Gaddafi Dead

[oisin9724]

Im sure you have seen the footage of a dead Gaddafi soaked in blood on the news but what do you think about it? Do you think they were right to kill him?Do you think they should have shown the pictures on the news and what do you think about the future of Libya?
Express your feelings here.
( Not sure whether a picture is appropriate right now but im sure you have already seen.)

[oisin9724]

I personally agree with you but I want to hear it from both sides of the argument to the argument against this (if any)

[oisin9724]

Sorry I meant that I want to see if their are any opposing arguments.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/24/11 05:26 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Why is it these days we always seek to put the enemy leaders on trial after a war?

To show we're better then they are? So that the new government establishes from day one they are about justice and the rule of law (mostly that second one anyway)?

What happened to the good old days of just executing them and being done with it?

When were these good old days?

Oh wait, so now we're criticising the rebel forces for finally bringing this war to an end?

No, I don't think the killing is being criticized as much as the circumstances. That he was basically beaten to death by a mod, and the corpse paraded around as a trophy. Don't think anyone has any qualms at him being dead, or any doubts about what the outcome of a trial would have been. I think it's more down to how it all went down and the message that sends and what other governments who were involved in the war, and may now ally with Libya need to do as an appropriate response.

They had every right to kill his ass considering the amount of shit he's put them through in the past.

Again, I think it's the HOW more then the actual DEED that's coming under fire here.

I MEAN GOOD GOD, SERIOUSLY. CHRIST.

Aren't they about forgiveness and not killing though? Probably shouldn't invoke them when you're talking about the right to brutally kill another human being. :)

[BUTANE]

A fair trial is always the best way to go. Having him shot in the head after he had been captured was, in my opinion, the wrong was to go. As far as displaying the body...that's cool with me. The problem is that the new interim leader of libya has said that Sharia law will be the law of the land from now on. I realize that i don't live in the region, but i really feel like that is sort of a backward step. "YAY we got rid of a tyrannical dictator, now lets set up laws that oppress women and minorities!" Religion and government should never co-exist no matter where you are.

[SadisticMonkey]

man libya is going to becoe an absolute shithole

well ore of a shithole

[TrueLAD]

At 10/24/11 07:58 PM, BUTANE wrote: A fair trial is always the best way to go. Having him shot in the head after he had been captured was, in my opinion, the wrong was to go.

Even though if the shoe were on the other foot, he would've done the exact same thing.

[Love]

What do you mean "did they have a right."

It's theircountry. I think it's fair to say that they call the shots not us.

[bcdemon]

At 10/24/11 05:20 PM, oisin9724 wrote: Im sure you have seen the footage of a dead Gaddafi soaked in blood on the news but what do you think about it?

I haven't seen it nor do I want to. The NTC / NATO wants to sensationalize his death, which is starting to be reported as an execution.

Do you think they were right to kill him?

Considering there is video evidence he was alive after being caught, meaning he was killed after being captured, no they should not have killed him. The NTC proves by doing this they are no better than the one they were after.

Do you think they should have shown the pictures on the news

No. Just like Iraq shouldn't have shown Saddams death. But at least we know the new Iraq and Libyan gov are as gruesome as their previous leaders. Wait, did Gaddaffi or Saddam ever publish dead people on the internet? Didn't think so.

and what do you think about the future of Libya?

Libya used to have free healthcare, something Americans don't even have. Libya had free and mandatory primary education. Libyan literacy rates were well above the rest of Africa. Libya child mortality rates plummeted under Gaddaffi. Libyan infrastructure was one of the best in Africa.

I think Libya is now going to go backwards, especially considering their infrastructure has been decimated by NATO and the NTC.

[JudgeDredd]

.At 10/25/11 09:40 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Libyan infrastructure was one of the best in Africa.

The problem with Gaddafi was that he had his time and did some good things for his country and could have easily seen the "Arab spring" uprisings as the writing on the wall, and stepped aside gracefully and wth dignity and leaving his long legacy for the history books. But the second he (or any despotic leader for that matter) decides and states openly that they would rather see their own nation destroyed in civil war rather than standing aside, then they deserve no sympathy in my opinion.

In all likelihood Saddam may have suffered the same fate by his own people, we'll never know. But the Arab spring has shown that when a time has come, a nations people can rise up (notwithstanding imbalances of weapons) and take down leaders who refuse to see the overwhelming tide of their own people has changed. I'll repeat thou, the issue with Saddam's overthrow and death was based wholely on lies to the American people, and tying Saddam to the whole "war on terror" campaign, and cared nothing about the safety and well-being and dignity of the Iraqi people in general (excluding the numerous accounts of mistreating his own people, in particular the northern Kurdish folk who suffered the most) but ultimately the American led invasion killed and maimed far more Iraqis than would have if Saddam had been left to face the Arab spring uprising of his own people, thereby following the natural course of events as they have surely unfolded. The lesson is pretty clear (at least to those not occluded by brainwashing of ridiculous lies for some hidden agenda) that circumventing events by unilateral invasion was clearly the greater evil, as in the case of Iraq.

(..by cellphone)

[The-universe]

I would have preferred a trial.

You get to be honest about it and there's a longer waiting period before he gets snuffed.

Is there anything worse than knowing you're going to die no matter what happens? He'd be dwelling in a cell for 23 hours a day thinking of nothing but.

[Korriken]

shitbag #3 offed. first Saddam, then bin Laden, now Qadaffi.

wonder who #4 will be and when?

[Camarohusky]

At 10/25/11 03:12 PM, The-universe wrote: I would have preferred a trial.

That makes very few of you. Trial for Gadaffi = bad idea.

You get to be honest about it and there's a longer waiting period before he gets snuffed.

Honest? Really? "Truth", even in continental style courts is a fiction. He would lie through his teeth and get the opportunity for some dope to believe him.

Is there anything worse than knowing you're going to die no matter what happens? He'd be dwelling in a cell for 23 hours a day thinking of nothing but.

Living in a hole waiting for a squad to come kill him (if he's lucky, torture is always an option) seems pretty similar to your punishment, but without the possibility of him getting off, or even worse, getting attention.

[Proteas]

At 10/25/11 03:12 PM, The-universe wrote: I would have preferred a trial.

Why? A trial for Gadaffi would have been a farce, as there wouldn't have been one single impartial jury or court in the land to hear the case, and we all know it. Playing at being better than your enemy only works if you actually ARE better than your enemy, and not one to play at mock rituals of democracy and justice the way Hussein did in Iraq.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/25/11 10:11 PM, Korriken wrote: wonder who #4 will be and when?

Dunno, seems will be quite busy and starting to step on allies though if we really are in the "taking out the world's scumbags" business. Of course, I think we should be laying credit, blame, whichever way you prefer to look at it at the appropriate doors as well. But that's probably an issue for a different thread.

[Proteas]

At 10/26/11 05:43 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Just a theory, but out of all the shitbags in the world, I'd say he's the most at risk.

It wouldn't do any good to go after Ahmadinejad. As satisfying as it would be to see the guy permanently silenced so he's not running around trolling the rest of the modern world ("There are no gay people in Iran!"), he's just the most visible member of a much larger group of leaders in Iran. Take out Ahmadinejad, and you've still got the Supreme Leader and the Gaurdian Council to deal with.

[AKACCMIOF]

Irony here for me is that the arguments for and against the shooting of Gadaffi sans trial focus on leaving behind the past of Gadaffi, BUT both are arguments themselves focused on the last chapter of the path of Gadaffi. In other words, the debate focused on how best to leave Gadaffi's past behind is keeping Gadaffi in the present issues.

I think the best thing to do is just leave Gadaffi and his death behind for the historians, focus on the growth of Libyan democracy and oppose violations of human rights under the new regime if/ when they occur, Gadaffi's killing was quite clearly an exceptional circumstance. Libya might end up a typical African wasteland, or it might blossom as civilians accustomed to Gadaffi era infrastructure, but full of a sense of entitlement for democracy push hard for a better Libya. Who knows.

[Stuartmisty]

I think they should have teabagged him in the video just to show how awesome their kill was. :D

[Camarohusky]

At 10/26/11 09:33 AM, Stuartmisty wrote: I think they should have teabagged him in the video just to show how awesome their kill was. :D

You mean running around spouting nonsense about past patriots as if it still applies and then doing everything possible to stop his good ideas at any cost?

[Ericho]

At 10/25/11 10:11 PM, Korriken wrote: shitbag #3 offed. first Saddam, then bin Laden, now Qadaffi.

wonder who #4 will be and when?

Hopefully Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-il. Probably sometime in the next adminstration.

[SouthAsian]

Hope the Libyans can look forward to a free society now.

[The-universe]

At 10/25/11 10:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/25/11 03:12 PM, The-universe wrote: I would have preferred a trial.

That makes very few of you. Trial for Gadaffi = bad idea.

At 10/25/11 10:32 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/25/11 03:12 PM, The-universe wrote: I would have preferred a trial.

Why?

You both seem to think that just because it would be a shamble there'd be no point doing it.

As far I'm aware there's still murder, rape and theft in our society and has been throughout history. So why bother?

At least attempt to have some form of decency and give him a trial, then everyone's happy because we all know someone would have assassinated him regardless.

And if you're worried that some idiot will believe him, then why aren't you rallying to get faith healers, creationists, homoeopaths etc off TV and radio since some idiot might believe them as well?...oh wait, they do.

[Korriken]

At 10/26/11 12:43 PM, Ericho wrote:

Hopefully Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-il. Probably sometime in the next adminstration.

Kim Jong Il? Not likely at all, north koreans are too brainwashed.

Mugabe though... I wouldn't mind seeing that fat power hungry piece of shit riddled with bullet holes.

[Proteas]

At 10/26/11 04:17 PM, The-universe wrote: You both seem to think that just because it would be a shamble there'd be no point doing it.

Not shamble, a sham. A fake. A mockery of justice. A trial gives the chance for an unbiased jury or judge to hear evidence for and against a defendant and then decide guilt or innocence. Who in Libya is going to volunteer for such a thing? And on top of that, how likely would it be they'd arrest and try him for something ELSE he did until they finally executed him?

Keep in mind, of all the known human rights violations and murders Saddam Husein's regime committed in Iraq, they only tried and convicted him for the deaths of people he executed in the 1982 Dujail Massacre. Not gassing the Kurds in the late 80's, not the countless rapes and murders that were committed during his regime, they took him to court over something he did shortly after he came to power. Even if he was found not guilty, there wasn't a chance in hell he'd ever go free.

As far I'm aware there's still murder, rape and theft in our society and has been throughout history. So why bother?

Take your slippery slope and shove it.

[Warforger]

At 10/26/11 12:43 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 10/25/11 10:11 PM, Korriken wrote: shitbag #3 offed. first Saddam, then bin Laden, now Qadaffi.

wonder who #4 will be and when?

Hopefully Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-il. Probably sometime in the next adminstration.

Erm Mugabe is already long gone and right now the current government is pretty Communist (ever notice the "Democratic Republic" part of it that it shares with the "Democratic Republic" Of North Korea? ) but to the point that people would still support it. Even then the amount of control the recognized government has is pretty low.

[BUTANE]

At 10/25/11 06:14 AM, TrueLAD wrote:

At 10/24/11 07:58 PM, BUTANE wrote: A fair trial is always the best way to go. Having him shot in the head after he had been captured was, in my opinion, the wrong was to go.

Even though if the shoe were on the other foot, he would've done the exact same thing.

Justice in some form of trial, even for people who are surely guilty of many crimes, is still the correct action to take. You need to be better than the last guy, not the same. Isn't that why they wanted him gone? Because he was an unjust and unfair ruler?

[Camarohusky]

At 10/26/11 07:46 PM, BUTANE wrote: Justice in some form of trial,

A sham trial is no trial...

[The-universe]

At 10/26/11 05:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/26/11 04:17 PM, The-universe wrote: You both seem to think that just because it would be a shamble there'd be no point doing it.

Not shamble, a sham. A fake. A mockery of justice.

So what's stopping them from doing to Gaddafi that they did to Saddam?

[djack]

At 10/27/11 11:46 AM, The-universe wrote: So what's stopping them from doing to Gaddafi that they did to Saddam?

Well, he is already dead for one.
You seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that any trial would be better than no trial and would make them better than Gaddafi but really the farce of a trial he would get wouldn't make them better than him. It would just be a waste of time and money while they eagerly waited for his inevitable and highly publicized execution. At least this way the time and money that would be spent on giving Gaddafi a global audience for his insanity can instead be used productively to rebuild a country that's been ripped apart by civil war.

[The-universe]

At 10/27/11 12:02 PM, djack wrote:

At 10/27/11 11:46 AM, The-universe wrote: So what's stopping them from doing to Gaddafi that they did to Saddam?

Well, he is already dead for one.

Umm... in-case you missed the news Gaddafi is still being publicised. Like...here for example.

You seem to be under the impression that there's a magical line where you can ditch the systems that kept you alive in the first place if someone's been extra nasty.

But you really didn't answer my question (other than financial reasons), why would it be any different to Saddam? Does that mean we're out of pocket with him but we managed to spare a few coins for Gaddafi?