well.

Apoleb
Oct 22nd, 2011, 03:23 PM
Entirely? I'm sorry, but how can you even say that?! Why is America involved in this case then?

So are we going to argue semantics now? Was it entirely their war or they had 0.005% share in it? I guess if it's latter, it's not "entirely" their war.

It's very clear that the Libyan people lead the revolution against him, that Gaddafi decided to use all his power against a civilian population probably even if it means that he will destroy Benghazi, and that a Libyan military opposition to him was well underway. These facts mean that the war did not happen out of US intervention. That stupid article complete ignores these facts, to make it seem as if the war happened primarily out of US intentions.

The thing is it's obvious that many of those protesters don't give a shit about the Libyan people. They are more interested in their wacky theories like the one from the article posted.

As for the reason for US and NATO intervention, the official reason should not be dismissed. Can they also have ulterior motives, like propping up someone they like? Could be. But there was also a real and severe danger of a mass murder on a huge scale in Benghazi if they didn't intervene. The guy is crazy, we know that - and he would have done anything to stay in power. He didn't shy from expressing his intentions. And a whole city was determined to rebel against him.

Beat
Oct 22nd, 2011, 04:24 PM
i know i shouldn't be happy about a man's death, but in this case it's very hard not to be.

Ghadafi led the country of Libya to be the richest country in Africa,I feel sad for Libya people.

yeah, forget about his crimes against humanity as long as the riches came flooding in, right?
it's not like the people of lybia saw much of that wealth anyway.

Cajka
Oct 22nd, 2011, 04:41 PM
So are we going to argue semantics now? Was it entirely their war or they had 0.005% share in it? I guess if it's latter, it's not "entirely" their war.

It's very clear that the Libyan people lead the revolution against him, that Gaddafi decided to use all his power against a civilian population probably even if it means that he will destroy Benghazi, and that a Libyan military opposition to him was well underway. These facts mean that the war did not happen out of US intervention. That stupid article complete ignores these facts, to make it seem as if the war happened primarily out of US intentions.

The thing is it's obvious that many of those protesters don't give a shit about the Libyan people. They are more interested in their wacky theories like the one from the article posted.

As for the reason for US and NATO intervention, the official reason should not be dismissed. Can they also have ulterior motives, like propping up someone they like? Could be. But there was also a real and severe danger of a mass murder on a huge scale in Benghazi if they didn't intervene. The guy is crazy, we know that - and he would have done anything to stay in power. He didn't shy from expressing his intentions. And a whole city was determined to rebel against him.

If there is someone's interest involved there, then it's not a civil war anymore.
How did the war start, why did the war start...? Do you really think that we know those things? Why did the war start now and not 10 years ago? There are too many questions that can not be answered just like that. The media manipulation has never been so powerful like it is now, I'm surprised to see that so many people thing they know what was happening in Lybia. Say that I'm paranoid, if you want, but it amazes me how people believe in everything written in newspapers. The armed rebels who were making a complete mess are completely other subject. How did they get the arms in the first place, by the way?

Just for the record, I'm not Gadaffi's supporter, but I have my reasons to be skeptical about the intentions of the western countries not only in this case. I know that providing peace and happiness is definitely what NATO does. :awww: I witnessed that. During their action "Merciful Angel" in Serbia, many innocent people were killed, there were bombings of buses, hospitals, Chinese embassy, bridges, trains... NATO :worship: They did it with the best intentions, it's clear. If they didn't do it, you and me wouldn't be smartassing atm, 'cause the Serbian nationalists were planing to summon a comet to kill us all.

gentenaire
Oct 22nd, 2011, 05:22 PM
How did the war start, why did the war start...? Do you really think that we know those things? Why did the war start now and not 10 years ago?

It's Tunesia and Egypt that triggered it. It's a chain reaction.
And those revolutions were in a way triggered by social media, a large young population that is unemployed, a population that thanks to social media knows what happens in the rest of the world.

azdaja
Oct 22nd, 2011, 05:26 PM
Had Mubarak or Ben Ali decided to shoot their own people, to turn it into a war, NATO would have intervened in those countries as well.
this is a very naive opinion. what happened in bahrain again?

It's very clear that the Libyan people lead the revolution against him, that Gaddafi decided to use all his power against a civilian population probably even if it means that he will destroy Benghazi, and that a Libyan military opposition to him was well underway. These facts mean that the war did not happen out of US intervention. That stupid article complete ignores these facts, to make it seem as if the war happened primarily out of US intentions.
and where does that article say this? it simply says that nato involvement has nothing to do with concerns for democracy which is correct. it doesn't matter who started the war and who got involved later, but why.

having said that it's obvious that with or without nato involvement there would have been a civil war and frankly i think the outcome would have been similar. the intervention probably only gives the us some leverage over the situation.

Cajka
Oct 22nd, 2011, 05:38 PM
and where does that article say this? it simply says that nato involvement has nothing to do with concerns for democracy which is correct. it doesn't matter who started the war and who got involved later, but why.


That's my point too.

And there are some things more I didn't mention. Gadhafi was a villain. He had an ideology, as some posters mentioned on previous pages, but it corrupted, which is not unusual. So, he was a villain. But, why are other villains portrayed as heroes in this case?

And why is everybody so convinced that the things will be better now? People in Libya were Gadhafi's slaves, now they'll be someone else's slave, unfortunately, that's how it works.

ys
Oct 22nd, 2011, 05:47 PM
Whatever. It seems the majority of the Libyan population is in support of his removal, and that's all that matters. Even then, I can't imagine how the removal of such a disgusting fool by his own people can ever be a "bad" thing, regardless of what happens next.

You never know. Iraq's economy and living standards are still far below the Saddam's levels, and what is gong to happen there once US army is out is unclear. Generally, in an under-developed country a central and stable control of wealth distribution is often preferable to a sequence of chaotic changes - as any such country needs an established elite. Libya still was the most prosperous country of Africa. Whether the same levels of prosperity is going to be achieved there within even a generation remains to be seen.
What we know for now is that a belt of political stability in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia was almost completely replaced - with a belt of political volatility. Believe it or not - the final result of this transformation is far from being settled and it is entirely possible that the final result would make people miss likes of Kaddafi.. And it is not over yet. Further destabilization of Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, and , most importantly, Saudi Arabia is a clear possibility. Consequences - not only for Israel, but also for Europe and US are - are your guess is as good as mine. In politics, having a predictable enemy is far from being the worst case situation.

azdaja
Oct 22nd, 2011, 06:04 PM
And why is everybody so convinced that the things will be better now? People in Libya were Gadhafi's slaves, now they'll be someone else's slave, unfortunately, that's how it works.
the people of libya were not slaves under qaddafi. he had his own ideas about how to develop his country and he understood he needed to develop his country's human potential. and i don't think people should be seeing the situation in black and white. when a change happens there are positives and negatives, always. we are yet to see if the positives will overweigh the negatives in the case of libya. or in the case of other arab revolutions indeed. as long as the people have more say in what's happening things can't be too bad. overall i think things are moving in the right direction in north africa and libya. but that's a very uninformed opinion since i don't know much about the region and didn't follow the situation closely.

gentenaire
Oct 22nd, 2011, 06:55 PM
Libya still was the most prosperous country of Africa.

Considering the continent is Africa, this means very little. With the amount of oil money Libya has, it could have been ten times more prosperous.

ys
Oct 22nd, 2011, 07:05 PM
Considering the continent is Africa, this means very little. With the amount of oil money Libya has, it could have been ten times more prosperous.

It can well end up being ten times ... less. :lol:
Chaos and vacuum of power - perfect ground for thieves and corruption.

gentenaire
Oct 22nd, 2011, 07:17 PM
It can well end up being ten times ... less. :lol:
Chaos and vacuum of power - perfect ground for thieves and corruption.

It could definitely become worse. But let's hope not.
This doesn't mean that it was good before.

Ferg
Oct 22nd, 2011, 08:08 PM
It can well end up being ten times ... less. :lol:
Chaos and vacuum of power - perfect ground for thieves and corruption.

Like Gadaffi wasnt a thief or corrupt? :lol: I read somewhere he has a predicted 125 billion stashed away in acounts. Please dont act as though all the oil money went to good use by Gadaffi and now that the regime is gone it will go missing due to all these 'corrupt' new government forces, that just not the case.

ys
Oct 22nd, 2011, 08:22 PM
Like Gadaffi wasnt a thief or corrupt? :lol:


Oh, yes, he was..

I read somewhere he has a predicted 125 billion stashed away in accounts.


Is "hearsay" our level of discussion here?

Of course, he got some, yet he didn't spend all that much of a money on himself. When you'll get real thieves in power, petromoney will be going away like water through the sand, tracelessly and irreversibly.

Was Kaddafi tyrant? Bloody oppressive tyrant? OF course , he was. Yet, very few of those folks are really obsessed with stealing a lot from their people. Not really. As a rule they are in a way genuinely caring about their people and trying to deliver comfort and prosperity. In exchange, of course, for monopolizing and keeping the power for themselves. In terms of giving their people decent living standards, they are not the worst possible type of folks. In fact , you won't name a single oil-rich Arab prosperous country that would not have had a similar type of rule. And when you go away to "democratic" rule, there, of course, you are getting in power some folks who know that they might not be here for a long, and therefore they focus primarily on stealing. And those who replace them eventually by using populist appeal, they will mostly end up focused on stealing as well. At the end you'll realize that absolutism is not as bad as it seems :)

*JR*
Oct 22nd, 2011, 09:00 PM
yeah, forget about his crimes against humanity as long as the riches came flooding in, right?
it's not like the people of lybia saw much of that wealth anyway.

True, a lot of it was in Suisse banks, until his son Hannibal was arrested there for beating up a maid; Gadhaffi then proposed splitting SUI up between GER, FRA, and ITA. :devil:

Cajka
Oct 23rd, 2011, 01:31 AM
the people of libya were not slaves under qaddafi. he had his own ideas about how to develop his country and he understood he needed to develop his country's human potential. and i don't think people should be seeing the situation in black and white. when a change happens there are positives and negatives, always. we are yet to see if the positives will overweigh the negatives in the case of libya. or in the case of other arab revolutions indeed. as long as the people have more say in what's happening things can't be too bad. overall i think things are moving in the right direction in north africa and libya. but that's a very uninformed opinion since i don't know much about the region and didn't follow the situation closely.

I'm sorry, but I don't see positive things happening there. There are some things that are not coincidences. Suddenly all the countries with a lot of oil have some problems that only NATO and western countries can solve. Wow! What a coincidence! I hope that those who think that this is a good thing are just naive. Otherwise, it's simply "live and let die" thing. Which would be really sad.

ivanban
Oct 23rd, 2011, 09:41 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see positive things happening there. There are some things that are not coincidences. Suddenly all the countries with a lot of oil have some problems that only NATO and western countries can solve. Wow! What a coincidence! I hope that those who think that this is a good thing are just naive. Otherwise, it's simply "live and let die" thing. Which would be really sad.

THIS!

Beat
Oct 23rd, 2011, 12:48 PM
the people of libya were not slaves under qaddafi. he had his own ideas about how to develop his country and he understood he needed to develop his country's human potential.

Was Kaddafi tyrant? Bloody oppressive tyrant? OF course , he was. Yet, very few of those folks are really obsessed with stealing a lot from their people. Not really. As a rule they are in a way genuinely caring about their people and trying to deliver comfort and prosperity.

wow, just wow ... how can you be a "bloody oppressive tyrant" and at the same time "genuinely care" for your people? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. gadhafi tried to deliver comfort and prosperity? well, he failed miserably then.

what's the point of economic success anyway if doesn't bring your country freedom, democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, a functioning healthcare? ghadafi, his family and his entourage were inconceivably rich - and he only cared about his people in theory.

ivanban
Oct 23rd, 2011, 01:20 PM
wow, just wow ... how can you be a "bloody oppressive tyrant" and at the same time "genuinely care" for your people? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. gadhafi tried to deliver comfort and prosperity? well, he failed miserably then.

what's the point of economic success anyway if doesn't bring your country freedom, democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, a functioning healthcare? ghadafi, his family and his entourage were inconceivably rich - and he only cared about his people in theory.

Do we have now any of that in countries where there was foreign "intervention"?! :confused:

HippityHop
Oct 23rd, 2011, 01:25 PM
wow, just wow ... how can you be a "bloody oppressive tyrant" and at the same time "genuinely care" for your people? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. gadhafi tried to deliver comfort and prosperity? well, he failed miserably then.

what's the point of economic success anyway if doesn't bring your country freedom, democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, a functioning healthcare? ghadafi, his family and his entourage were inconceivably rich - and he only cared about his people in theory.

All of these are wonderful ideas but not everybody in the world subscribes to them for other people. Some societies don't believe that cultural diversity in particular is necessarily a good thing. And most people want human rights for themselves but that doesn't mean that they want them for others.

Beat
Oct 23rd, 2011, 02:10 PM
Do we have now any of that in countries where there was foreign "intervention"?! :confused:

i wasn't commenting on the NATO intervention (i'm torn regarding that question), just on those posts that try to cast gadhafi in a perversely positive light.

ys
Oct 23rd, 2011, 08:38 PM
Turns out, chances are Kaddafi's son was also executed while already in captivity.
http://news.yahoo.com/gaddafis-son-shown-speaking-libya-captors-tv-180248868.html

And the body of Jabr, his military commander was seen with evidence of being shot at pointblank.
http://news.yahoo.com/clues-gaddafis-death-concealed-public-view-011843936.html

Looks like murderers, only much more savage and beasty ones, replaced other murderers. Not sure why anyone is so excited about it.

And new Libyan rulers already talking about Sharia Law becoming a supreme foundation of country's legal system, replacing mostly secular Kaddafi's system.

Sammo
Oct 23rd, 2011, 08:46 PM
When I saw those guys taking photos of his body and laughing and showing him their fingers... Pathetic, really. But yeah I guess the world's a bit better place now.

Sammo
Oct 23rd, 2011, 08:47 PM
Turns out, chances are Kaddafi's son was also executed while already in captivity.
http://news.yahoo.com/gaddafis-son-shown-speaking-libya-captors-tv-180248868.html

And the body of Jabr, his military commander was seen with evidence of being shot at pointblank.
http://news.yahoo.com/clues-gaddafis-death-concealed-public-view-011843936.html

Looks like murderers, only much more savage and beasty ones, replaced other murderers. Not sure why anyone is so excited about it.

And new Libyan rulers already talking about Sharia Law becoming a supreme foundation of country's legal system, replacing mostly secular Kaddafi's system.


Exactly.

Ferg
Oct 23rd, 2011, 09:04 PM
So basically murdering the men who bombed and destroyed your city, planning to raze it to the ground (the regiments who got Gadaffi were Misratan) makes you worse than them who murdered thousands in cold blood and would have done the same to Benghazi and other rebelling cities to remain in power? I dont understand that logic. The execution of 3 monsters suddenly makes the entire rebel force and NTC into even more evil figures? The Misratans were looking for revenge and got it. Hes finished, theres no chance of his former loyal supporters to have a figure to rally around, its over. While his death was gruesome, the reasons were totally understandable.

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2011, 09:32 PM
So basically murdering the men who bombed and destroyed your city, planning to raze it to the ground (the regiments who got Gadaffi were Misratan) makes you worse than them who murdered thousands in cold blood and would have done the same to Benghazi and other rebelling cities to remain in power? I dont understand that logic. The execution of 3 monsters suddenly makes the entire rebel force and NTC into even more evil figures? The Misratans were looking for revenge and got it. Hes finished, theres no chance of his former loyal supporters to have a figure to rally around, its over. While his death was gruesome, the reasons were totally understandable.

I wouldn't really bother with race monger ys (who argued at one point that the Arab revolutions have to planned by an outside force that we don't know about, cause Arab people are not capable of doing something like this. :rolls: - no I'm not making that up) and Troll supreme Sammo.

ys
Oct 23rd, 2011, 09:40 PM
So basically murdering the men who bombed and destroyed your city, planning to raze it to the ground (the regiments who got Gadaffi were Misratan) makes you worse than them?.

Yes, in a way worse. I don't know the exact resume of Kaddafis, but ordering to quell a rebellion at all costs is war crime, but that's just a political order. Executing a unarmed person standing in front of you takes way more than that, it is a murderous pathology.

We've been told that rebels are "doctors, engineers, teachers" who took up arms against the tyrant. Do any of those people on the videos look like doctors , engineers or teachers to you? They look to me as savagery, illiterate mob of religiously fanatical animals with no respect to human life whatsoever and with a well acquired taste for power of being armed and armed murder of unarmed. A taste that - history of countries such Afghanistan, suggests, is nearly impossible to shed. So the best is yet to come.

ys
Oct 23rd, 2011, 09:42 PM
I wouldn't really bother with race monger ys (who argued at one point that the Arab revolutions have to planned by an outside force that we don't know about, cause Arab people are not capable of doing something like this. :rolls: - no I'm not making that up) and Troll supreme Sammo.

Again, as always personal attacks nullify whatever point you tried to make. You lose.

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2011, 09:49 PM
Again, as always personal attacks nullify whatever point you tried to make. You lose.

I wouldn't even bother making a point addressed to you. However, it's worth telling other posters what they are dealing with, so maybe they don't waste their time. Your racial biases are fairly clear to anyone, but not only that - they are absurd and ridiculous to the point of so-called loss of touch with reality. Have you figured out yet what is this strong power that no one is aware of that has managed to control the Arab masses? :lol::lol:

ys
Oct 23rd, 2011, 10:07 PM
I wouldn't even bother making a point addressed to you. However, it's worth telling other posters what they are dealing with, so maybe they don't waste their time.

More than anything else it only serves as a reminder to others that lying, fabricating, slandering and personal attacks is your way for others to enjoy when dealing with you. Good reminder.

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2011, 10:17 PM
More than anything else it only serves as a reminder to others that lying, fabricating, slandering and personal attacks is your way for others to enjoy when dealing with you. Good reminder.

Please ys. I obviously hit a nerve You know what you believe in. I'll let other people judge if what I said is true or not, if it's slander or not.

The evidence:


Do you really believe in a concerted popular uprising in a number of stable Islamic autocracies happening just on its own? Guaranteed, someone - strong and intelligent and with unclear agenda - is behind it. Egypt in turmoil, Yemen same, Tunisia as well, Jordan also got problems. All our allies. At the same time. Coincidence?
Out of global forces .. this force is not US, not Europeans, not Russia, not China. I am sure Iran is not interested too.
There are two local players - Israel and Turkey - capable of such game, but I doubt they would be interested. And there is one international player. Called Al Qaeda. I don't know of any others. Maybe it is a force we haven't heard of yet?

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=19116659&postcount=60

This post speaks a lot about your beliefs and where you're coming from. As I said, not only you clearly harbor strong racist feelings, but they are so absurd, to the point of putting your on equivalence with those who claim 911 was planned by the US government. So have you figured out this "force" or are you still looking?

ys
Oct 23rd, 2011, 10:23 PM
This post speaks a lot about your beliefs and where you're coming from. As I said, not only you clearly harbor strong racist feelings, but they are so absurd, to the point of putting your on equivalence with those who claim 911 was planned by the US government. So have you figured out this "force" or are you still looking?

This is just your opinion, and it is no longer of any interest to me. When someone systematically resorts to personal attacks on these boards , I can't but consider them as intellectually inferior beings, not capable of civilized discussion.

Did we talk about me here? No. We talked about certain situation unrelated to many of us. What was a point of bringing personal matters into this? What was that itch in your butt that made you do that? Do you not have enough arguments on the matter? Too bad.

Apoleb
Oct 23rd, 2011, 10:27 PM
It's not personal at all. It just puts your opinion on Qaddafi's murder in the correct context of your wider beliefs. i.e racism driven to completely delusion. Ferg has already done a good job of responding to whatever "points" you made in this thread.

tennisbear7
Oct 24th, 2011, 12:20 AM
It's really easy for the West to label Gaddafi's death as a potential war crime, etc. but this was a man who committed unspeakable terrors on his own people for four decades. It is really so hard for us to understand that some may have acted with passion rather than reason when Gaddafi was caught?

The amount of Western hypocrisy is just amazing. You'll call for an investigation for the alleged murder of a tyrant, but if your own forces carpet bomb a city in Afghanistan or treat people like you do in Abu Ghraib, you'll try to cover it up and blame Wikileaks for providing evidence of your own war crimes.

ys
Oct 24th, 2011, 01:51 AM
It's really easy for the West to label Gaddafi's death as a potential war crime, etc. but this was a man who committed unspeakable terrors on his own people for four decades. It is really so hard for us to understand that some may have acted with passion rather than reason when Gaddafi was caught?

Is it really hard to see that it was a 70 yo old man, being unarmed? If a street gang style murder of 70 yo unarmed man - whoever he is - by dozens of young men does not sound appalling to you .. then I am sorry .. our concept of morality might as well lay in different dimensions, I suppose.

Cajka
Oct 24th, 2011, 03:23 AM
It's Tunesia and Egypt that triggered it. It's a chain reaction.
And those revolutions were in a way triggered by social media, a large young population that is unemployed, a population that thanks to social media knows what happens in the rest of the world.

OK, I'm a young, educated person who is unemployed and lives in Serbia. I'm not the only one. There are many people who have a same problem here. I guess that there are so many people who want the things to become better, but we won't start a civil war. Anyway, if the people from any country want to start a civil war, they need arms, don't they? How did the rebels in Libya get the arms? As soon as we answer that question, we will have the answers to other questions. Those questions are: How did the war start there and was it only a civil war ever? And I'm no sure if it's appropriate to compare this to what happened in Tunesia and Egypt.

Boreas
Oct 24th, 2011, 05:40 AM
The saying - Better the devil you know than the angel you don't , applies here.

With Gaddafi the Libyans at least knew what they had - and it was not that bad as many people here are trying to make. For the generation of people who fought this war nothing will change with Gaddafi's dead. I'm certain that this generation has settled for a very bumpy road through the ruins of their own country. And no one can guarantee them, that what they've just done will ever result in anything positive other than the death of a tyran.

why was it necessary to kill a 70 yo guy, with one leg basically in grave already, when 40 years during his Reign of terror!!1!1 nothing has been done to help the Libyans. Not only that - the West actually collaborated with Gaddafi on many levels of Economy, foreign affairs etc.

M.S.F
Oct 24th, 2011, 07:37 AM
Why do people feel sorry for Gaddafi?
He was mentally disturbed, it was an embarrassment to see him hold the most important position in the country.
After his speech and his son Saif speech at the begining of the revolution we should not blame the Libyans for their actions.
Libya is a wealthy country that should have been way better than what it is during Gaddafi rule.
At the end, Libyans know it better than us.

azdaja
Oct 24th, 2011, 08:20 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see positive things happening there. There are some things that are not coincidences. Suddenly all the countries with a lot of oil have some problems that only NATO and western countries can solve. Wow! What a coincidence! I hope that those who think that this is a good thing are just naive. Otherwise, it's simply "live and let die" thing. Which would be really sad.
i don't know. something good can come out of anything.

wow, just wow ... how can you be a "bloody oppressive tyrant" and at the same time "genuinely care" for your people? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. gadhafi tried to deliver comfort and prosperity? well, he failed miserably then.

what's the point of economic success anyway if doesn't bring your country freedom, democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, a functioning healthcare? ghadafi, his family and his entourage were inconceivably rich - and he only cared about his people in theory.
first, i object to being quoted together with ys and second, your post is extremelly shallow. you seem to be precisely one of those people who don't understand authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, so sometimes people need to explain to you that yes, even dictators do something to develop their countries. if only because a more developed country is more powerful which in turn makes them more powerful.

i could write an entire book about post-colonial regimes in the third world who believed in a different model for development (inspired in part by the soviet union) which included authoritarian rule. i do not say that was a good idea. but there were plenty of regimes who simply continued exploitation of their countries, stealing money from their people and doing almost nothing for them. such regimes were widespread in latin america where elites were more white and racist towards their own people, for example. get the difference? and don't be silly about "genuinely caring", it's not like politicians in democratic countries do either.

and it seems to me that people have completely forgotten about colonialism and stuff. it's not simply about democracy vs tyranny.

each way, i just refuse to accept that people who oppose this war are dismissed as "stupid" or as defenders of qaddafi.

Ashi
Oct 24th, 2011, 08:44 AM
each way, i just refuse to accept that people who oppose this war are dismissed as "stupid" or as defenders of qaddafi.

Thank you.

Ferg
Oct 24th, 2011, 09:50 AM
OK, I'm a young, educated person who is unemployed and lives in Serbia. I'm not the only one. There are many people who have a same problem here. I guess that there are so many people who want the things to become better, but we won't start a civil war. Anyway, if the people from any country want to start a civil war, they need arms, don't they? How did the rebels in Libya get the arms? As soon as we answer that question, we will have the answers to other questions. Those questions are: How did the war start there and was it only a civil war ever? And I'm no sure if it's appropriate to compare this to what happened in Tunesia and Egypt.

They got most of their arms from the several army factions that defected to their side in the early stages. Other than that, they were awfully armed at the start, and as the war progressed and they took more land, they found many weapons from the arms dumps that Gadaffis forces left behind them when they were fleeing. The only difference here rather than Tunisia and Egypt here is that Gadaffi was not prepared to stand down despite overwhelming public opinion and would resort to mass murder to do stay, the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt were not prepared to do that.

But I suppose it was ok for Gadaffi to carry out mass murder, as apparently "he wasnt all that bad" :rolleyes: Boreas :facepalm:

Boreas
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:03 AM
Don't you facepalm at me when the irony of this thread is in you acting a smartass. And distorting my words only makes you look desperate.

IT - the situation, the regime, the overall picture of Libya was not that bad that it required such drastic surges.

Ferg
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:18 AM
Yeah, a regime that murders children for being near anti-Gadaffi graffiti is clearly acceptable.

Boreas
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:33 AM
Please do provide the link to that story. Shockingly I must've missed it in our Western media.

Apoleb
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:33 AM
I just love it how so many posters here like know better than the Libyan people themselves. I suppose it was perfectly ok to let Qaddafi loose on Benghazi which would have happened almost certainly. :facepalm: Boreas, you should have moved to Libya and told us how much you loved it.

The Libyan people wanted to get themselves rid of a crazy dinosaur, but no the world should have watched as Qaddafi's murderous insanity got in full display to get rid the country of the "rats" and the "drug addicts" who dared to tell him go after 42 years of power, torture and the widest abuses of human rights. Why? Because it wasn't that bad. Those Libyan idiots should have just accepted their destiny.

Ferg
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:46 AM
Please do provide the link to that story. Shockingly I must've missed it in our Western media.

Dont have the link, it happened several months ago in Tripoli before the city fell. His security forces tok away a 12 year old several weeks previously for the crime of being seen near graffiti. His family heard nothing back and seeing what the loyalist forces were doing (murdering hundreds of prisoners in cold blood) its not that hard to imagine his fate. But apparently the regime is ok to do that right? Cus murdering a crazy old dictator who tried to raze cities to the ground is worse than murdering a child found near grafitti. Those goddarned rebels!!

Ferg
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:49 AM
I just love it how so many posters here like know better than the Libyan people themselves. I suppose it was perfectly ok to let Qaddafi loose on Benghazi which would have happened almost certainly. :facepalm: Boreas, you should have moved to Libya and told us how much you loved it.

The Libyan people wanted to get themselves rid of a crazy dinosaur, but no the world should have watched as Qaddafi's murderous insanity got in full display to get rid the country of the "rats" and the "drug addicts" who dared to tell him go after 42 years of power, torture and the widest abuses of human rights. Why? Because it wasn't that bad. Those Libyan idiots should have just accepted their destiny.

Exactly :lol: Its the one thing I dont understand, apprently all these people here know for a fact that living under Gadaffi was fine? Were they living in Libya? Oh no, the people as a whole must have just decided for a change of living and decided to take out a kindly old man, it couldnt have had anything to do with him being a murderous tyrant.

As it was said in Team America, Im just waiting for one of them to say "Last year I went to Libya. Before the rebels showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!"

Boreas
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:57 AM
What they had prior to Gaddafi's death - was a relatively stable, developing country with a questionable and possibly insane leader.

What they're having now and very likely will be having for quite a while - is a country in ruins, with no clear vision, no leadership and their natural resources and goods up for grabs.

Apoleb
Oct 24th, 2011, 11:06 AM
Exactly :lol: Its the one thing I dont understand, apprently all these people here know for a fact that living under Gadaffi was fine? Were they living in Libya? Oh no, the people as a whole must have just decided for a change of living and decided to take out a kindly old man, it couldnt have had anything to do with him being a murderous tyrant.

As it was said in Team America, Im just waiting for one of them to say "Last year I went to Libya. Before the rebels showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles!"

I will also stress again how the issue of an imminent mass murder on a huge scale (Darfur, Srebenica, who knows maybe worse) is ignored by the "skeptics". I'm pretty sure if the NATO didn't intervene and something like this happened, the same people will be giving NATO and the West hell for not intervening and calling them hypocrites..etc, for not ousting their "friend" Qaddafi.

What they had prior to Gaddafi's death - was a relatively stable, developing country with a questionable and possibly insane leader.

What they're having now and very likely will be having for quite a while - is a country in ruins, with no clear vision, no leadership and their natural resources and goods up for grabs.

Yeah, it didn't matter that they were complete oppressed. But, hey, you do know better than Libyans themselves.

Boreas
Oct 24th, 2011, 11:13 AM
I'm just worried for the Libyans that killing Gaddafi might end up being a Sisyphean task - with the minuses outweighing the pluses.

Pasta-Na
Oct 24th, 2011, 11:25 AM
oil :o

tennisbear7
Oct 24th, 2011, 11:54 AM
Is it really hard to see that it was a 70 yo old man, being unarmed? If a street gang style murder of 70 yo unarmed man - whoever he is - by dozens of young men does not sound appalling to you .. then I am sorry .. our concept of morality might as well lay in different dimensions, I suppose.

To be sure, I do not condone what happened to Gaddafi. But I understand why he was killed.

Just like I understand the frustration which fuels terrorism against the US, so I guess I am a terrorist. :lol::help:

Danči Dementia
Oct 24th, 2011, 12:59 PM
I would have prefered if Qaddafi had been captured alive (or should I say kept alive?)

This strikes me with such a different feeling from the Tunisya and Egypt´s revolutions. In there we saw the people rising and winning, in here the rebels started the rise, rebels that happened to be the ones that helped Irak to fight the war, I really think it’s unclear how many civilian support they had, at the beginning very few of it was being shown, it started developing as the confict was.
The rebels have a non secular state in mind, they want the Sharia, they want no western ideals of government, they want their own, is NATO going to allow them to do so?? I really don´t think so, which brings me to doubt (among other things) the reasons behind this intervention. What is going to happen when the rebels realize they´re not going to have it their way?

Qaddafi started murdering his people left and right, yes crazy motherfucker, but to put an example, isn´t al-Assad doing the exact same thing?? Why aren´t they doing something in Siria?? Are they going to let assassinations of thousands of civilians happen day after day there?? They´re not going to help the population´s gutsy fight to get rid of the leader they don´t want, but did help a bunch of rebels that want a non secular state and that basically are against the west´s ideals of democracy, freedom and whatever.

Qaddafi has been oppressing his people for a long time now, what about the Lockerbie thing?? Why has nothing happened until now then?? Qaddafi was a “friend” with the west, I remember him saying he was going to open his mouth and talk what he knows, come on wikileaks help us there :oh:

Btw, does anyone knows if the Lybian oil is “exclusively” national?? I really wouldn´t be surprised if on the run we find out that now most of it belongs to British Petroleum.;):p

All I see coming is another marionette type of goverment, with a lot of foreign rights on Lybia´s natural resources in case they don´t have it already, and maybe a further expansion of the conflict once the rebels realize they are not going to be allowed to do what they fought for :unsure:

mykarma
Oct 24th, 2011, 01:59 PM
It's really easy for the West to label Gaddafi's death as a potential war crime, etc. but this was a man who committed unspeakable terrors on his own people for four decades. It is really so hard for us to understand that some may have acted with passion rather than reason when Gaddafi was caught?

The amount of Western hypocrisy is just amazing. You'll call for an investigation for the alleged murder of a tyrant, but if your own forces carpet bomb a city in Afghanistan or treat people like you do in Abu Ghraib, you'll try to cover it up and blame Wikileaks for providing evidence of your own war crimes.
THIS

mykarma
Oct 24th, 2011, 02:02 PM
Is it really hard to see that it was a 70 yo old man, being unarmed? If a street gang style murder of 70 yo unarmed man - whoever he is - by dozens of young men does not sound appalling to you .. then I am sorry .. our concept of morality might as well lay in different dimensions, I suppose.
Do you have ANY evidence that dozens of young men (street gangs) murdered anyone?

NoppaNoppa
Oct 24th, 2011, 02:19 PM
Good night Ceacescu of Arab word. Wish his execution clip goes viral on Saudi Arabia!

But, but. Don´t they come in 3... !
Wealthies people of the world. Jobs, Ghaddafi... I bet The Queen is next!

Sorry :sad:

mykarma
Oct 24th, 2011, 02:23 PM
Please do provide the link to that story. Shockingly I must've missed it in our Western media.
I recall reading it and if I recall correctly they kept the kid in custody for sometime and when they returned him he was so messed up and beaten that it was difficult for the family to recognize him. It was really sad.

Ferg
Oct 24th, 2011, 06:42 PM
Yes, in a way worse. I don't know the exact resume of Kaddafis, but ordering to quell a rebellion at all costs is war crime, but that's just a political order. Executing a unarmed person standing in front of you takes way more than that, it is a murderous pathology.

Cant believe I missed this. If you honestly believe that killing an unarmed tyrant in front of you is worse than killing probably hundreds if not thousends of unarmed men, women and children from a distance(most of them were probably killed by soldiers themselves too rather than bombardment), you must be really messed up. I simply cannot understand this way of thinking, its sick to me.

mykarma
Oct 24th, 2011, 10:04 PM
Cant believe I missed this. If you honestly believe that killing an unarmed tyrant in front of you is worse than killing probably hundreds if not thousends of unarmed men, women and children from a distance(most of them were probably killed by soldiers themselves too rather than bombardment), you must be really messed up. I simply cannot understand this way of thinking, its sick to me.
You seem surprised but it's typical ys.

Milito22
Oct 25th, 2011, 12:00 AM
rip

HippityHop
Oct 25th, 2011, 12:12 AM
I heard that before they shot Gadhafi in the head, they stuck a stick up his ass. Is that true?

Anybody remember this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,446924,00.html

ys
Oct 25th, 2011, 01:23 AM
I heard that before they shot Gadhafi in the head, they stuck a stick up his ass. Is that true?

If yes, that would be very much in line with Muslim tradition of treating prisoners. My friends who were a part of Afghan war told me stories of such kind that this one would seem like a kindergarten joke in comparison. And has anyone forgotten charred bodies of American contractors hanging over the bridge in Iraq? Forgotten the end of Nadjibulla? Public, government arranged, executions of homosexuals in Iran and stoning the victims of rape? What's new here to be surprised?

fifty-fifty
Oct 25th, 2011, 02:22 AM
Libya’s new leaders say they will make Islamic Sharia law main source of legislation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyas-new-leaders-say-they-will-make-islamic-sharia-law-main-source-of-legislation/2011/10/24/gIQAyE6PDM_story.html

delicatecutter
Oct 25th, 2011, 02:29 AM
That's the thing that sucks about affairs in the Muslim world. There is really no one to root for.

SwingVolley93
Oct 25th, 2011, 03:16 AM
It is absolutely disgusting to see groups of people parading around a dead man's body, no matter who he was. Absolutely sickening.

Londoner
Oct 25th, 2011, 07:37 AM
That's the thing that sucks about affairs in the Muslim world. There is really no one to root for.

:lol: too true. Made me laugh even though really a very sad truth.

ivanban
Oct 25th, 2011, 09:36 AM
Libya’s new leaders say they will make Islamic Sharia law main source of legislation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyas-new-leaders-say-they-will-make-islamic-sharia-law-main-source-of-legislation/2011/10/24/gIQAyE6PDM_story.html

Great! Freedom and human rights - here we come :cat:

HippityHop
Oct 25th, 2011, 12:48 PM
Well Saddam was held for two years and had a trial before he got his just desserts. It's funny that a lot of the people who shed tears for him are not shedding them for Gadhafi. I wonder what the difference is.

Expat
Oct 26th, 2011, 06:34 AM
I am sorry but I don't understand why anyone is criticizing how they killed Gaddafi? Their concepts of values, honor, family, revenge are different from Western world. Why are you holding them to western standards? As it is the supposed reason for intervention in Libya was a "possible" massacre in Benghazi but I don't see any intervention in Syria when there is a real massacre out there. Nor for Bahrain where we actually are supporting Saudi Arabia in quelling the rebellion. Why do you expect them to uphold western values when the west does not do it itself?

fifty-fifty
Oct 27th, 2011, 12:10 AM
Look at the Gen Clark opening of the video made in 2007

EsQtxF_eNjk&feature=related

NoppaNoppa
Oct 27th, 2011, 03:54 PM
Look at the Gen Clark opening of the video made in 2007

EsQtxF_eNjk&feature=related

RussiaToday isn´t what one calls reliable source. Then again, they seem more reliable than western media. What the fuck has happened to western media, when Putin media (RT is 100% controlled by Kremlin) is more reliable than ours?!

visionsen
Oct 28th, 2011, 06:39 AM
He is dead and gone forever l remember reading a news credited to him in which he said, he will fight till his last blood.Now the latest news is that the family of the deceased Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi will file a war crimes complaint against NATO with the International Criminal Court, a lawyer representing the family said Thursday.

Members of the family believe NATO's actions led to Gadhafi's death last week, said Marcel Ceccaldi.

Lin Lin
Oct 28th, 2011, 08:40 AM
Ghdafi got sexual assault when captured:eek:

http://earththree.blog.sohu.com/189106476.html

This is too bad.:fiery:

HippityHop
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:34 PM
He is dead and gone forever l remember reading a news credited to him in which he said, he will fight till his last blood.Now the latest news is that the family of the deceased Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi will file a war crimes complaint against NATO with the International Criminal Court, a lawyer representing the family said Thursday.

Members of the family believe NATO's actions led to Gadhafi's death last week, said Marcel Ceccaldi.

Good luck with that war crimes complaint. :lol:

As far as NATO's actions leading to his death, ya think? Of course Gadhafi's actions during his rule pretty much made his bed hard. So there was no doubt about what was going to happen when he was caught.

Of course it is interesting that NATO said over and over again that killing Gadhafi was not their goal. But within minutes of learning that he had been "executed" after having a stick stuck up his ass :o, they immediately suspended operations.

HippityHop
Oct 30th, 2011, 12:43 PM
Meanwhile back at the ranch.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/29/us-syria-idUSL5E7LS2ZK20111029