Prospective Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 What did all of you expect would happen? By the standards of the region he was killed quick. I watched the video of him being stabbed in the backside, and thought it was utterly disgusting 12th centuray barberism. They are our allies, who hold us to the highist possible standards. Its sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElasticMan Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Exactly - what is the point in overthrowing a brutal dictator if those that replace him are going to act in the same way? The new rulers need to establish the rule of law - allowing Gaddafi to be bummed to death, and the execution of enemy soldiers isn't going to make this any easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Your argument being what? That it was good POWs were treated horribly? You really are a silly person, I was merely pointing out that it is unlikely that they would have adhered to the Geneva convention if like the Japanese they didn't sign up to it. Stop trying to start another argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Exactly - what is the point in overthrowing a brutal dictator if those that replace him are going to act in the same way? The new rulers need to establish the rule of law - allowing Gaddafi to be bummed to death, and the execution of enemy soldiers isn't going to make this any easier. I agree 100%, the only Gaddafi supporters who deserve all they get are the mercenarys who kill for money, no sympathy whatsover. There were a lot of them in Lybia in the pay of Gaddifi killing Lybians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Originally Posted by taxman Your argument being what? That it was good POWs were treated horribly? This forum splits my sides sometimes. :hihi: Doesn't it just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 So how is it that two wrongs make a right? I have no tears for Gadaaffi, he was a despot, but the treatment meted out to him takes the killers down to his level of barbarism. I have a few friends who are Libyan. I'm under no illusions about how many shades of a so-and-so Gadaaffi was. I still stand by my earlier comment that he should have been taken alive, and tried, and due process carried out. I don't think that two wrongs make right but I can understand why he was treat in this manner, there is hardly a family in Lybia who haven't had a close or distant relative suffer the barbarism of Gaddafi. He should have been instantly taken before a court and dispatched immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 .................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yes. It was exactly the same with Saddam he was a despicable human being but he educated his people, democratised school and universities for girls and boys. In a way it doesn't matter if Kaddafi was universally hated what matters are the Libyans. This journalist sheds light on the complexity of the Libyans opinions on Kaddafi which the media didn't do. Week after week they painted this very manichean, simplistic "portrait" of the situation in Libya. A lot of Libyans wanted Kaddafi to go but a lot of them wanted him to stay. This is why the fight on the pro-kaddafists side was as fierce as the rebels. Otherwise why did it last so long? There was resistance on both sides. I would certainly not dare to say that the anti-kaddafists were a majority simply because I have no proof of that. Another point: It is very common for north Africans to feel grateful and have admiration for their leaders. It is true that some of them don't criticizes their leader in public because they fear repercussions but a lot of them don't do it simply because they don't think it. In a way they are just content with whatever they have. What exactly do you know about Saddam or Gadaffi that hasnt come out of very controlled and bias western media? One thing is for sure we wont be getting both sides of the story from either case any time soon,but what we know for sure is both countries are very oil rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 The whole situation in the middle east is down to our interference in the past, the whole map of the middle east was set out by us the coming and goings of the kings and leaders have been down to us and we still to this day interfere in the life's of these people,surely they should be left to sort there own life's out,if it wasn't for them having oil we would not want to know them,I read about what a lot Gaddafi did for his people so why did they want rid of him so much, from some of the threads on here it sounds like the the people were better off than us,it sounds like a case of us interfering again in my opinion,I think that Gadaffi should have had his day in court to give his side of the story,and also he came to power in a bloodless coupe at the time with out our support but a lot of people died getting him out of power with our support,were is the evidence of his crimes we have not seen any a bit like Sadam we never saw any there ether I think the man has paid the price for not wanting to tow the line with the west and why should he have they are very proud people who have had a civilization a lot longer than we have,we shell see in the future what happens and who will lead them it will take a lot of work to get the country going again,just hope another despot doesn't come to power again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yes. It was exactly the same with Saddam he was a despicable human being but he educated his people, democratised school and universities for girls and boys. In a way it doesn't matter if Kaddafi was universally hated what matters are the Libyans. This journalist sheds light on the complexity of the Libyans opinions on Kaddafi which the media didn't do. Week after week they painted this very manichean, simplistic "portrait" of the situation in Libya. A lot of Libyans wanted Kaddafi to go but a lot of them wanted him to stay. This is why the fight on the pro-kaddafists side was as fierce as the rebels. Otherwise why did it last so long? There was resistance on both sides. I would certainly not dare to say that the anti-kaddafists were a majority simply because I have no proof of that. Another point: It is very common for north Africans to feel grateful and have admiration for their leaders. It is true that some of them don't criticizes their leader in public because they fear repercussions but a lot of them don't do it simply because they don't think it. In a way they are just content with whatever they have. There was unrest due to high unemployment and a military awash with foreign mercenerys This is why the fight on the pro-kaddafists side was as fierce as the rebels. The rebels were fighting a just cause for freedom, the so called loyalists weren't necessesarily fighting for Gadaffi but for their lives as many were mercenerys who knew they would get their just rewards once captured and so they should, I have no sympathy for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.