Forum menu
Really? a country with a low mortality rate, good food security, good medical care etc - perhaps one of the most prosperous and stable counties in Africa until we backed one side in a civil war and **** over another country to go with our sucess in Afghanistand an Iraq
I'm stunned that you seem to be defending him. Yes they may have enjoyed all those things but at what price?
Coyote - just trying to put it in context. We have ruined another country for the sake of oil supplies. There are far worse leaders in Africa and the rest of the world. Our own governments are responsible for far more deaths, disease and misery than Gadaffi ever was.
I agree that there are [b]equally as bad[/b] leaders in the world but please don't try and point out the good points of Gadhaffi. He had none.
I took no pleasure in seeing what happened to him neither do I feel any sadness at his death.
Gaddaffi was not as bad as many. He has been demonised by the west for decades.
Gaddaffi was not as bad as many
but he insisted on exporting his 'badness' far too much
TJ
You seem to be conveniently forgetting other aspects of his rule, including terrorism, in your self-righteous defence of his right to a fair trial. Is it just any excuse to have a pop at the nasty oil obsessed West? IMO he removed any right to fair and humanitarian treatment by his own acts and when he finally received 'justice', it was a damn sight quicker and more humane than many of his victims.
I'm sure they won't be shedding many tears in Lockerbie.
What you're also ignoring, TJ, is that in none of those countries with a leader worse than Gaddafi (though I'd love to see your justification for why he's so much better than other possible candidates) has there been a popular uprising which looked capable of overthrowing said leader. Count how many ground troops we've put in for the sake of those precious oil supplies. Check out the popular support for the support we have provided.
Woody - lockerbie was nothing to do with Libya. All I am attempting to do is put it in context.
aracer - really? popular uprising? You mean civil war. without air support from nato it would never have got anywhere. ~Do you really believe that? Do you really believe its nothing to do with oil?
How about Syria? Chechnya?
Elfinsafety - Member............. :tumbleweed: ...................
🙄
uplink - MemberGaddaffi was not as bad as many
but he insisted on exporting his 'badness' far too much
Evidence?
How about Putin ordering murders on the streets of London?
TandemJeremy - Member
Gaddaffi was not as bad as many. He has been demonised by the west for decades.
Demonised whilst being courted for trade opportunities etc.
The 'usual story' isn't it - suck up to crooked regimes until they become too much of a liability, then overthrow them and help rebuild their shattered society.
Hoorah for western democratic values......
How about Saudi Arabia? Imprisonment without trial, human rights abuses, funding global terrorism.
Gaddaffi was not as bad as many.
And that makes it alright then? Have you ever considered being a defence lawyer?
whilst we turn a blind eye to the policies of the suadis, ****stan or Israel as they are por western...tbh we dont care about countries ethics/human rights etc if their foreign policy matches our aims.....given this we are no position to preach to the world about morality. We dont really care about democracy abroad we care about access to their oil and the government being compliant
popular uprising? You mean civil war. without air support from nato it would never have got anywhere
You say civil war, I say popular uprising. You say terrorist, I say freedom fighter. The term used tends to depend on which side you support. Which side do you support, TJ?
I certainly never claimed it would have succeeded without air support - the question is, which other country with a worse leader has a popular uprising which would succeed with air support?
I certainly never claimed it would have succeeded without air support - the question is, which other country with a worse leader has a popular uprising which would succeed with air support?
Egypt. Romania, Poland,
I support truth and peace - so in Libya neither side. I do not believe that we should be fighting there at all. Our intervention has cost many many lives
whilst we turn a blind eye to the policies of the suadis, ****stan or Israel as they are por western
You don't think it might be because we're not in any position to change the policies of those countries? We turned a blind eye to the (internal) policies of Libya for long enough - it's not like this war was initiated by the west, and in general it seems most parts of the world support Nato's actions, which wouldn't be the case if we tried to take unilateral action against any of those.
Like most of the threads on here this will just spiral around until it is closed. My twopenneth...
As a comfy westerner far removed from any oppression or brutality at the hands of a dictator, I will never experience the pure emotion flowing through many of the Libyan peoples veins. The ever-prevailing emotions of complete and utter devastation and hatred are, for many hard to control under these circumstances, and as has been seen before on many occasions, explodes out into acts that in our eyes are horrific, unjust and should not be allowed to happen.
As an advocate of the preservation of life and a firm non-advocate of a life with a life mentality, Gaddafi should have been treated in the same manner as any other criminal and captured and given a fair trial under the law of the land.
Is Libya better off without Gaddafi? - Yes
Was he a brutal dictator responsible for mass murder - Yes
Should he have been treated in the manner yesterday - No, no living being should, and using the excuse of he deserved it because its how he treated others only results in lowering yourself to his level.
his death was an accident after all
Conflicting reports have emerged about how exactly Gaddafi died. He was captured after a Nato air strike hit his convoy as it tried to break away from the siege of his hometown."I am going to read to you a report by the forensic doctor who examined Gaddafi," Mahmoud Jibril told a news conference in the capital, Tripoli.
"It said: 'Gaddafi was taken out of a sewage pipe … he didn't show any resistance. When we started moving him he was hit by a bullet in his right arm and when they put him in a truck he did not have any other injuries.'"'When the car was moving it was caught in crossfire between the revolutionaries and Gaddafi forces in which he was hit by a bullet in the head.'"
"The forensic doctor could not tell if it came from the revolutionaries or from Gaddafi's forces," Jibril said.
Gaddafi had been alive when he was taken from Sirte but died a few minutes before reaching hospital, the prime minister said.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/gaddafi-killed-by-crossfire-libya ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/gaddafi-killed-by-crossfire-libya[/url]
The true crime here is that of the French government whos policies seemed to have slipped under the radar. A fierce outcry about the way the English and Americans handled the conflict in Iraq and outspoken statement about it being about the oil (which it was), to then turn to sudden panic when Libya is on the cards (where they get the majority of their oil from) and then leading the way on the campaign to oust Gaddafi and secure the oil supply. Biggest bunch of whinging hypocrits.
An accident!
Like falling down the stairs when under arrest?
Egypt. Romania, Poland,
I must be missing something here. Who is the current leader of any of those countries? Are you seriously suggesting we should be bombing Brussels?
Our intervention has cost many many lives
Because of course nobody would have died at all had we not got involved. 🙄
Did anyone else find the photo of Gaddafi in death quite disturbing?It makes me think of the days when executed people's heads were put on pikes for all to see.
It would be nice if the human race could move beyond turning corpses into trophies.
back to the OP briefly...
I thought showing the graphic images of his bloodied corpse at 3.20 in the afternoon on the news channels was wrong. At that point they were unconfirmed reports of his death so could have been anyone.
I think some of the images used this morning are in poor taste as well.
It is the modern equivalent to heads on spikes....
Yes aracer you are. all three of those countries had genuine popular uprisings that removed dictators without significant bloodshed and without needed air support from us.
Many less would have died IMO without our intervention as the civil war would not have lasted 6 months plus. I actually doubt it would have started.
all three of those countries had genuine popular uprisings that removed dictators without significant bloodshed and without needed air support from us.
Yes, and? What relevance has that to "which other country with a worse leader has a popular uprising which would succeed with air support?"? Clearly you're struggling with English comprehension this morning, so I'll help you out - I'm using present tense there, and referring to those countries with "worse" leaders than Gaddafi which you're complaining we're doing nothing about.
I actually doubt it would have started.
Rewriting history already, TJ?
Yes SaxonRider, I found the pictures of Gaddafi's death very disturbing for many reasons. The pictures themselves were disturbing simply due to the content (a dead, dying human being) and the context (something akin to a mob - I need to find a less emotive word, but cant). They are also disturbing at the personal level as I feel a conflict between a strange complusion to look at them but than an equal revulsion at having done so.
Billy Brag made a good point on BBC's QT last week when he drew the important distinction between human rights and civil rights. We can and should take civil rights away from guilty people. However, the mark of a civilised society is its ability to honour humna rights, even when it might appall us to do so. So it is disturbing to think that what happened yesterday may simply have been an example of summary execution. But then again, as others have pointed out, is that merely because we are looking at events through a western perspective that fails to understand the culture of the Arab world?
They are also disturbing as I find myself agreeing with TJ on certain points (the photos, the intervention in Libya and the hypocricy of foreign policy) and yet appalled at the basis that he uses for his arguments (nothing new there!!). I think he is overstepping the mark by extending his anti-establishment views to act as an apologist for Gaddafi and to ignoring his responsibility for attrocities such as Lockerbie, PC Yvonne Feltcher, the use of semtex.
Finally, regarding the UK's involvement. This comes back to a the core question in any debate on justice - the consequentialist versus categorical argument. It is true that the consequences of not intervening would have been awful for the people of Benghazi and elsewhere. But equally there are categorical arguments against killing people, intervening in other states, consistency of policy etc.
Perhaps Jacob Rees-Mogg summed it up best last night (BBC QT again). We were arguably right to have intervened in Libya on consequential and legal grounds but this should not be used as an excuse to intervene extensively in other nations. Cameron should avoid playing the role of a global policeman, however tempting this may be.
This is all well and good in an ideal world but it's far from it. I don't in any way feel 'I have lowered myself to his level' but can entirely empathise with those responsible (depending on which report is true, of course). In the end it's the same result, and in this case a trial of someone with his well documented human rights and atrocity record would serve no purpose other than to cause a media frenzy and elevate his status to 'martyr', in the eyes of some. A trial, after all, is only a means to prove or disprove guilt.No, no living being should, and using the excuse of he deserved it because its how he treated others only results in lowering yourself to his level.
There are thousands of entirely blameless people who die a hideous death every day, so there will not any hand ringing from me for someone with Gaddafi's history.
To use your own favourite phrase - I assume you have all the evidence necessary to support that assertion TJ?TJ - MemberWoody - lockerbie was nothing to do with Libya.
Indeed Woody.
Start with this - Jim Swires knows more about this than anyone else
http://www.lockerbietruth.com/
All the private eye stuff is not on line unfortuatly.
Many less would have died IMO without our intervention as the civil war would not have lasted 6 months plus
Yes it was heading for a swift and bloody conclusion in Benghazi, where Gaddafis thugs were already shelling the suburbs.
. I actually doubt it would have started.
Are there any lengths you will not go to to construct an argument? Time traveling now are we?
Intereresting that the usual suspects take the opportunity to attach a rant about "Bush and Blair" to Gaddafi's death without mentioning CallMeDave in the same breath.
Successful war with minimal casualties and the good guys won this time, then?
Yeah the 'good guys' won.....
“In Tripoli, we are seeing the same pattern in recent days that we saw earlier in the east,” said Diana Eltahawy, Libya researcher for Amnesty International. She described a record of abuse, torture and the extrajudicial killing of captured pro-Gaddafi fighters that has followed the rebels from east to west as they have taken over the country.In the wreckage of a Tripoli fire station and field hospital on Friday, five fighters loyal to Gaddafi lay in agony and blood, apparently left to die by their vanquishers. They had been without food, water or medical attention for two days....
A few minutes’ drive from the fire station, at least 15 bodies, most of them Gaddafi’s black African supporters, lay rotting in the sun at a traffic junction outside his Bab al-Aziziyah complex. Several of the dead wore green pieces of cloth wrapped around their wrists to signal loyalty to the Gaddafi regime.
The men may have died during Tuesday’s battle for Bab al-Aziziyah, and several were wearing military fatigues. But not all of them looked like ordinary battlefield deaths. Two dead men lay face down on the grass, their hands bound behind their backs with plastic cuffs.
[b]The worst treatment of Gaddafi loyalists appeared to be reserved for anyone with black skin, whether they hailed from southern Libya or from other African countries. Darker-skinned prisoners were not getting the same level of medical care in a hospital in rebel-held Zawiyah as lighter-skinned Arab Libyans, Eltahawy said.
Rebels say Gaddafi employed gunmen from sub-Saharan Africa to shore up his army against his own people, and those fighters have elicited intense enmity from Libyans. But many of the detainees in Zawiyah told Amnesty International they were merely migrant workers “taken at gunpoint from their homes, workplaces and the street on account of their skin color,” Eltahawy said.[/b]
From the Washington Post.
The rebels humane treatment of Gaddafi also shows their commitment to human rights and democracy - so glad they've replaced the evil dictator.
Perhaps Jacob Rees-Mogg summed it up best last night (BBC QT again). We were arguably right to have intervened in Libya on consequential and legal grounds but this should not be used as an excuse to intervene extensively in other nations. Cameron should avoid playing the role of a global policeman, however tempting this may be.
This
I wasnt keen on us yet again being involved in a conflict in an Arab country but it has worked out as well as anyone could reasonably hoped.....so far.
TJ will be along in a minute to tell us all what a disaster everything is going to be, he KNOWS you know. According to him we are all being seduced by propoganda, those Libyans we see on the BBC are just some dangerous minority and not to be trusted. It's pitiful.
Lets hope for the best for Libya and the rest of our near neighbours in North Africa.
TJ
Unfortunately it will take more than, for want of a better word, a conspiracy theory site to convince me one way or the other. It's hardly offering indisputable proof. You'll be telling me next that Iran were [b]definitely[/b] responsible 🙄
Your belief and evidence mantra is rather selective, is it not?
McBoo - read the post above yours for a bit of the reality.
A conspiracy theory site? do you know who Jim Swires is?
I do now, thanks to Wiki. Doesn't change my opinion though.
I'll be very surprised if in 2 to 3 years time when we look at Libya that we don't simply think "ah, more of the same."
Now how about a popular uprising here to impose democracy?
We have an unelected upper house.
Many of our laws are made at the behest of large corporations to whom our supposedly democratic representatives are beholden.
We are subjects, not citizens.
Do you think we could get the French to send in a few air strikes?
It's perhaps not surprising that 42 years of torture/repression/murder and denial of human rights, has resulted in an explosion of violence towards those held responsible (and those deemed so by association) without genteel recourse to courts of law.
War is hell.
Another day, another round of pathetic weasleing from TJ. I'd love to see you tell an audience of Libyans they were better off under Gadaffi.
a country with a low mortality rate, good food security, good medical care etc - perhaps one of the most prosperous and stable counties in Africa
Libya has nothing but oil, nothing. Gadaffi and his vile clan monopolised the nation's wealth for their own ends but you think thats fine because he didnt spend all of it on gold AK47s, built some hospitals too and that makes him an OK guy. More weasel moral relativism.
Do you think we could get the French to send in a few air strikes?
i think you are vastly overestimating north sea oil reserves
Oh no its all been a big mistake , they've gone and shot Sylvester Stallone's mum Jackie !!!!!!
It's perhaps not surprising that 42 years of torture/repression/murder and denial of human rights, has resulted in an explosion of violence towards those held responsible (and those deemed so by association) without genteel recourse to courts of law.War is hell.
Oh well that's ok then. Surprising no, but it makes all the claims that we were helping them in the name of human rights ring very hollow.
I'd love to see you tell an audience of Libyans they were better off under Gadaffi.
Well it seems all the black and dark skinned LIbyans were a lot better off under Gadaffi, not being murdered and abused and all.
Take a look at that photo of Gaddafi's face. Keep looking at it. Are you still thinking that "it serves him right"? Keep looking. Think about how it must have felt, after his astonished and bemused realisation that he was bleeding, as he was battered kicked punched and bludgeoned until he became the broken-faced doll-thing that you are looking at.
Keep looking at it. Think about all the Libyans he had reduced to exactly that state during his reign. Think about how he has become one of them at last.
"ok then"?
No. Not at all.
War is hell.
Well it seems all the black and dark skinned LIbyans were a lot better off under Gadaffi, not being murdered and abused and all.
Try again. You wish we (NATO) had stayed out of it entirely and that therefore Gadaffi would have been free to put down the revolt and stay in power? Thats what you are saying Grum? There is no halfway answer here.
I believe that would have led to less deaths. There is no way of proving this but its my belief
libya will now be a divided country in a state of civil war. Islamic extremists will take over some areas, tribal rivalries will ensure the civil war is perpetuated.
What right do we have to bomb the shit out of a country miles away - killing many civilians in the process?