Gaddafi has been captured

[Topaz]

Reports are saying that gaddafi has been captured and injured in both legs and there is a chance that he has been killed. I rather see him captured and stand trial and listen to his point of view but it seems any leader from this area is always killed somehow. So now all those countries that went after Gaddafi can share in the countries light crude oil, unless the new government says different, than will NATO go back in? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955

[blueblood]

Reports are saying that gaddafi has been captured and injured in both legs and there is a chance that he has been killed. I rather see him captured and stand trial and listen to his point of view but it seems any leader from this area is always killed somehow. So now all those countries that went after Gaddafi can share in the countries light crude oil, unless the new government says different, than will NATO go back in? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955

CNN is figuring he's dead

[Smallc]

CBC says that Libya's Prime Minister confirms he's dead.

[kactus]

Most news reports point to the fact that he is dead. I would share the same sentiment as Topza in so far as I would have liked to see him captured and stand trial...If true, he shared the same fate as Osama Bin Laden.

[GostHacked]

I know many don't care for Jones.. but I am linking this just for the pic of a dead Gadhafi.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ main page. Unlike the Osama Been photoshopped picture .. this looks like the real deal.

[ToadBrother]

Most news reports point to the fact that he is dead. I would share the same sentiment as Topza in so far as I would have liked to see him captured and stand trial...If true, he shared the same fate as Osama Bin Laden.

He had his chance to surrender peacefully. Instead he fled back to his home territory where he was inevitably going to be cornered like a rat.

Good riddance to vile rubbish. Gaddhafi was a bad guy and no one needed a trial to confirm it.

[eyeball]

He had his chance to surrender peacefully. Instead he fled back to his home territory where he was inevitably going to be cornered like a rat.

Good riddance to vile rubbish. Gaddhafi was a bad guy and no one needed a trial to confirm it.

He's not why we needed a trial. There's still lots and lots of rubbish out there.

[GostHacked]

He had his chance to surrender peacefully. Instead he fled back to his home territory where he was inevitably going to be cornered like a rat.

Good riddance to vile rubbish. Gaddhafi was a bad guy and no one needed a trial to confirm it.

One bad guy replaced with bad guy. That is exactly how this is going to play out.

[maple_leafs182]

I think the reason the they wanted Gaddafi out of power and dead is because he wanted to create a gold backed currency and trade oil in it instead of the US dollar, he also wanted other middle eastern and African countries to use it.

[jacee]

I think the reason the they wanted Gaddafi out of power and dead is because he wanted to create a gold backed currency and trade oil in it instead of the US dollar, he also wanted other middle eastern and African countries to use it.

That might be the US's reason - like impending nationalization of resources by Saddam :ussein was in Iraq.

However, I think it's also indisputable that the vast majority of Libyan people wanted him gone. It was interesting watching Obama at the time, hanging back and letting other Nato members make the decision, in comparison to George Bush's aggressive misinformation campaign to justify war against Iraq after 9/11, which was unrelated to Iraq.

[Topaz]

I think the reason the they wanted Gaddafi out of power and dead is because he wanted to create a gold backed currency and trade oil in it instead of the US dollar, he also wanted other middle eastern and African countries to use it.

I agree with you and in fact saw an article about that which said that US, Britian, French, Canada and one other country, went into to take him out because what he was about to do would hurt their economies and Gadaffi, wanted other Middle-Eastern countries to follow suit. The oil from this country is sweet light oil, easily made into gasoline. All the wars in this area is about OIL and power, more than about the people of these countries. What a scam!

[bush_cheney2004]

....However, I think it's also indisputable that the vast majority of Libyan people wanted him gone. It was interesting watching Obama at the time, hanging back and letting other Nato members make the decision, in comparison to George Bush's aggressive misinformation campaign to justify war against Iraq after 9/11, which was unrelated to Iraq.

The US and UK were already at "war with Iraq" for 12 years. Reagan bombed Gaddaffy in 1986. Bush told Gaddaffy to come clean and give it up. But Paul Martin had tea in his tent and begged for Canadian oil services contracts.

[ToadBrother]

dup

Edited October 20, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

The US and UK were already at "war with Iraq" for 12 years. Reagan bombed Gaddaffy in 1986. Bush told Gaddaffy to come clean and give it up. But Paul Martin had tea in his tent and begged for Canadian oil services contracts.

Let's not forget that the real instrument of Gaddafi's "normalization" was Tony Blair. I wonder what Blair is thinking now, as they drag the Colonel's bodies through the streets of his hometown.

Edited October 20, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Moonlight Graham]

Thought he would have lasted longer than Saddam, given he didn't have world-class occupying militaries hunting him down.

edit: ill add that the rebels did have NATO support help them, including air support and covert round support.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[maple_leafs182]

That might be the US's reason - like impending nationalization of resources by Saddam :ussein was in Iraq.

However, I think it's also indisputable that the vast majority of Libyan people wanted him gone. It was interesting watching Obama at the time, hanging back and letting other Nato members make the decision, in comparison to George Bush's aggressive misinformation campaign to justify war against Iraq after 9/11, which was unrelated to Iraq.

Is it indisputable that the vast majority of the Libyan people wanted him gone...I am looking at some videos of people who keep in contact with Libyans and report Libyan news and they are saying a majority of the people liked Gaddafi. I know they could be wrong but who knows...I stopped believing anything the Government and main stream media says so I am not going to take their word for it.

[ToadBrother]

Thought he would have lasted longer than Saddam, given he didn't have world-class occupying militaries hunting him down.

edit: ill add that the rebels did have NATO support help them, including air support and covert round support.

What did in him, in my opinion, was NATO basically making sure he couldn't slink across the border. They cornered him, and then let the Libyan rebels do the dirty work.

[Bob]

What did in him, in my opinion, was NATO basically making sure he couldn't slink across the border. They cornered him, and then let the Libyan rebels do the dirty work.

I'm pretty sure the mainstream news is reporting that it was a NATO attack that initially injured Qaddafi, to be finished off by Libyan "rebels" after-the-fact.

[kactus]

What did in him, in my opinion, was NATO basically making sure he couldn't slink across the border. They cornered him, and then let the Libyan rebels do the dirty work.

The only thing is the town of Sirte is bordering see which makes this assessment implausible.

[ToadBrother]

I'm pretty sure the mainstream news is reporting that it was a NATO attack that initially injured Qaddafi, to be finished off by Libyan "rebels" after-the-fact.

Well, things are always fluid at this point, but yes, it's my understanding that he had some sort of injuries to his legs when he was captured, but it was a rebel bullet that did him in.

I was referring more to the point that he was eventually cornered in Sirte, and unable to flee. The guy was an idiot. As soon as it became clear that China and Russia had no interest in preventing Security Council authorized intervention he should have got out. But Gaddafi's problem was that, unlike Ben Ali, he had no Arab allies. His neighbors loathed him, so he couldn't hope to make for Saudi Arabia, even if he could have found a way.

[GostHacked]

Some facts about Libya.

[maple_leafs182]

Some facts about Libya.

Good video. People will probably discredit it because it uses the words New World Order in it.

I hope that song was actually blasting out the car while he drove.

[jbg]

A Eulogy for Ghaddafi

He was a kind man, a gentle man, a man of the people. He tried to do good in the world, to give Libyans a choice between King Idris and progress.

His methods of executing his visions, dreams and goals were unconventional. He thought outside the box, as much as he's inside the box, literally, now. Ghaddafi did much to amplify and exemplify the many great achievements of the Arab people, especially in areas of governance, and aerial interdiction and surveillance.

His greatness was manifest throughout the world. His oratory was so sophisticated that many people of lesser intelligence couldn't understand it. That spoke to the intelligence of his doubters and critics.

He is a man who will sorely be missed.

[Bob]

I'd like to see the left and their pillars (the UN, "human rights groups", favoured politicians/intellectuals) call into question the legality of the execution of Qaddafi, as they did, for example, when Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were recently neutralized. Will our lovely leftists express their outrage by crying for investigations and subsequent prosecutions of the perpetrators of Qaddafi's execution? Will we hear shouts of "war crimes!"? Or perhaps NATO can be accused of breaching Libya's "sovereignty", as we heard from Pakistan and other elements of the reflexively anti-American leftist Islamist-supporters when Osama bin Laden was neutralized? Should Qaddafi have had his rights read to him, been given medical attention, been given sufficient living conditions in his imprisonment (including Halal meals and access to religious necessities), access to a lawyer, and all the other trimmings that are somehow universal "rights"?

It's a lose-lose situation for the left, of course, as they've already made fools of themselves on these issues in this past, and can either choose to be consistently absurd by advancing the same demands and criticisms now, or choose to be hypocritical by staying silent.

[maple_leafs182]

I'd like to see the left and their pillars (the UN, "human rights groups", favoured politicians/intellectuals) call into question the legality of the execution of Qaddafi, as they did, for example, when Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were recently neutralized. Will our lovely leftists express their outrage by crying for investigations and subsequent prosecutions of the perpetrators of Qaddafi's execution? Will we hear shouts of "war crimes!"? Or perhaps NATO can be accused of breaching Libya's "sovereignty", as we heard from Pakistan and other elements of the reflexively anti-American leftist Islamist-supporters when Osama bin Laden was neutralized? Should Qaddafi have had his rights read to him, been given medical attention, been given sufficient living conditions in his imprisonment (including Halal meals and access to religious necessities), access to a lawyer, and all the other trimmings that are somehow universal "rights"?

It's a lose-lose situation for the left, of course, as they've already made fools of themselves on these issues in this past, and can either choose to be consistently absurd by advancing the same demands and criticisms now, or choose to be hypocritical by staying silent.

...I think I am more conservative and I'll question it all.