Gadaffi dead!

[TheFull9]

Personally, and this is just me, I'll stick with what I said. They'd have executed him anyway, it'd have cost millions (among other things) going through an overly drawn-out war crimes trial which probably would've played out like some sort of circus act. Save the money and court room time, he's gone now, done and dusted, good riddance.

 

Either way, from the footage it looks like it was just a bunch of average rebel fighters who had a hold of him and finished it, not exactly like the head of the NTC pulled the trigger. For all we know the guy who did might've had suffered horribly at Gadaffi's hands, I'd defy anybody to honestly say they wouldn't have done the same if they were in that situation.

[WhiteHawksan]

Why is it Middle Eastern Dictators like hiding in holes? I mean, that's 2 in a row now.

[scorch]

Regardless of the terrible atrocities he orchestrated, he was still an old man begging for his life, killed without trial. Thats just not how things are done in a civilised country, and now the new free Libya has been created on the back of that.

 

Not a good start I'd say.

[hwagan]

Regardless of the terrible atrocities he orchestrated, he was still an old man begging for his life, killed without trial. Thats just not how things are done in a civilised country, and now the new free Libya has been created on the back of that.

 

Not a good start I'd say.

 

 

Every civlised nation has some pretty uncivilised history. Sure, they probably should have put him through the pointless trial shindig just to keep the human rights brigade happy. However, you put him through a trial, he spouts his bile-filled message to millions through the international media, and if a few people decide he's got a good point, that's a few more bad people in the world. I reckon Saddam's trial probably added a few new recruits to Al Qaeda or whoever. Why give Gadaffi the chance to try and justify his awful acts?

 

Yes, capturing him, treating him humanely and giving him a trial would give the Libyan's the ability to say 'Hey, we treated him better than he treated us'. But say you're the rebel soldier who captured him, and he happens to have killed several of your family members over the years? I don't blame the guy for pulling the trigger; I probably would have done the same.

 

Main thing is, he's dead. Yes, there's controversy about his death, but I don't really think the manner of Gadaffi's end is going to be the difference between Libya becoming a nice place to be or just taken over by another unpleasant regime in the long run.

[Seraphim989]

 

 

Every civlised nation has some pretty uncivilised history. Sure, they probably should have put him through the pointless trial shindig just to keep the human rights brigade happy. However, you put him through a trial, he spouts his bile-filled message to millions through the international media, and if a few people decide he's got a good point, that's a few more bad people in the world. I reckon Saddam's trial probably added a few new recruits to Al Qaeda or whoever. Why give Gadaffi the chance to try and justify his awful acts?

 

Yes, capturing him, treating him humanely and giving him a trial would give the Libyan's the ability to say 'Hey, we treated him better than he treated us'. But say you're the rebel soldier who captured him, and he happens to have killed several of your family members over the years? I don't blame the guy for pulling the trigger; I probably would have done the same.

 

Main thing is, he's dead. Yes, there's controversy about his death, but I don't really think the manner of Gadaffi's end is going to be the difference between Libya becoming a nice place to be or just taken over by another unpleasant regime in the long run.

 

The fact that you'd be given over to your pointless emotions just as that man would have doesn't make it right. It's extremely important how he died. The legitimacy of the new regime rests upon them NOT doing the sort of things they accused Gaddafi of doing. The recent news about the large numbers of executed pro-Gaddafi forces being found certainly doesn't help their case.

[Grindstone]

Did any of you really expect any other outcome?

The "legitimacy of the new regime " is not based on the actions of the rabble that found and capped him, anyway. It is how they assert themselves as a new nation with their system of governance and treatment of citizens.

 

Anyway, you might as well criticize the US for starting out their founding with a war.

 

I still say thus always to tyrants.

[Megalomaniac]

Why is it Middle Eastern Dictators like hiding in holes? I mean, that's 2 in a row now.

 

Libya is North Africa not technically part of the "Middle East" per say.

[Nasty_TheYankWelshOne]

Some people in the US (mostly on the right) are now saying that the NTC is compromised of Al Qaeda sympathizers, and that the country will become a staging point for AQ.

 

Any evidence to support this? Cause I sure as hell haven't found anything linking the NTC to AQ.

 

And honestly, there was a very good chance that he was going to die like this. If he didn't escape Libya, or if he didn't surrender himself openly to the NTC (which everyone knows he wasn't going to do), he was going to be killed by rebel fighters. Yes, it's regrettable, but I'm with CKinnerly. He would have been tried, costing millions. He would have been found guilty. He would have been executed. These rebels just saved everyone the trouble. And I find the notion of "fair trials" for dictators utterly ridiculous. He was in power for 40-odd years. His crimes in power were WELL documented. So why is a trial necessary? Just for symbolic justice? It's like the people in the States bitching about that long standing member of AQ killed by Obama, saying it was terrible because he was a US citizen killed without trial.

 

Also, I find it really funny that the countries criticizing the NTC on human rights grounds are the countries that have absolutely atrocious human rights records of their own.

[Seraphim989]

Did any of you really expect any other outcome?

The "legitimacy of the new regime " is not based on the actions of the rabble that found and capped him, anyway. It is how they assert themselves as a new nation with their system of governance and treatment of citizens.

 

Anyway, you might as well criticize the US for starting out their founding with a war.

 

I still say thus always to tyrants.

Yes, it is. When the Abu Ghraib scandal came out, did the world think, "Oh, those US soldiers did a bad thing"? No, they thought, "The US did a bad thing." You are responsible for the actions of your subordinates, it's a central point of leadership.

 

Some people in the US (mostly on the right) are now saying that the NTC is compromised of Al Qaeda sympathizers, and that the country will become a staging point for AQ.

 

Any evidence to support this? Cause I sure as hell haven't found anything linking the NTC to AQ.

I don't think there's direct evidence. I think it is more just worrying. That said, I think it is unfortunate that the new government has said they will be basing their law on Islamic law

[TheFull9]

Yes, it is. When the Abu Ghraib scandal came out, did the world think, "Oh, those US soldiers did a bad thing"? No, they thought, "The US did a bad thing." You are responsible for the actions of your subordinates, it's a central point of leadership.

I'd agree with this entirely, if I were to go out tonight, get ######, have a fight and get arrested, I'd be charged for "bringing the RAF in to disrepute", not for bringing myself in to disrepute. That's the way it is, and always has been, in every organisation all over the world.

 

Thing is though, it's done now. Some random Libyan shop owner/factory worker/whatever shot the *Ubar*, and I highly doubt it was on the orders of the NTC higher-ups; mainly for the reason that they're not even organised or equipped well enough to communicate things like that to all their 'personnel'. Give it a few weeks from now however, and I don't reckon anybody will even have the method in which Gadaffi died at the front of their minds, they'll be looking at how the new government conducts themselves, and in fact most of the world will have moved on to a different news story all together. I mean that's just my guess of course, only time will tell who's correct, I'm no political analyst.

[Nasty_TheYankWelshOne]

I don't think there's direct evidence. I think it is more just worrying. That said, I think it is unfortunate that the new government has said they will be basing their law on Islamic law

 

Islamic Law isn't inherently bad. It only goes tits up when extremists are in control, like so many other things. Libya was also primarily under Islamic law under Gaddafi, so not much has changed.

 

The West, thanks to the Taliban and other extremists, has this terrified notion that Islamic law orders the deaths of all non-Muslims, and that it mandates control of the entire world. I'll reserve my judgement of the new government until it is seen how they implement said laws. If they go the extremist route, that's terrible. If they walk the line of moderation, then everything's gravy.

[TheFull9]

I knew quite a few muslim lads growing up, and the ones who actually followed their religious teachings in the proper manner were the most selfless, charitable, well behaved people I've ever met. One kid I knew was given pocket money by his parents', but those same parents required him to give 80% of it (along with any other money received through other channels) away to charity.

 

His mother wasn't oppressed or forced to hide her face, they didn't force him to skip physics lessons to go study the Qur'an instead, and they didn't ban TV/video games in the house.. although with the utter *suitcase* that usually comes across most TV channels now-a-days, I'm beginning to think it should be banned anyway.

[Grindstone]

Islamic Law isn't inherently bad.

No, but having your entire legal system based off of a religious system isn't compatible with a modern democracy, especially a religious system that has strict codes and regulations regarding personal choices and issues a government has no business regulating in the first place. Cue someone blah blah blahing about the constitution being based on the bible.

 

The fact that they announced that they are basing their law as such is a good indicator of where this is heading. Extremist, moderates, doesn't matter. It's more than likely going to go tits up within a few years, one way or another. It's just the track record for democratic Islamic nations isn't exactly good. It's more likely going to go the route that Egypt is heading. How long has the military been in control of the goverment there? Are they letting up anytime soon? Doubtful.

[Seraphim989]

I never said I had a problem with Islam. I am against any form of religious government, as I think that it will be inherently bad. That aside, the sort of reforms they've announced (guys can have as many wives as they want!) seem to be the bad sort of Islamic laws that we've seen before