Colonel Gadaffi Killed
- Thread starter mattythedog
- 60 comments
- 4,685 views
opelgt1969
Premium
- 2,261
- Bristol,Va USA
- opelgt1969
Now if the UN could only get this man:
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,602
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Scaramanga?!
Is it a coincidence that a NATO air strike had just taken out his convoy of mainly ordinary road cars just before the rebels turned up? Conspiracy theorists form an orderly queue...
No it's not a coincidence. NATO must liaise with the rebels. It's called Standard Operating Procedure and it designed to stop friendlies shooting friendlies. (It doesn't always work
)
boiltheocean
Premium
- 7,756
- Samoa
- 2,010
- Portugal
- jikamehameha
- JShadowKing
Have fun with him Devil!
Keef
Premium
- 25,162
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Good for us. I'd much rather get laid than get Gaddafi. That sounds itchy.
- 7,115
- Birmingham, UK
- GOTMAXPOWER
So Gadaffi and his son were captured and then assasinated so they couldn't be made to go to trial, sounds an awful lot like what happened with Bin Laden...
Joey D
Premium
- 47,507
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
If Gadhafi was killed by rebel forces then I see no reason why it should be investigated. The man was a causality of the country's own war. If there was help from another country then I can see why that would raise some questions.
As for those saying he deserved a trial maybe the rebels had no choice but to kill him? In battle thousands of things can happen. Or maybe it was a crime of passion? I doubt any of us have ever lived under a dictatorship like Gadhafi's. I'm sure if we had, we'd feel a bit different towards the subject. I don't blame the rebels for shooting him to be quite honest.
I'm just glad we have pictures and videos of what looks to be a dead Gadhafi. Unlike bin Ladin's death we have more proof that they really got him.
As for those saying he deserved a trial maybe the rebels had no choice but to kill him? In battle thousands of things can happen. Or maybe it was a crime of passion? I doubt any of us have ever lived under a dictatorship like Gadhafi's. I'm sure if we had, we'd feel a bit different towards the subject. I don't blame the rebels for shooting him to be quite honest.
I'm just glad we have pictures and videos of what looks to be a dead Gadhafi. Unlike bin Ladin's death we have more proof that they really got him.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- A year ago Libya was a member in good standing of the UN. It had a head of state, in place for 40 years.
- A portion of the population rose up in revolt. If a portion of the population of the US, Britain, Russia or China rose up in revolt, it would be instantly suppressed by the constituted and recognized government. But anyway, the UN saw fit to issue a mandate to protect civilians in Libya from harm while the Libyan government attempted to suppress the rebellion.
- NATO took it upon itself to go beyond the mandate, and decided to support and enforce regime change.
- NATO strafed the convoy, and the ex-head of state was killed and dragged through the streets by parties unknown. His body is currently on display in a meat locker for all to see.
- Okay, a bad guy is gone, but what about the rule of law and order, and the presumptive right of a sovereign state to protect itself from violent revolution?
- Is it now okay for unhappy populations anywhere to revolt against their government, and maybe receive protection from the UN and help from NATO?
- Is it now okay for any rejected head of state anywhere to be shot and dragged through the streets and put on display for all to ogle?
- I wonder if a poor example has been set which may come back to haunt us should the shoe be on the other foot?
- If the US and her closest friends are one day no longer the mightiest force on Earth, would it be reasonable to expect outside nations to assist rebels here with weapons, air-cover and intelligence operations to support a revolution, and maybe drag a dead US President around on a rope behind a pick-up?
- Faced with this reality, are we not forced to conclude that "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means"? The strong do as they will and the weak do as they must?
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
- A portion of the population rose up in revolt. If a portion of the population of the US, Britain, Russia or China rose up in revolt, it would be instantly suppressed by the constituted and recognized government. But anyway, the UN saw fit to issue a mandate to protect civilians in Libya from harm while the Libyan government attempted to suppress the rebellion.
- NATO took it upon itself to go beyond the mandate, and decided to support and enforce regime change.
- NATO strafed the convoy, and the ex-head of state was killed and dragged through the streets by parties unknown. His body is currently on display in a meat locker for all to see.
- Okay, a bad guy is gone, but what about the rule of law and order, and the presumptive right of a sovereign state to protect itself from violent revolution?
- Is it now okay for unhappy populations anywhere to revolt against their government, and maybe receive protection from the UN and help from NATO?
- Is it now okay for any rejected head of state anywhere to be shot and dragged through the streets and put on display for all to ogle?
- I wonder if a poor example has been set which may come back to haunt us should the shoe be on the other foot?
- If the US and her closest friends are one day no longer the mightiest force on Earth, would it be reasonable to expect outside nations to assist rebels here with weapons, air-cover and intelligence operations to support a revolution, and maybe drag a dead US President around on a rope behind a pick-up?
- Faced with this reality, are we not forced to conclude that "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means"? The strong do as they will and the weak do as they must?
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Last edited:
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Democracy does not grow from blood, but it is protected with it.
Right now, I can imagine Islamist factions within the rebel ranks to be the most organized, as religious institutions usually are in third world countries.
Hopefully they'll be of the moderate type, and too far left or right. Ultimately it's up to the Libyan people to decide if they want Democracy for themselves.
Democracy is not something you push onto someone...It's a learning experience that never ends.
Right now, I can imagine Islamist factions within the rebel ranks to be the most organized, as religious institutions usually are in third world countries.
Hopefully they'll be of the moderate type, and too far left or right. Ultimately it's up to the Libyan people to decide if they want Democracy for themselves.
Democracy is not something you push onto someone...It's a learning experience that never ends.
- 1,466
- Canada
- mikethehockeyfan
Positives
Negatives
- Obviously a bad guy is out of power and, for the moment, his people might be a bit less oppressed
- This sets an excellent example of how the U.S. can "lead from behind" when trying to aid regime change without getting drawn into a long, drawn out conflict
Negatives
- Intervention circumvented the War Powers Act (needing to go to Congress) which sets a huge, dangerous precedent for future interventions. Any doubt as to Obama was a centre-Right governing president is now gone. Dotini, you were kinda on the right track but missed this one big, glaring point.
- No guarantee that the new regime won't be extremist
- 559
- Arizona
- Sniperbob308
This is not far from the truth, any number of current events could push us into this situation and I wouldn't be surprised if something like this were to happen in our lifetimes.
The quote about something and the eye of the beholder comes to mind here. We may think it's right to go into another country and invade or help them for a greater good but the people living there may hate it. Just as people in the US would not be happy if another country came here and invaded to give us what they think is a better version of government. It's a lot to think about, I just hope that the Libyans themselves can figure out what they want and establish a type of rule that makes a majority happy.
- 4,797
- Antarctica
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8364022/libyas-new-leaders-to-declare-liberation
This is the last thing Libya needs right now - human rights groups are claiming Qaddafi's death could have been a violation of human rights. However, the article makes it pretty clear they feel they don't have enough information ... so why are they making the claims?
This is the last thing Libya needs right now - human rights groups are claiming Qaddafi's death could have been a violation of human rights. However, the article makes it pretty clear they feel they don't have enough information ... so why are they making the claims?
opelgt1969
Premium
- 2,261
- Bristol,Va USA
- opelgt1969
Pretty much the same way the US murdered bin Laden ? The governments of the "New Word" don't like murdering dictators but it's OK to murder the leaders of countries they oppose.(Or have UN/NATO backed forces do it).
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I'm not saying that what happened to Qaddafi is okay. I just think that the human rights groups are in no position to describe his death as "a possible war crime" and then admit that they don't have enough information about it to pass judgement. Now, everybody is going to be looking at his death critically, on the assumption that it was potentially a war crime. That's going to really hurt the NTC as they try and introduce democracy to Libya.
If Qaddafi's death was a war crime, then the people responsible should be prosecuted. But simply assuming that the Libyans are guilty of it will only make it that much harder for them to be accepted as a legitimate government.
If Qaddafi's death was a war crime, then the people responsible should be prosecuted. But simply assuming that the Libyans are guilty of it will only make it that much harder for them to be accepted as a legitimate government.
- 17,316
- United Kingdom
Shtif happens, and if the land of cosmic karma is working correctley -- bad shtif happens to bad people, so I guess the colonel got the shtif he deserved.... in the face with any luck. Please, political correctness sickens me... since when did it become the wrong thing to do to be happy when the bad guy died???
Please...
Please...
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It is generally considered wrong for anyone, no matter how bad, to be summarily killed by a vengeful mob. It is also generally considered poor taste for a gentleman to be seen rejoicing in such an act.
You can’t condemn a criminal despot and his horrific and inhumane methods, if you at the same time are utilizing exactly the same madness. It just doesn’t work; you become a hypocrite and criminal murderer yourself, IMHO.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Dotini, if the Libyan people decide to go with a more democratic style of government heavily influenced with Islamic principles, how do you think the West will respond?
I for one thinks the West will be hypocritical in this aspect, in that Democracy was achieved, but not the one they hoped for.
But I know a certain kingdom with a lot of oil will welcome them.
I for one thinks the West will be hypocritical in this aspect, in that Democracy was achieved, but not the one they hoped for.
But I know a certain kingdom with a lot of oil will welcome them.
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Just wanted to say That Killing him isn't a bad Solution at all.
The Fact Mubarak is Alive and The S.C.A.F leading the country Instead (Massive Previous ties between the two)is causing alot of Problems really.
The Fact Mubarak is Alive and The S.C.A.F leading the country Instead (Massive Previous ties between the two)is causing alot of Problems really.
- 378
- Genk
- Krizzay
LIE 1: There were Human rights abuses in Libya and Gaddafi slaughtered his own people
The primary justification for intervention in Libya by NATO was because "there were severe human rights abuses" under Gaddafi's rule. These claims were in reality, far fetched and laughable, because Libya probably had far better human rights than any other country in Africa. What YOU were told by those Mainstream Media fanatics including all those so called "human rights" groups like Amnesty International (which is no doubt another front controlled by the Elite), were all either fabricated lies or deliberately exaggerated for the justified NATO intervention.
This damning piece of evidence (dated 4th January 2011) from the UN Human Rights website which clearly shows undeniable proof that there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE of serious Human Right's abuses as accused by NATO and UN presently.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf
Whats more, SEVERAL countries even praised Libya's excellent Human rights Track Record but they still decided to topple Gaddafi! Hypocrisy or what?!
LIE 2: The people of Libya were oppressed and were living in poverty under Gaddafis rule
This lie is probably the funniest, and the easiest to debunk.
There was very little poverty (almost compared to Western standards) and Libya had literally the best living standards in Africa ranking 55th out of 172 countries (before NATO and Rebel interference) according to the Human Development Index - 0.755
The people in Libya under Gaddafis rule had:
Free education,
Free health care,
Free farmland a house and seeds,
Free energy bills,
$50,000 housing money for just married couples,
Interest free loans,
Debt free country,
Government pays half for your car,
Near free gasoline prices
etc.
The people in Libya were oppressed MY A$$! This country sounds like the American dream which the people of America never had!
And just to note, almost EVERY country in Africa today is dependent on Foreign Aid, except Libya (during Gaddafi's rule).
LIE 3: Gaddafi was responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing
Libya and Gaddafi was FRAMED for the Lockerbie Bombing. END OFF. This was probably one of the EARLIEST LIES to frame Gaddafi and socially engineer the publics perception of him.
This is based on the premise that key evidence presented at the trial (e.g. timer fragment, parts from a specific radio cassette model, clothing bought in Malta, bomb suitcase originating at Luqa Airport) was deliberately fabricated by the U.S. and Britain for the "political" purpose of incriminating Libya.
Why?
Because of all the reasons stated above and below. Libya was bad for Big business and Big Banking, so something had to be done like the Lockerbie Bombing, so that lies could be fabricated and Gaddafi could be demonised over the years until his death.
Even though Gaddafi was never involved in the Lockerbie Bombing, recently the mainstream media is jumping around the fact that he somehow was.
LIE 4: Gaddafi wanted to become the king of Africa and enslave all the people
On the contrary, Gaddafi wanted a more united Africa...an Africa which was independent of Western interference and exploitation.
You ever wonder why the billions of $$$ in Aid never actually help the people of Africa in the long term? Because its bad for big business. Simple as that.
If you start getting a stronger Africa both economically and politically, then Big Multinational Corporations would literally be BANKRUPT, DEAD and ERADICATED over night.
Why?
Because their business models literally WORK AND DEPEND on SLAVERY.
Pay some African kid less than a dollar a day to make shoes, and then sell the shoes for $50 in the market. 5000% profit made. Most of it goes to the board of directors not because they are doing good business but because THEY CAN benefit by exploiting the African people and smacking the Fair Trade label on everything so that when we the consumer buy stuff, do not have to feel guilty about buying products made in Third World Countries.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-Fairtrade-only-free-trade-can-help-poor.html
LIE 5: The wealth of Gaddafi will be redistributed to the people of Libya
And this is it folks, the biggest lie ever told in the history of Libya (and to the World aswell) - The wealth of Gaddafi will be redistributed to the people of Libya.
Even if you may still have doubts whether Gaddafi was really the Good guy or not, theres no DENYING about the fact the sole reason why NATO intervened in Libya was due to Economical reasons.
Why punish the banks during an economic crisis when you can easily profit from a war based on a lie?
"Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafis plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.
Its one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say youre going to change over from the dollar to something else, youre going to be targeted, says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.
Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars. "
It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.
http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/
Thats right folks, Gaddafi wanted OUT of the International Banking Scam which was (still is) gripping the World. The Elite couldnt have that, so they started a couple of false flag protests, added a pinch of Al Qaeda militants to create bloodshed to make every sap in the World believe Gaddafi was killing his people, and then finally justify military intervention in the name of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY.
As you can see, Libya was truly a far better country before this Illegal Civil War and NATO interference.
I pray for the people in Libya now because most of this wealth of Gaddafi "being redistributed, will mostly go to the Big Banking firms and Multinationals immediately as debt to be paid.
And yeah, remember those words: FREEDOM AND DEMORACY.
Im sure that is something we people here in the West VERY MUCH wish to have right now.
The gentleman here took a lot of time writing this down
There you go, had to get this off my chest, cause I'm sick and tired of a lot of the BS people are spreading these days.
The primary justification for intervention in Libya by NATO was because "there were severe human rights abuses" under Gaddafi's rule. These claims were in reality, far fetched and laughable, because Libya probably had far better human rights than any other country in Africa. What YOU were told by those Mainstream Media fanatics including all those so called "human rights" groups like Amnesty International (which is no doubt another front controlled by the Elite), were all either fabricated lies or deliberately exaggerated for the justified NATO intervention.
This damning piece of evidence (dated 4th January 2011) from the UN Human Rights website which clearly shows undeniable proof that there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE of serious Human Right's abuses as accused by NATO and UN presently.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf
Whats more, SEVERAL countries even praised Libya's excellent Human rights Track Record but they still decided to topple Gaddafi! Hypocrisy or what?!
LIE 2: The people of Libya were oppressed and were living in poverty under Gaddafis rule
This lie is probably the funniest, and the easiest to debunk.
There was very little poverty (almost compared to Western standards) and Libya had literally the best living standards in Africa ranking 55th out of 172 countries (before NATO and Rebel interference) according to the Human Development Index - 0.755
The people in Libya under Gaddafis rule had:
Free education,
Free health care,
Free farmland a house and seeds,
Free energy bills,
$50,000 housing money for just married couples,
Interest free loans,
Debt free country,
Government pays half for your car,
Near free gasoline prices
etc.
The people in Libya were oppressed MY A$$! This country sounds like the American dream which the people of America never had!
And just to note, almost EVERY country in Africa today is dependent on Foreign Aid, except Libya (during Gaddafi's rule).
LIE 3: Gaddafi was responsible for the Lockerbie Bombing
Libya and Gaddafi was FRAMED for the Lockerbie Bombing. END OFF. This was probably one of the EARLIEST LIES to frame Gaddafi and socially engineer the publics perception of him.
This is based on the premise that key evidence presented at the trial (e.g. timer fragment, parts from a specific radio cassette model, clothing bought in Malta, bomb suitcase originating at Luqa Airport) was deliberately fabricated by the U.S. and Britain for the "political" purpose of incriminating Libya.
Why?
Because of all the reasons stated above and below. Libya was bad for Big business and Big Banking, so something had to be done like the Lockerbie Bombing, so that lies could be fabricated and Gaddafi could be demonised over the years until his death.
Even though Gaddafi was never involved in the Lockerbie Bombing, recently the mainstream media is jumping around the fact that he somehow was.
LIE 4: Gaddafi wanted to become the king of Africa and enslave all the people
On the contrary, Gaddafi wanted a more united Africa...an Africa which was independent of Western interference and exploitation.
You ever wonder why the billions of $$$ in Aid never actually help the people of Africa in the long term? Because its bad for big business. Simple as that.
If you start getting a stronger Africa both economically and politically, then Big Multinational Corporations would literally be BANKRUPT, DEAD and ERADICATED over night.
Why?
Because their business models literally WORK AND DEPEND on SLAVERY.
Pay some African kid less than a dollar a day to make shoes, and then sell the shoes for $50 in the market. 5000% profit made. Most of it goes to the board of directors not because they are doing good business but because THEY CAN benefit by exploiting the African people and smacking the Fair Trade label on everything so that when we the consumer buy stuff, do not have to feel guilty about buying products made in Third World Countries.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-Fairtrade-only-free-trade-can-help-poor.html
LIE 5: The wealth of Gaddafi will be redistributed to the people of Libya
And this is it folks, the biggest lie ever told in the history of Libya (and to the World aswell) - The wealth of Gaddafi will be redistributed to the people of Libya.
Even if you may still have doubts whether Gaddafi was really the Good guy or not, theres no DENYING about the fact the sole reason why NATO intervened in Libya was due to Economical reasons.
Why punish the banks during an economic crisis when you can easily profit from a war based on a lie?
"Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafis plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.
Its one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say youre going to change over from the dollar to something else, youre going to be targeted, says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.
Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars. "
It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.
http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/
Thats right folks, Gaddafi wanted OUT of the International Banking Scam which was (still is) gripping the World. The Elite couldnt have that, so they started a couple of false flag protests, added a pinch of Al Qaeda militants to create bloodshed to make every sap in the World believe Gaddafi was killing his people, and then finally justify military intervention in the name of FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY.
As you can see, Libya was truly a far better country before this Illegal Civil War and NATO interference.
I pray for the people in Libya now because most of this wealth of Gaddafi "being redistributed, will mostly go to the Big Banking firms and Multinationals immediately as debt to be paid.
And yeah, remember those words: FREEDOM AND DEMORACY.
Im sure that is something we people here in the West VERY MUCH wish to have right now.
The gentleman here took a lot of time writing this down
There you go, had to get this off my chest, cause I'm sick and tired of a lot of the BS people are spreading these days.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Unfortunately, I do not think the people of Libya are yet in any position to decide what's going to happen due to the many brigades, militias, tribes and other factions running around with guns and wildly different ideas.
I am pretty sure that Libya has the world's sweetest light crude oil, and that Europe badly, badly needs and wants it. I suspect European "advisers" will shortly descend on Libya like a horde of locusts trying to secure access to this oil in return for various services to favored factions. In this race for the future, I'm guessing large numbers of Islamists will be running near the head of the pack.
However, please remember the words of Yogi Berra, "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."
Respectfully,
Steve
Similar threads
