| Mr Mercury 20.10.2011 07:44 |
.... apparently he was captured and died of wounds to his legs. link |
| The Real Wizard 20.10.2011 12:36 |
Awesome. Now let's stop the hypocrisy and make democracy flourish at home.. Essential viewing: link link |
| YourValentine 20.10.2011 12:57 |
Totally agree, Bob. I am sick to my stomach about the hypocrisy of our politicians. They truly give democracy a bad name. |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.10.2011 15:15 |
Don't kid yourselves. The available video footage leaves very little to the imagination. A video shows a living, though wounded, Ghadaffi being manhandled, and a photo shows a dead Ghadaffi...with a bullet hole to the left side of his head that wasn't there previously. He was executed, plain and simple. Why? Not because it was ordered, but because the 'army' opposing the Ghadaffi-loyalists is made up of equally despicable people as the army fighting for Ghadaffi. These are the thugs and hooligans you see in all countries. They always surface in times of war, all over the world. Ghadaffi may have been a cruel and tough ruler, the army fighting for the NTC is no less dangerous. They will murder any Ghadaffi-family member they find, no doubt whatsoever. |
| YourValentine 20.10.2011 16:21 |
I don't think anyone here has any illusions about that. The idea of justice and lawful procedures seems to have vanished from the face of this planet. |
| Mr Mercury 20.10.2011 17:53 |
YourValentine wrote: I don't think anyone here has any illusions about that. The idea of justice and lawful procedures seems to have vanished from the face of this planet. The added problem is that those rebels who killed Gaddafi were filled with 42 years of hate really. Gaddafi surving and being captured alive then being tried in a court of law was never gonna happen. The new government in Libya will a real tough job on their hands now. |
| john bodega 21.10.2011 00:55 |
*shrug* Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Fuck Libya. The video I saw could've easily been taken ten years ago under his own regime, but we're supposed to clap like retarded seals because the revolution went well? Where the fuck am I, the 18th century? I don't see why I should trust any government that goes for instant justice. I'm not saying this for humanitarian reasons, because he was going to die anyway, but it's totally wrong what they did with him. His conduct should've been gone over in court, and the fact of his deeds recognised properly. I am no more impressed by this turn of events than I was when the West started playing buddies with Gaddafi a few years ago. |
| YourValentine 21.10.2011 04:02 |
Yes, exactly, Zebonka - but in which way are Western democracies any better? The NATO killed a son of Gadhafi and three of his grandchildren - all under ten years old - by bombing their home which was never in any way to be justified by UN security council resolution 1973 (2011). It was bloody illegal murder of children and civilians. It did not get so much public attention because hours later President Obama announced the triumphant killing of Osama Bin Laden and people in the US celebrated just the same way as the Libyans did yesterday. Nobody seemed to think a lawful trial is necessary. The only difference is that we do not have mobile phone videos of the killing. I think that is what Bob was referring to by posting the second YT link. We are not any better and it makes me sick. I could not stand watching PM Cameron last night blaming Lockerbie and even the IRA killings on Gadhafi. How stupid does he think we are? Let us not forget how our leaders cooperated with the dictator to get cheap oil and to have someone who kept the African hunger fugitives from getting into Europe. |
| greaserkat 21.10.2011 09:52 |
Zebonka12 wrote: *shrug* Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Fuck Libya. The video I saw could've easily been taken ten years ago under his own regime, but we're supposed to clap like retarded seals because the revolution went well? Where the fuck am I, the 18th century? I don't see why I should trust any government that goes for instant justice. I'm not saying this for humanitarian reasons, because he was going to die anyway, but it's totally wrong what they did with him. His conduct should've been gone over in court, and the fact of his deeds recognised properly. I am no more impressed by this turn of events than I was when the West started playing buddies with Gaddafi a few years ago. ============================================================================================ Seals aren't retarded :-( |
| Micrówave 21.10.2011 10:54 |
While it's certain that he "had to go" and a trial would have produced nothing, I have to agree with TQ about how the whole thing was handled. THAT was the future of Libya? The ones who executed him?
And then to waive the murder weapon around like a festival? Yeah, it's just the politicians. PLEASE!!!! Barb can blame Nato, the U.S., et all... but the bottom line is there's some pretty shitty people in all levels of society. So what happens when they don't like the next guy? And once again, Barbara needs to get her facts straight. No one in the US was waiving the murder weapon around. How exactly was the U.S. dragging his body around, hooping and hollering above his dead corpse, etc? Where is that footage that Barbara thinks exists? Oh wait, a secret plot to confiscate cell phones? He was given a proper religious burial at sea. That means someone actually respected the corpse and took time to prepare it for that. There's your example of Western Democracy being superior to whatever band wagon you're on. |
| YourValentine 21.10.2011 13:15 |
If you think burying a person after killing him illegally makes it right you should read your constitution. Of course polticians made the decision and they are to blame. Not that I agree with Ron Paul on many isues but here he is right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_uy29aFzCU International right also forbids killing supects. If we cannot agree even on such a basic rule there is not much hope. |
| MadTheSwine73 21.10.2011 17:21 |
Good. Good. |
| john bodega 21.10.2011 23:39 |
"but in which way are Western democracies any better?" I think you should first find someone who thinks that the West is indeed 'better', and then ask them this question. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 22.10.2011 06:51 |
I don't think the two deaths - bin laden and Gaddafi - can be compared. Bin Laden was killed during his type of battle - secret and where it would hurt him most - in a war he declared. The US unit saw two women coming at them and believed they were wired with suicide belts. Bin Laden himself, they say, was reaching for a weapon. They shot him before he could shoot, escape or worse. Bin Laden was killed in battle the same as if he'd walked through his compound and had been shot by a sharpshooter. War sucks. People die. Sometimes even the bad ones. What a pity. At first, Gaddafi seemed to have met the same fate - death in battle. Reports were he was captured wounded, then died on the way to the hospital. Now, it's clear, he was possibly wounded before he was captured then he was harassed, manhandled and, as he begged for his life, shot in the head execution style. One is war, one is murder. |
| YourValentine 22.10.2011 11:05 |
Wow, how disappointing to read that from you. Are you telling me that the President of the USA and his Navy Seals are a bunch of bandits who let a terrorist decide on the rules of a shoot-out? Where is the proof about presumed suicide belts? I cannot believe that you believe that the wives of Bin Laden ran around in their house wearing suicide belts? Are you telling me they killed Bin Laden because they were afraid of his wives? If the wives had not been there it would have just been a friendly visit? There cannot be a war between an individual and a nation. Bin Laden was probably a criminal who needed to be prosecuted. Definitely it would have been harder to follow the rule of law and catch him an put him to trial. There is no law in the whole world you can quote that would justify to send troops into an allied country and have them shoot someone you think has committed certain crimes. How bizzarre to call this a "war" only to make it sound less of an unlawful, criminal act. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 22.10.2011 11:30 |
It was clear, I believe, that the entire binLaden compound was fortified, and those inside of it were prepared for a fight. To assume his wives, who no doubt heard the fighting as it came toward them, were armed and dangerous is not far-fetched considering the manner in which binLaden et al had fought their war. Did the US allow binLaden to determine the rules of a shoot out? Hardly. They responded the way they had to respond. If he’d surrendered, which I do not believe he would have ever done, and been shot, that would have been murder. If there was a doubt within those seconds whether he would charge or escape, then the US did the right thing by taking him out. I’m not sure why there’s a question about whether this was a battle, or how it could be considered an unlawful criminal act, but then we had this discussion before and, while I respect your view and try to see it as you do, I simply cannot and do not agree. I do still see a clear distinction between the way bin laden and Gaddafi were killed. And I still believe one was justified and the other was not. |
| brENsKi 22.10.2011 16:45 |
i worry for libya i really do firstly: doesn't executing him make the rebels no better than him? secondly: let's see what the new libyan democracy turns out....,my best guess...it'll have the term sharia in it somewhere thirdly: all that oil can't help...can it? absolute power corrupts absolutely...and crude is the world currency...that'll make Libya 100% open to corruption.....Libya will need to be careful of not getting drunk with power |
| Donna13 22.10.2011 20:45 |
I think that sometimes legal standards and the protection of individual rights are not of the highest importance. While laws are supposed to protect a person's ability to have a trial, it is not always practical or safe. For example, when a police officer's life is threatened or in the case of self defence, more immediate actions sometimes need to be taken. This is not anything to be ashamed of. If Gaddafi had not started ordering the killing of his own people he might have been able to survive the uprising/conflict and retire to Italy. |
| YourValentine 23.10.2011 03:38 |
I think you are mixing up two issues here, Donna. Of course there are laws which allow self defence. A policeman who is attacked can defend himself like any other person. Some nations have laws that allow to kill a citizens after the person was tried in a court of law. However, a government cannot just kill a person with no trial only because it is more convenient. If we allow this idea, this will be the end of due legal process. There will always be a "reason" why a trial is unsafe or inconvenient. In Lybia we had a war and there are universal rules that a prisoner who is not armed and not fighting any longer cannot be killed. What will happen to mankind if such killings are sanctioned by a hateful and revengeful global public? I think that many people would not even be so appalled if we had not seen the bloody mobile phone pictures. I bet the estimated 2400 men, women and children who have been murdered by predator drones under peace bomber Obama did not look very pretty as well but we did not see the pictures. Who has the moral qualification to blame the Libyan fighters who killed Gaddafi? Certainly not the European leaders who cooperated with him, the NATO with their illegal bombings or the US government which is leading in illegal killings. Looks like the global village is walking away from basic humanity quicker than we thought it is possible. |
| Amazon 23.10.2011 03:40 |
Donna13 wrote: "I think that sometimes legal standards and the protection of individual rights are not of the highest importance. While laws are supposed to protect a person's ability to have a trial, it is not always practical or safe. For example, when a police officer's life is threatened or in the case of self defence, more immediate actions sometimes need to be taken. This is not anything to be ashamed of. If Gaddafi had not started ordering the killing of his own people he might have been able to survive the uprising/conflict and retire to Italy." I don't think anyone is arguing against self-defense. If anyone's life is threatened (forget a police officer), that person has a legal right to use reasonable force, which may require them to kill the attacker. However Gaddafi wasn't killed in war or in self-defense. He was executed, and as as such, I don't think it matters whether he had killed his own people. |
| YourValentine 23.10.2011 04:12 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It was clear, I believe, that the entire binLaden compound was fortified, and those inside of it were prepared for a fight. To assume his wives, who no doubt heard the fighting as it came toward them, were armed and dangerous is not far-fetched considering the manner in which binLaden et al had fought their war. Did the US allow binLaden to determine the rules of a shoot out? Hardly. They responded the way they had to respond. If he’d surrendered, which I do not believe he would have ever done, and been shot, that would have been murder. If there was a doubt within those seconds whether he would charge or escape, then the US did the right thing by taking him out. I’m not sure why there’s a question about whether this was a battle, or how it could be considered an unlawful criminal act, but then we had this discussion before and, while I respect your view and try to see it as you do, I simply cannot and do not agree. I do still see a clear distinction between the way bin laden and Gaddafi were killed. And I still believe one was justified and the other was not. =================================================== I really do respect you from many discussions we had on this board, therefore I try to convince you:-) Firstly, we would have to agree that the rule of law cannot be abandoned in individual cases only because one individual has committed (allegedly!!) horrible crimes. It has been pointed out that Israel needed more than 15 years to hunt down and capture Adolf Eichmann, the main figure in executing the Holocaust. Eichmannn killed about 6 million people - he was captured and tried in a court of law. He had legal representation and the right to defend himself. Please do not tell me that the mighty USA did not have equal means to capture and try Osama Bin Laden in an allied country - Israel caught Eichmann in Argentina which was not an ally. Instead of catching Bin Laden and putting him on trial the US government chose to send a killing team. There are no witnesses, no protocol, no photos, nothing. You have to believe what your government tells you. Bin Laden did not surrender? How can you know that - he surely did not expect the Navy Seals that night but they tell you that his wives wore suicide belts? This is really hard to believe. I was in England when Bin Laden was killed and the English tabloids claimed he was hiding behind his wife and using her as a protective shield - that does not sound like he was much of a threat for the highly armed specialists. The problem is: when you send soldiers into another country to attack a private house - there is no legality at all. You cannot claim any rules whatsoever in your favour when you attack a house in such mafia manner. The alarming aspect of such acts is the pseudo-legality used by the government. They speak about a "war" against terrorism and "illegal combattants" in order to camouflage the illegal activities when in fact there are clear rules stated by the UN when we have a war and what the rules in a war are. The CIA in fact has "lawyers" who create "memos" to justify the killing of "illegal combattants" (and their families if necessary) by remote-controlled drones without seeing that the CIA people are illegal combattants themselves in an undeclared, non-existing war. If you think about it: CIA "lawyers" make a case and send drones to execute the suspects - is that the rule of law you want your country to follow? You can find pseudo-legal language in any terror regime - they have "courts" as well. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.10.2011 19:09 |
YourValentine wrote: I really do respect you from many discussions we had on this board, therefore I try to convince you:-) lol. I do appreciate the effort. :-) However... First, I would never say the US didn’t have the means to capture and try bin Laden. “Means” was never an issue. The Navy SEAL mission, in fact the mission all along, was to capture or kill him. In this case, the SEALs entered the compound, fought their way through and, according to their account – which I have no reason to doubt – reacted in a manner best suited to the conditions. Bin Laden said he’d never be taken alive by the US and so he wasn’t. The thought of his surrender is about as real to me as the prospect of him having met up with 72 heavenly virgins. Second, I see the war on terror as a true war. A different war than any we’ve fought, but no less dangerous to fight or vital to win. I see failures in US policy and do not believe my country is 100% right in its actions. I do, however, believe the Navy SEAL account of their moments in the bin Laden compound. You have dismissed his wives as being a possible threat. I believe everyone in that compound was a threat and the SEALs did what was necessary to ensure an end to that fight. For the record, the SEALs did not say the wives wore suicide belts. They said they – the SEALs – thought, at that moment, the women did. To think they were wired, to believe his family, his guards and the rest of those in his compound would protect him in any way possible, including blowing themselves up, is not at all far-fetched. About him hiding behind his wives… We heard the same rumor here, but it was just that, rumor. He did not hide behind them. If he did, he would have been taken into custody the minute the women were out of the way. I have no cause to believe otherwise since there is nothing my country would have liked more than to see an image of him alive and painfully aware of being a US prisoner in body irons. As for the legality of the mission… Despite the public face of shock and disgust the Pakistani government put on, I cannot believe there was a lack of cooperation between the two countries in this mission. To protect themselves from the hardliners in their country, the Pakistani government publically denounced US actions. The uproar would not have died down as quickly as it did if the Pakistani’s were not somehow involved in or aware of the planning of this mission. You mentioned the “rules” of war here when before you stated that this cannot be a war because it is not between sovereign countries. And yet now you say one side is expected to abide by the rules of war in this non-war. Just as in Vietnam, tactics have to be adjusted to fight the enemy on their terms. Bin Laden and his minions had no qualms about targeting innocent civilians. US troops and drone attacks targeted specific homes and people. War sucks and innocent people get caught in the crossfire. I don’t excuse it. I find it disgusting. However, I also find it disgusting that the US is blasted for the deaths of innocents when it’s the terrorists themselves who’ve chosen to hide among them. I am not pro-war, I do not excuse all that has gone on and, as I’ve stated before, I do not think my country is right in all areas. However, I still cannot see the death of bin Laden in any way the same as the murder of Gaddafi. Some of your points are valid – well, they all might be, but I only agree with some ;-) – but on this, specifically, I fear will we never agree. |
| YourValentine 25.10.2011 02:11 |
I can live with not convincing you, although I am sorry:-) But one thing I want to add: in all your posting you equal the federal government of the USA with individual criminals or terrorists. I think that is the most basic disagreement. It is all well and fine when you say "we, the USA act exactly as the terrorists do - we kill without prior legal process and when innocents are killed - well, tough luck". This is just something I cannot accept: in a democracy the government should not act like a terrorist. Just imagine the following situation: an Iranian lawyer comes to the conclusion that John Smith from Wisconsin programmed the Stuxnet virus and helped infecting the Iranian power plant. They send a killer squad and shoot him in his home. They say they had no other choice because there is a "war" between Iran and John Smith and the USA would have protected the guy. They say that Iran did nothing to provoke anyone to plant a dangerous virus into their power plant and they have to defend themselves. What would you say? That Iran has every right to get the terrorist because there is a "war"? Or would you say that there was no proof that John Smith actually programmed the Stuxnet virus? Or would you say that the Iran has no business whatsoever to kill a US citizen for whatever reason? What will happen to the international community when democracies do not respect the most basic legal procedures? |
| john bodega 25.10.2011 06:58 |
I simply can't stand in support of these turds. Come on - they shoved a knife up his arse. Seriously? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 25.10.2011 07:27 |
YourValentine wrote: I can live with not convincing you, although I am sorry:-)You tried, I tried. Alas, some things are just not meant to be. :-) But one thing I want to add: in all your posting you equal the federal government of the USA with individual criminals or terrorists. I think that is the most basic disagreement. It is all well and fine when you say "we, the USA act exactly as the terrorists do - we kill without prior legal process and when innocents are killed - well, tough luck".For the record, I never said "we, the USA act exactly as the terrorists do - we kill without prior legal process and when innocents are killed - well, tough luck". The US does not act like the terrorists in that we do not target innocents for the biggest bang nor do we kill illegally - though I realize that is a point on which we disagree. Also, I said, in war, there are deaths of innocents but I did not say tough luck, I said I find it disgusting and do not excuse it. I see a huge difference between my senitments and the quote you attributed to me. Just imagine the following situation: an Iranian lawyer comes to the conclusion that John Smith from Wisconsin programmed the Stuxnet virus and helped infecting the Iranian power plant. They send a killer squad and shoot him in his home. They say they had no other choice because there is a "war" between Iran and John Smith and the USA would have protected the guy. They say that Iran did nothing to provoke anyone to plant a dangerous virus into their power plant and they have to defend themselves. What would you say? That Iran has every right to get the terrorist because there is a "war"? Or would you say that there was no proof that John Smith actually programmed the Stuxnet virus? Or would you say that the Iran has no business whatsoever to kill a US citizen for whatever reason? What will happen to the international community when democracies do not respect the most basic legal procedures?In your scenario, I'd have to know how John Smith has behaved. Has he released audio and video tapes detailing how he wants to detroy the Iranian power plant or Iraian people? Did he keep videos of training camps where the people there praised their death missions as being in the name of their god? Did they capture an Iranian power plant worker and behead him on film to make a point of how serious they are about their mission? Would there be video of him laughing and celebrating as the virus was spread and people suffered and died? If so, then I'd say the scenario you describe would not even be an issue because the USofA would willingly capture this John Smith or, at least, cooperate in his capture. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.10.2011 07:39 |
Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the way Gaddafi and Bin Laden were killed is completely beside the point. The fact (I repeat: fact, i.e. not a debatable point) remains that both were killed extra-judicially. In the elimination of Bin Laden, the United States were conducting military operations on foreign territory without explicit permission from the government in question, which is automatically a war crime, or more specifically a "crime against peace" as defined after WWII by the United Nations, a binding legal concept. Disregarding this for a moment, Bin Laden was a non-combatant (he was not a soldier) in a civilian area, who did not conduct offensive acts of aggression at the time of the assault (and thus he wasn't an illegal combatant). This makes any force used against him legally questionable at the least and probably illegal. The military just isn't allowed to kill anyone who isn't fighting them without (at the very least) a court-martial. And rightly so - if this weren't the case, genocide like the kind occurring in Syria right now would be legal. The U.S. committed numerous war crimes of this type in Vietnam, and in the Middle East, they seem to have found a bit of a loop-hole by having mercenaries (because that's what Blackwater and the likes are) do the dirty work. The murder of Gaddafi was just that - murder. Incidentally, I would like to point out that when nations start employing private 'security firms' such as Blackwater as mercenaries, they are using illegal combatants and are thus no longer different from terrorist organizations like Hamas in any legal sense. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 25.10.2011 08:14 |
I know this thread is supposed to be about Gaddafi, but I will say this once more and then stand down - there is no proof that the US did not have the permission of the Pakistani government just as there is no proof that it did. The 'evidence' for me is the reaction of Pakistan and the swift way in which their "shock" and "anger" dissolved. Clearly, opinions lean toward the US being guilty of atrocities in the War on Terror, a war that some - too many, IMO - consider to be a false/unjust/illegal war. Opinions and facts often conflict. |
| Micrówave 25.10.2011 10:00 |
In addition to the investigation into Gadhafi's own death, human rights groups are calling for investigations after they discovered the bodies of 53 people, believed to be Gadhafi supporters, in a hotel that was under the control of anti-Gadhafi fighters. But we're dodging that issue here, right? Sorry, but if you're gonna make this a one-sided political argument, you must at least be aware that BOTH sides are doing some pretty crappy things. |
| Donna13 25.10.2011 21:30 |
I'm not up on the latest details of Gaddafi's death and after reading some of the comments here maybe that is a story I might not be glad to have read. I had read an early account on BBC.com about how there was shooting from different sides when they were taking Gaddafi from his hiding place and then later that there was confusion about how he died. But my comment was about the danger of capturing someone alive in certain situations (and I was actually thinking of the Bin Laden situation) in order for them to stand trial. If there is a safe method to capture alive a most wanted type, who is likely armed and dangerous, then of course, that is a good idea. Anyway, I would imagine that anyone with the good intention of bringing Gaddafi to trial might have been outnumbered or overpowered. |
| YourValentine 26.10.2011 01:20 |
@ magicalfreddie - I wish you were right with the idea that the USA would punish someone who releases a virus into Iran's nuclear power plant but that is really wishful thinking - it would never ever happen. Remember that actual murderers - the famous helicopter team whose film was released on WikiLeaks was never tried in a court of law. I admit that they did not behead someone but they laughed and cheered while hunting unarmed civilians with machine guns. Instead the whistle blower has been kept in solitary confinement ever since (no trial as yet) and congress members actually asked that Julian Assange must be executed! @microwave - I totally agree with you: the murder of Gadaffi and his son and other presumed Gadaffi supporters by the troops of the new government is a horrible crime against humanity and has to be condemned. There are no excuses - all human beings know that it is a crime to shoot an unarmed person. |
| GratefulFan 26.10.2011 21:00 |
Those actions do have to be condemned - resoundly and unanimously. But the truth is that we simply don't know if the course of history was served well by this or not. Justice and human rights are such a cornerstone of civil and free societies that a farcical trial with a foregone conclusion certain to end up in some gruesome death on YouTube all the same is no great prize either. A trial is a guarantee of nothing, and always carries costs and risks. Dictators past like Pol Pot and Mussolini wrought widespread influence and destruction as convicted figureheads. If a quick and merciless severing of the head of the snake saves ten thousand more lives because the country doesn't descend into a protracted civil war for example, can we really privately hold up first world justice as the only acceptable paradigm for critical events in third world upheavals? I don't think much of the history that we revere would have looked that great by the harsh light of a cell phone camera. There is evidence that the US war on terror has been an erosive factor on civil and human rights, and I think Americans and the rest of us should closely consider a few things that continue to be done in the name of that war, but I don't buy the slippery slope argument for people like bin Laden and Gaddafi. Our institutions and the things we value are strong enough to handle such blatant exceptions. Even if we really shouldn't say that out loud. |
| john bodega 27.10.2011 01:03 |
Obviously, things like this can happen and the world will carry on either way. I don't think it's too much to want something a little better though. We should always be trying to get it a little more right than last time. Anally fucked by a knife ... wow. |
| Micrówave 27.10.2011 16:42 |
Here's some basic facts about LIBYA that we don't hear about... In 1951 Libya was one of the poorest countries in the world. Then... While under Ghaddafi's rule: Gas was .14 cents a gallon Literacy rate is 83% Newlyweds received a $50,000 contribution towards the purchase of a home The government pays 50% of the cost of a new vehicle Farmers get everything needed to start up... home, livestock, etc. Schools are free Electricity is free Healthcare is free 1.7 million people were defiant against Nato bombing, not against Ghadaffi Banks are state owned |
| The Real Wizard 28.10.2011 00:53 |
Of course the media will never print those facts. They have everything to lose by saying anything remotely positive about a nation they're taking oil from ... whoops, I mean "liberating." If the US is all about liberating people, then why not help the people of North Korea? Because there's nothing to gain. Another issue is that Libya was moving towards a new currency, i.e. not trading with the US dollar. Wall street sure as hell didn't like that. Learn more here - link Kennedy wanted to shift to a silver currency too. But that would've taken power away from the private banking cartel. Look where that got him. Always follow the money trail. |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.10.2011 06:13 |
Micrówave wrote: Here's some basic facts about LIBYA that we don't hear about... In 1951 Libya was one of the poorest countries in the world. Then... While under Ghaddafi's rule: Gas was .14 cents a gallon Literacy rate is 83% Newlyweds received a $50,000 contribution towards the purchase of a home The government pays 50% of the cost of a new vehicle Farmers get everything needed to start up... home, livestock, etc. Schools are free Electricity is free Healthcare is free 1.7 million people were defiant against Nato bombing, not against Ghadaffi Banks are state owned ======= I agree with what you wrote, but...weren't you the guy who slammed me about a year and a half ago for saying pretty much what you are saying now? He wasn't a gentle guy by a long stretch, and Libya wasn't a free country by any definition, but still - if you weren't into politics, you'd have been better off in Libya than in any other country in Africa with the *possible* exception of South Africa. It's really the same as in Cuba. You can't speak your mind, and opposition is brutally crushed, but they won't let you starve in the street or die because you can't afford healthcare. Or, as Billie Holiday put it, comparing Northern and Southern racism: "Southerners would call you 'nigger' to the face, but they would never evict a family in winter simply because they can't afford the rent." |
| Amazon 28.10.2011 06:20 |
You can't compare Libya to Cuba. No matter what one thought of Castro, he was nowhere near as brutal as Gadaffi, for whom to describe as 'wasn't a gentle guy by a long stretch' is a massive understatement. He was loathsome. Yes, he did 'good' things for the country, however ultimately the people feared and hated him, and are relieved that he is gone. That should be the only thing that matters. |
| YourValentine 28.10.2011 09:15 |
I totally agree, Microwave. (Miracles happen, lol). |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.10.2011 13:40 |
Amazon wrote: You can't compare Libya to Cuba. No matter what one thought of Castro, he was nowhere near as brutal as Gadaffi, for whom to describe as 'wasn't a gentle guy by a long stretch' is a massive understatement. He was loathsome. Yes, he did 'good' things for the country, however ultimately the people feared and hated him, and are relieved that he is gone. That should be the only thing that matters. =========== The thing is...Gaddafi came to power in 1969. He turned into a vicious despot during the 1980s. There was a period of some 10-15 years during which he did good things for his country and his people. Also, during the 1970s and early 1980s, he and his diplomats worked feverishly to ameliorate military dictatorships throughout Africa and Asia. |
| Amazon 28.10.2011 13:57 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: "he thing is...Gaddafi came to power in 1969. He turned into a vicious despot during the 1980s. There was a period of some 10-15 years during which he did good things for his country and his people. Also, during the 1970s and early 1980s, he and his diplomats worked feverishly to ameliorate military dictatorships throughout Africa and Asia." Yes, he became a vicious despot. When he became one doesn't matter; the people were not likely to be less forgiving than if he had been a vicious despot since day one. I think this is a fascinating discussion, and an important one as well. However can we please not talk about how nice a man Gadaffi was? His people obviously hated and feared him, and it's all very well for those on the outside to talk about how he did good things during the 70's or at any other time, since we or our families weren't there. It's also too close. In time, there may be attempts to rehabilitate him (or not), but with the people having just attained freedom, I think it's insulting to talk about whether he was 'good' when they obviously don't think so. Plus, it's irrelevant. If we are discussing whether or not his killing was justified or whether or not the world would have intervened if he was leader of North Korea instead, his doing good things at one time or another isn't all that relevant. I'm not saying that nobody can discuss his good works, so please don't accuse me of violating your freedom of speech, :D but I know from personal experience that it can be, at the best, frustrating, and at worse, horribly insulting when someone talks about the good things that certain people who terrorized one's family and community may have done. |
| YourValentine 29.10.2011 04:29 |
I agree, Amazon - it is easy to judge from the outside if you are not a victim. However - did the NATO have the right to interfere in Libya when they do not interfere in - for example - Saudi Arabia? Or Syria? What good can it do for the future of the Libyan people when the defeated Gaddafi troops can say that the winning rebels were bombed into power by oil-hungry NATO troops and are just puppets of an ouside power? Gaddafi came into power by overthrowing a king who had been brought into office by England and France. He was a national hero for many Arabs and to bomb him out of power was a mistake that will haunt the world in years to come. Gaddafi, his son and many followers were killed under the protection of NATO - that is what will stay in the minds of the people in Sirte and elsewhere. They were certainly not the civilians whose safety was protected by NATO - just look at the ruins and the many dead bodies. |
| thomasquinn 32989 29.10.2011 06:48 |
It isn't as simple as "his people hated and feared him", I'm afraid. This'll take some explanation, but I hope you'll humor me and read on: Libya is a really, really old country. It was already there as a society before the birth of the Roman empire. However, it was never one country until 1951. Libya consists of three regions, populated by three distinct 'tribes', who aren't always on good footing with one another. In the west of Libya, there is the region around Tripoli. This area traded mostly with the western mediterranean, notably the peoples of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia as well as Spain. It was a more or less separate country, and was traditionally recognized as a separate country: Tripoliteia. Gaddafi was from this area, and he was and is quite popular there. This is also the reason why the NTC had to fight so hard to conquer this region. In the east of Libya, there is the region around Benghazi, called Cyrenaïca. This is the area which has most of the oil, and historically, it was a region that traded mostly with Egypt, Greece and the levant (the region of Israel and Lebanon). It was culturally close to the Byzantines and later the Osmans, whereas the western region Tripoliteia was culturally tied to the Moors and Berbers. To the south of Tripoliteia lies a third area, mostly populated by darker-skinned people like the Tuareg, who are often discriminated against by both the Tripoliteians and the Cyrenaïcans. Cyrenaïca and Tripoliteia each seek to dominate the country, leading to tribal friction. Gaddafi was a Tripoliteian, and had much support there and little in Cyrenaïca. The NTC is Cyrenaïcan (Benghazi) and has little support in Tripoliteia. I don't personally see a solution unless Libya is divided into two countries. |