Qaddafi Is Dead, Libyan Officials Say
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.
How many who voted for Obama (or at least against John McCain) would expect their vote would elect a President who would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan with a special forces operation, murder an American citizen without due process, and enter into armed conflict with Libya without the consultation of Congress and eventually assassinate a sitting head of state?
I still very much admire his propaganda ability. His campaign was amazingly successful. Yes, Bush being Bush helped a lot, but still. The disconnect (even among the intellectual liberals who rabidly supported him) between the perception of who Obama is and who he really is, is amazing (even after all this time).
Nobody denies that it is easy to lead and brainwash ignorant masses with fears of 'terrorism', 'communism' & 'homosexuals' but one has to admire the ability to brainwash relatively liberal and intelligent people. Looking back at Obama I will mostly remember him winning the AdAge 'Marketing Campaign Of The Year' award.
http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market...
He put Apple, Zappos & Nike to shame.
And then him getting the Nobel Peace prize. That was just the cherry on top.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/flashback-2008-mc...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-20/french-air-power-be...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/qaddafis-deat...
/sarcasm
Not likely.
I would rather Qaddafi had been brought to trial and punished accordingly.
That's what they said on TV, didn't they? Must be true then.
In other words - how do you know? How do you know the picture you are being fed by the media is accurate enough to assign him a "violent death" as a proper punishment? And without a public trial at that.
Critically analyzing media portrayals is good. Dismissing any conclusions reached as, "well nobody can really say" is facile and lazy. It's what people who don't have anything to add to the conversation say in an attempt to sound smart.
This applies to literally every comment on this page.
It is not "well nobody can really say" dismissal. It is a matter of media feeding made-up facts since current conflict started. You must've missed the photos of insurgents storming strongholds in their flip-flops, the same guy posing dead in more than one position and other marvels of staged photography. The fighting was there, but it was not done by "insurgents" photographed by the press. Whatever was coming out of the tube was an A grade orchestrated bullsh#t. That's what's depressing. If you are comfortable cheering on his death provided with such accurate and transparent media coverage, who am I to spoil the fun.
Therefore the past 30 years mean nothing?
His crimes did not begin and end with the NATO operation. He was notorious for decades, in particular when certain Western governments were all too happy to offer him hospitality and (military) trade deals knowing full well what he sanctioned against his own people. But who cares about such trivialities when they're our friends, right?
At some point you will have to trust something - you can't even be sure of what you see with your eyes as shown by numerous studies of false eye witness testimony.
On the cases where the evidence is slim or the news has just broken I'm very critical - this morning I didn't quite belive that he was even dead. But when you have such overwhelming evidence of horrible deeds over the last couple of decades it is pretty easy to say he was a bad man.
He was a politician wasn't he? Seems proof enough as far as I'm concerned.
No punishment, just history...
Everything a bliss.
Having him testify in Den Hague could have provided very interesting insights on how corrupt the so called "democratic" governments really are.
"Grief about Gaddafi" "He lives on in the hearts of his friends"
I'm still not convinced that the Middle East is civilized... which is why I'm an isolationist.
I'm not very reassured by this quote from the transitional government spokesperson: “We were serious about giving him a fair trial. It seems God has some other wish."
Having been born and raised in the middle east (Egypt), I can assure you that by many definitions of 'civilized' we fare really well compared to the US.
True, there isn't separation of religion and state, and that leads to much 'uncivilized' behavior, and a wacky sense of law.
On the other hands, we don't have nearly the same rates of murder, rape, theft that we have here in the States. And we don't put one out of every 300 people in prison.
Our elderly mostly die surrounded by family and friends in their homes, and very very very few people sleep on the streets.
Our health care system is much poorer, and much more primitive than the US system, but nobody gets turned away because of 'pre-existing' conditions or lack of funds.
In most of the Country, if you stop someone and ask for directions, they'll invite you to their home for a meal and be serious about it. Even though they make less than a .50 cents a day.
So yeah, maybe broaden your idea of what 'civilized' looks like and you won't need to isolate so much.
p.s. We cook a yummy Egyptian dinner once a month for friends, ping me and come over next Monday for civilized discourse over foul and falafel
There are marginalized, abused groups everywhere. The West fares no better, though it does make it look cleaner (e.g., rampant discrimination is codified by law instead of remaining unwritten).
That said, I still believe the claim that the Middle East is "uncivilized" (with the implication that the West is), is awfully arrogant - as if the NATO powers haven't all done far worse, just not as visibly, and far from home.
Reading some of the posts in this thread you'd swear that the mark of a civilized people is how well they can hide their acts of brutal violence, as opposed to simply how much brutal violence they commit.
Because if not, then yes I'd say you compare quite well to the U.S.
You have to give them a chance, they only just got democracy - it takes a while to build up a military-industrial complex.
If that kind of violence makes you doubt the civility of a people, you might want to add every other country in the world onto your list of "uncivilized places", and yes, including the USA.
> "My definition of "civilization" is a society "ruled by law" and something approaching a "democracy"."
The same "rule of law" that permits the USA to assassinate one of its own citizens without due process, only executive order? The same "rule of law" that permits it to covertly fund and equip rebel forces in democratic countries simply because their leadership dare oppose US national interests? (Chile is the most salient example of this, but far from the only one)
It seems your definition of "civilization" is less concerned with how much unjust blood is spilled, but rather how visible and public said blood is. This seems like a poor definition.
Also, politicians pandering to various religious communities happens all the time in America. Let's not pretend it is different because the people are brown and the word "God" is pronounced differently.
Shame on you.
Trying to equate "religious pandering" in the US to the various REAL theocracies and military juntas that inhabit the Mideast is "shame"ful.
If so, why all the dead or deposed dictators?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
Both were written some time ago. Both have been modified, "interpreted" or just plain ignored. People are people no matter where you go. Power ebbs and flows to different people and groups over time. You are currently born into the group with the most power. This does not make you more correct, better than, or more civilized than others. It just makes you lucky.
I'm pretty sure he was determined to fight to the bitter end. Which he did.
Deleted comment
But to play devils advocate, we put down dogs who bite people don't we? Yeah yeah, human life is precious, but sometimes we need to be a little pragmatic.
In the particular situation you are referring to you are correct, but I don't think that is a generalizable concept.
NATO saw an opportunity and grabbed it. Were their motives pure? What do I care.
The traditional option was to fight a competent enemy - but then your own people get shot down which doesn't play well with the electorate.
A modern solution is to sell your weapons to an ally, then destroy them and then sell more of the same replacement items to the replacement government. The big advantage of that is that the replacement government is normally pretty well disposed to you - if they know whats good for them.
The issue isn't that anyone sympathizes with Gadaffi, but that it calls into question the solidarity and stability of the rebel government. Until now, Libyans have been united by their hatred of Gadaffi but we haven't seen whether the government can pull Libya together in a post-Gadaffi nation or really what kind of government or society will emerge. This execution was an action by Libyans with guns against the express will of the nominal government (which wanted to try him first.) It's a bad omen.
Or the same Qaddafi that provided the `special questioning` facilities when the British secret service sent the current democratic leader there to be interrogated about terrorist links.
Comparing Iraq, a messy invasion that drug on for a decade and cost hundreds of billions, to Libya, a tactical exercise that lasted a few months and cost only a billion plus, might not be a fair comparison, but there is no question that remote reconnaissance, targeting, and attack capabilities have improved dramatically since 2001. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-stealth-drone...
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."