# Confirmed: Moammar Khadafy Dead



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 20, 2011)

This morning, NATO airstrikes struck Libyan military activites outside of Sirte.  According to reports Khadafy attempted to flee the strike when he was wounded and subsequently died.  A photo has been released of what appears to be his remains and was confirmed to be authentic by Reuters.

Meanwhile, Pro-Government television stations in Libya have said that NATO is spreading lies about Khadafy's death and claim that he's never been in better health.

Photo and live blog of the events as they unfold can be found here.

Crazy morning.

EDIT:  There's also a live stream on Al-Jazerra right now.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 20, 2011)

Who is that


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 20, 2011)

Well i can't say i'm surprised that he is dead.
He had it coming for a loong time.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

I heard that he tried to go down Saddam Style.



Clayton said:


> Who is that



That guy.


----------



## Fenrari (Oct 20, 2011)

:/ They'll go after North Korea next...


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Fenrari said:


> :/ They'll go after North Korea next...



: ( That would be my worst nightmare.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 20, 2011)

You mean Muammar Gaddafi?



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> EDIT:  There's also a live stream on Al-Jazerra right now.


Al Jazeera. Crazy morning, indeed. :V


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You mean Muammar Gaddafi?



His name can be translated in almost 12 ways :C


----------



## Bliss (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> His name can be translated in almost 12 ways :C


Never heard the one the source used. I just like complaining. :C


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Never heard the one the source used. I just like complaining. :C



:C Complaining isn't fun, hell, psychotic dictators are an endangered species! We shouldn't be killing them! They are just dazed and confused in the outside world.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 20, 2011)

He just needed a hug.


----------



## Aden (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> His name can be translated in almost 12 ways :C



Actually, the total number of spellings for his full name comes out to 32:

(1) Muammar Qaddafi, (2) Mo'ammar Gadhafi, (3) Muammar Kaddafi, (4) Muammar Qadhafi, (5) Moammar El Kadhafi, (6) Muammar Gadafi, (7) Mu'ammar al-Qadafi, (8) Moamer El Kazzafi, (9) Moamar al-Gaddafi, (10) Mu'ammar Al Qathafi, (11) Muammar Al Qathafi, (12) Mo'ammar el-Gadhafi, (13) Moamar El Kadhafi, (14) Muammar al-Qadhafi, (15) Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi, (16) Mu'ammar Qadafi, (17) Moamar Gaddafi, (18) Mu'ammar Qadhdhafi, (19) Muammar Khaddafi, (20) Muammar al-Khaddafi, (21) Mu'amar al-Kadafi, (22) Muammar Ghaddafy, (23) Muammar Ghadafi, (24) Muammar Ghaddafi, (25) Muamar Kaddafi, (26) Muammar Quathafi, (27) Muammar Gheddafi, (28) Muamar Al-Kaddafi, (29) Moammar Khadafy, (30) Moammar Qudhafi, (31) Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi, (32) Mulazim Awwal Mu'ammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi.

So at least we won't have to worry about that anymore


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> He just needed a hug.



Back in 2010, he was everyone's bro : (


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I heard that he tried to go down Saddam Style.
> 
> 
> 
> That guy.


what importance is he
is he a saddam kinda guy or what


@Aden:
Mulazim Awwal Mu'ammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Well i can't say i'm surprised that he is dead.
> He had it coming for a loong time.


We all saw this coming, seriously he was getting his ass handed to him.
He should have ran out of the country when he had the chance.


----------



## Sar (Oct 20, 2011)

Just saw the BBC news report.
Damn, I am not surprised.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 20, 2011)

What is it with dictators, that when they get usurped, they try to hide in holes in the ground?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Smelge said:


> What is it with dictators, that when they get usurped, they try to hide in holes in the ground?


Cause they think they can wait it out.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

So according to the French, they were the one's who got Gadaffi. 

"French Defence Minister Longuet says French air force stopped the convoy taking Gaddafi out of Sirte"

Since when did France become so badass? This is the weirdest war ever.

Also, intense shit.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Also, intense shit.


Is he dead at that point? o,o


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Is he dead at that point? o,o



That was right before he got shot up by a soldier, kinda interesting to watch his last moments though.


----------



## Aktosh (Oct 20, 2011)

Hes dead, lol.... He wanted to split my country into four peaces. Thats watch you get. Don't mess with the swiss. It's a conspiracy by the way. We planned it all.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 20, 2011)

It's a good thing he's finally dead. Bastard had it coming. 

I've seen the videos of his soldiers shooting up civilians, disgusting, people like him deserve death without trial.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 20, 2011)

my dad explained him to me

and Crusader Mike.. fuck, I'd pop him in the head if he kept yellin like that at me too


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 20, 2011)

Clayton said:


> my dad explained him to me
> 
> and Crusader Mike.. fuck, I'd pop him in the head if he kept yellin like that at me too


Just like that? A merciful headshot? No matter how much pain you inflict on scum like this, you still come out of it a better person than they ever were.


----------



## Aktosh (Oct 20, 2011)

Behold the swiss bundesrat. The masterminds behind all this. They may look nice but their souls are evil.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 20, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Just like that? A merciful headshot? *No matter how much pain you inflict on scum like this, you still come out of it a better person than they ever were.*


Being comparatively less of a bad person doesn't make you an acceptably good person. Even I--and I find capital punishment repugnant in its usual application--would say that he deserved death, but one does not gut-shot a mad dog just to watch it squirm. 

Although, I can't say I condemn the men involved here. It was probably a heat-of-the-moment thing, I doubt any were in a position to think rationally. Willful, pre-planned torture strips both victim _and_ perpetrator of human dignity in all situations, however.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 20, 2011)

Now they'll hold 'free and fair' elections and a Fundamental Muslim party gets 99,99% of the vote. Didn't exactly that happen in Iran? :F


----------



## kyle19 (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Also, intense shit.


I love the variety of weapons that these rebels are carrying, ones wielding an MP-40.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Now they'll hold 'free and fair' elections and a Fundamental Muslim party gets 99,99% of the vote. Didn't exactly that happen in Iran? :F



I'm pretty sure it did. Hopefully Libya doesn't make any mistakes and gets a good and stable government running. 

Here's a video of the celebrations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn7Cxwr4fNM 

It's always good to hear another asshole dictator get overthrown. Congrats Libya =3


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 20, 2011)

Like father, like son.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 20, 2011)

What happened in Iran is not comparable.  Egypt is more comparable to Iran in that the people overthrew an American-supported/friendly dictator, whereas Qaddafi and the United States weren't on such friendly terms.  The aftermath remains to be seen, especially since the Arab Spring is far more secular than the Iranian Islamic Revolution, so only time will tell.

Hey Darkwing, what about Bahrain and Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa?  There's serious trouble there, yet they host the United States Navy's Fifth Fleet.  What do?


----------



## Azure (Oct 20, 2011)

I myself can't wait to see which stooge steps into that power vacuum. Gonna get his ass capped with the quickness if he doesn't deliver the "freedom" they all clamored for. What were they fighting for again?


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> He just needed a hug.


Yessssssss, a hug...


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Like father, like son.



Your avatar....just wow.....



Clayton said:


> and Crusader Mike.. fuck, I'd pop him in the head if he kept yellin like that at me too



and the rebels did it in cold blood : /


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 20, 2011)

wow are yall cryin that people didnt lick his asshole before they killed him?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 20, 2011)

Clayton said:


> wow are yall cryin that people didnt lick his asshole before they killed him?


You are an artist, Clayton. You should know that there are quite a few shades of grey between black and white.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Clayton said:


> wow are yall cryin that people didnt lick his asshole before they killed him?



I was more for taking him alive for a trial, and then execute him.

They just straight up shot him while he begged for his life (Allegedly)


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I was more for taking him alive for a trial, and then execute him.
> 
> They just straight up shot him while he begged for his life (Allegedly)


I think they were probably caught up in the moment. It's not really . . . awesome, that it happened, but you can't really blame them.

Dude was going to die either way. I just don't think willful malicious torture is really ever ethical, even when you're torturing a torturer. Cycles of violence and all that.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I was more for taking him alive for a trial, and then execute him.
> 
> They just straight up shot him while he begged for his life (Allegedly)



He kinda deserved it though. He killed thousands of his own people in "cold blood", he got what was coming to him.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> He kinda deserved it though. He killed thousands of his own people in "cold blood", he got what was coming to him.



Deserved it, yes.

But you still need to be civil.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 20, 2011)

"But why don't we just go around the world killing all the Bad Men?  Also a trial is wasteful and unnecessary.  Just dump drone missiles and assassinate everyone!"

hurf durf


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Deserved it, yes.
> 
> But you still need to be civil.



I just don't think he deserves a trial. It's very clear that he was guilty for what he did and the things he done were just so sickening, honestly I wish he would've died a more painful death. 

It's the same thing with the people who wished OBL would've got a trial before execution. It's obvious that he was guilty for his crimes, he's confessed to what he did and he was on the run forever, so why not kill the fucker? 

Don't get me wrong I believe everyone deserves a fair trail. But for crimes that involve senseless, mass killings of thousands, that just doesn't deserve one IMO.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 20, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> You are an artist, Clayton. You should know that there are quite a few shades of grey between black and white.


 
I dont shade w/ grey B)



Crusader Mike said:


> I was more for taking him alive for a trial, and then execute him.
> 
> They just straight up shot him while he begged for his life (Allegedly)


 
All serial killers will beg for their life
Thing is, they didnt care when their victims begged for their lives

he was a fucking piece of shit and died a piece of shit


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 20, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> It's the same thing with the people who wished OBL would've got a trial before execution. It's obvious that he was guilty for his crimes, he's confessed to what he did and he was on the run forever, so why not kill the fucker?
> 
> Don't get me wrong I believe everyone deserves a fair trail. But for crimes that involve senseless, mass killings of thousands, that just doesn't deserve one IMO.


There is no point in a trial when the verdict is common knowledge.


----------



## kyle19 (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I was more for taking him alive for a trial, and then execute him.
> 
> They just straight up shot him while he begged for his life (Allegedly)



Well if they didn't kill him then, there was the possibility of the remaining loyalist forces to launch a counter attack.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 20, 2011)

Fuck year, bloody civil war time! Tribal style.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 20, 2011)

Aden said:


> Actually, the total number of spellings for his full name comes out to 32:
> 
> (1) Muammar Qaddafi, (2) Mo'ammar Gadhafi, (3) Muammar Kaddafi, (4) Muammar Qadhafi, (5) Moammar El Kadhafi, (6) Muammar Gadafi, (7) Mu'ammar al-Qadafi, (8) Moamer El Kazzafi, (9) Moamar al-Gaddafi, (10) Mu'ammar Al Qathafi, (11) Muammar Al Qathafi, (12) Mo'ammar el-Gadhafi, (13) Moamar El Kadhafi, (14) Muammar al-Qadhafi, (15) Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi, (16) Mu'ammar Qadafi, (17) Moamar Gaddafi, (18) Mu'ammar Qadhdhafi, (19) Muammar Khaddafi, (20) Muammar al-Khaddafi, (21) Mu'amar al-Kadafi, (22) Muammar Ghaddafy, (23) Muammar Ghadafi, (24) Muammar Ghaddafi, (25) Muamar Kaddafi, (26) Muammar Quathafi, (27) Muammar Gheddafi, (28) Muamar Al-Kaddafi, (29) Moammar Khadafy, (30) Moammar Qudhafi, (31) Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi, (32) Mulazim Awwal Mu'ammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi.
> 
> *So at least we won't have to worry about that anymore*



Thank Goodness!


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Well looks like Syria and Al-assad are next.

This shit ain't over yet.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Well looks like Syria and Al-assad are next.
> 
> This shit ain't over yet.



I have this funny feeling to the contrary.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> I have this funny feeling to the contrary.



I don't know, its been a really interesting year.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 20, 2011)

It'll be Saleh before Assad.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> It'll be Saleh before Assad.



Shit, I totally forgot about Saleh, haven't seen much media on him for months : /


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Well crud, we don't know who killed him.
There's like 5 different stories.
One of them is that a US strike fired a lethal hit with a chopper which slowly killed him only to be later caught while dying.
One is that the french landed a successful kill with a missile, however this one is apparently false cause there was no blast crater from a missile.
One is the rebels killed him after struggling with them.
Etc.
All we know is that the rebels fired the shot that killed him, however he was already dying when they found him.

Who gets the assist and who gets the kill?  Did the rebels killsteal?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 20, 2011)

The wound on Gadaffi's head suggests a bullet fired from a distance, since the entry wound lacks evidence of gas expansion, therefor I support the theory that he was killed on accident by crossfire.  Also his skull is not fragmented, which is peculiar.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> The wound on Gadaffi's head suggests a bullet fired from a distance, since the entry wound lacks evidence of gas expansion, therefor I support the theory that he was killed on accident by crossfire.  Also his skull is not fragmented, which is peculiar.


So we not only don't know who killed him, but was it a accident or not? and his skull is not fragmented? wtf.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 20, 2011)

I bet loyalists killed him from afar with indiscriminate fire.  Maybe.  That's my theory.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 20, 2011)

This is what I heard on the NBC nightly News:

Moammar Khadafy was trying to escape his hometown in a convoy, the convoy was hit by predator drones that had been flying overhead for weeks. The attack didn't kill Khadafy. He was able to escape and take shelter in a storm drain but was found by the rebels, who after beating him up, killed him.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> I bet loyalists killed him from afar with indiscriminate fire.  Maybe.  That's my theory.


How many bullets does it take to get to the chewy center of a dictator?
1, 2, 3 *crunch* the world may never know.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 21, 2011)

Good going shitheads. Mission accomplished. China's encroachment in Africa has now been slowed down. The wonderful people of Libya will get an Islamic theocracy to take over.  Thank you U.S. and thank you N.A.T.O. You guys are swell.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 21, 2011)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> China's encroachment in Africa has now been slowed down.


I kinda find it funny how China fucked themselves over by trying to sell weapons to Gadaffi

The NTC found these documents, and they obviously were not amused.


----------



## Aden (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Well crud, we don't know who killed him.



Is someone keeping score?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 21, 2011)

And it's funny how we fucked ourselves over. We're now missing a whole bunch of surface-to-air missiles. I can only imagine where they'll be popping up.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Aden said:


> Is someone keeping score?


Well if someone got three kills that means they called in a airstrike; if it was five that means they called in a helicopter.


----------



## FireFeathers (Oct 21, 2011)

For shit's sake, you people sure know how to find the gruesome videos, don't you? 

My guess is that the "who stole the cookie from the cookie jar" thing will start happening, aka, "it wasn't the Americans, it was the french! It was the rebels! It was the DAMN NORWEIGIANS"  until eventually no one gives a shit to fess up.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 21, 2011)

I don't understand just how far this Arab Spring will go- it's nice to be rid of some of the world's corrupt dictators but now we'll have a power vacuum likely to be filled with the same kind of America-hating madmen they got rid of. They'll be younger and more activist and will actually DO the things their predecessors only threatened to do.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> His name can be translated in almost 12 ways :C



Gaddafi
Gadhafi
Qaddafi
Khaddafi
Qadhafi
Gathafi

That's at least ONE thing we'll be spared from now on...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Gaddafi
> Gadhafi
> Qaddafi
> Khaddafi
> ...



Thank goodness... I only get to spell my name one way.  How arrogant can you be than to have such a... well, how would you "name" this... this... excessiveness?  The guy deserved to be shot just for that hubris.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 21, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I wish he would've died a more painful death.


Sick phucker. >:I



> It's the same thing with the people who wished OBL would've got a trial before execution. It's obvious that he was guilty for his crimes, he's confessed to what he did and he was on the run forever, so why not kill the fucker?


Maybe because international courts do not sentence death penalty (as far as I know)? To be able to hold any moral high ground? Because it is an inviolable human right?

Unless you want to call it an *assassination*.



> Don't get me wrong I believe everyone deserves a fair trail. But for crimes that involve senseless, mass killings of thousands, that just doesn't deserve one IMO.


Hah! And by which body count would you draw a line, then?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 21, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Thank goodness... I only get to spell my name one way.  How arrogant can you be than to have such a... well, how would you "name" this... this... excessiveness?  The guy deserved to be shot just for that hubris.



Hubris?  It's a matter of phonetic transcription.  Several different methods produce different results, just as qur'an and koran are two different ways to romanize a word that is written the same every time in Arabic.  Artifacts of different alphabets that don't lend themselves well to transliteration.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> *Hubris?*  It's a matter of phonetic transcription.  Several different methods produce different results, just as qur'an and koran are two different ways to romanize a word that is written the same every time in Arabic.  Artifacts of different alphabets that don't lend themselves well to transliteration.



Hmmm... perhaps not, but then, some languages certainly "act" that way, don't they?  Heh...


----------



## Sar (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Well if someone got three kills that means they called in a airstrike; if it was five that means they called in a helicopter.


Well played.


----------



## Aktosh (Oct 21, 2011)

Next on the list: Chinas government.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 21, 2011)

I claim credit for killing momar gadaffi


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 21, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I claim credit for killing momar gadaffi


You and me both


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Aktosh said:


> Next on the list: Chinas government.


haha, funny.
Oh wait, you're serious?
HAHAHA!


Which country do you folks think will be next to successfully revolt?


----------



## Aetius (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Which country do you folks think will be next to successfully revolt?



Syria and Yemen are good choices.

I think Bahrain will have another go at it soon.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 21, 2011)

I got to see Osama Bin Laden captured, if those wall street protests get any huger it will be a highly significant event for recent history, and Moammar Khadafy was killed and I got to see a revolution.

I am going to tell my grandkids SO MUCH SHIT.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 21, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I got to see Osama Bin Laden captured, if those wall street protests get any huger it will be a highly significant event for recent history, and Moammar Khadafy was killed and I got to see a revolution.
> 
> I am going to tell my grandkids SO MUCH SHIT.


AND Saddam Hussein


----------



## skg001 (Oct 21, 2011)

Lived in libya? no? Then why do you give a shit?


----------



## Aetius (Oct 21, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I got to see Osama Bin Laden captured, if those wall street protests get any huger it will be a highly significant event for recent history, and Moammar Khadafy was killed and I got to see a revolution.
> 
> I am going to tell my grandkids SO MUCH SHIT.



I would tell them that this was the first war I saw on livestream. 



skg001 said:


> Lived in libya? no? Then why do you give a shit?



Maybe because our armed forces were in the war?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 21, 2011)

He's not like Saddam, but that man didn't hesitate to pull the trigger. He also had a golden pistol, weirdly dressed women as bodyguards, wore a dress, and was probably schizophernic...

Well, it's going to take some time until they get to Syria. He's sending thugs to civillians pretty much like Gadaffi, sends tanks to blow them up... but up until now there were only dry threats. I think Yemen's PM/President/King/etc. already quit.


Bobskunk said:


> What happened in Iran is not comparable. Egypt is more comparable to Iran in that the people overthrew an American-supported/friendly dictator, whereas Qaddafi and the United States weren't on such friendly terms. The aftermath remains to be seen, especially since the Arab Spring is far more secular than the Iranian Islamic Revolution, so only time will tell.


The Arab Spring isn't much more secular than the Iranian Islamic Revolution.
The party rocking at Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, not the "Secular Movement for Proper Government Unlike Mubarak".


Gadaffi had a pretty shameful death, to be honest. I thought they'd at least hang him or put him in a cage.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 21, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Back in 2010, he was everyone's bro : (


He was only your bro if you had a business and millions of dollars to spend in his country. :V



Darkwing said:


> I just don't think he deserves a trial. It's  very clear that he was guilty for what he did and the things he done  were just so sickening, *honestly I wish he would've died a more painful  death. *
> 
> It's the same thing with the people who wished OBL would've got a trial  before execution. It's obvious that he was guilty for his crimes, he's  confessed to what he did and he was on the run forever, so why not kill  the fucker?
> 
> Don't get me wrong I believe everyone deserves a fair trail.* But for  crimes that involve senseless, mass killings of thousands, that just  doesn't deserve one IMO.*


Um what? We certainly attract the interesting people around here don't we? :V
So, if he doesn't deserve a trial, what does he deserve? To be tortured for hours? Be beaten with sledgehammers? Saw off his limbs one by one? Have the population of Libya go at him one by one, even though he'd be dead before half the people got to him?

I hated the guy but it almost sounds like the people who captured him took their anger out on him, tied him to a truck, beat him, burned him with cigarettes, and maybe even tortured him. He may have been a dick but doing that kind of stuff just makes them almost as bad as he was, and probably won't make them feel any better. You don't torture and shoot an unarmed man.

 He should have had his trial. Then he could sit there and rant and rave at the tribunal and we could sit there with our bags of popcorn and laugh at his antics, and then put him in a cold dank cell or take him out back and hang him. :V



CannonFodder said:


> Well if someone got three kills that means they called in a airstrike; if it was five that means they called in a helicopter.


Actually, three kills is just a spy plane. You have to get 5 kills to get the airstrike, and 7 kills for the attack helicopter. If you have 11 kills you get to unleash your German Shepards.



Aktosh said:


> Next on the list: Chinas government.


Chinas? I wonder what country that is. I've never heard of it before. Must be one of those ex-Soviet countries. :V


----------



## Fay V (Oct 21, 2011)

Everyone deserves a trial, unless they do something I really don't like. 

:\ There's a reason we give people a trial, even when it's obvious what they did. Because "obvious wrong" is still subjective. We can all agree the man was a monster, but where is the line? What will we say when someone is murdered and the killers say "it was obvious he was immoral" because someone was protesting or kills a single man in self defense. You can't say "I think everyone deserves a trial but..." If you start to draw lines, you must be sure they are solid. 
Maybe the trial would have been a farce, the verdict was clear, but at least it leaves something solid for the world to fall back on. 

As for him deserving torture and a long drawn out death. That may be true. He could deserve a tartaric hell for all eternity. That doesn't mean the people deserve to be lowered to that level of brutality. Mercy isn't just for the one killed. He would have been dead either way. At least with a single headshot you're not acting in the same way as the one you're killing. 
He deserves death and no trial because he killed and tortured in cold blood, so lets kill and torture him in cold blood because we are better...only because we have the gun this time.


----------



## VoidBat (Oct 21, 2011)

The Ozzy Osbourne of dictators.
I've never seen a man mumble and slur as much as him. Beats John Paulus II by miles.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 21, 2011)

He had some amazing style!


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 21, 2011)

Smugmeister said:


> The Ozzy Osbourne of dictators.
> I've never seen a man mumble and slur as much as him. Beats John Paulus II by miles.


He was a circus fortune teller
theyre all crazy and drugged


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Everyone deserves a trial, unless they do something I really don't like.
> 
> :\ There's a reason we give people a trial, even when it's obvious what they did. Because "obvious wrong" is still subjective. We can all agree the man was a monster, but where is the line? What will we say when someone is murdered and the killers say "it was obvious he was immoral" because someone was protesting or kills a single man in self defense. You can't say "I think everyone deserves a trial but..." If you start to draw lines, you must be sure they are solid.
> Maybe the trial would have been a farce, the verdict was clear, but at least it leaves something solid for the world to fall back on.
> ...


The problem though Fay is that he was captured during a warzone and was resisting.  I'm all for giving him a trial, but if you are in a warzone and captured then struggling with bullets flying around does not help your case for being brought in alive.

Like with the Osama death, the guards were shooting at Osama to make sure we didn't take him in alive.  That wasn't our fault we couldn't take him in alive for a trial.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 21, 2011)

That man is more than a murderer. Trials aren't given like gifts... Such a person is to be taken out the minute found, even though he could had been found dead before the millitia reached him.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> That man is more than a murderer. Trials aren't given like gifts... Such a person is to be taken out the minute found, even though he could had been found dead before the millitia reached him.


Well all we really know is that he was already dying by the time the militia found him, had they not he would've probably just died in that hole and been eventually found.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem though Fay is that he was captured during a warzone and was resisting.  I'm all for giving him a trial, but if you are in a warzone and captured then struggling with bullets flying around does not help your case for being brought in alive.
> 
> Like with the Osama death, the guards were shooting at Osama to make sure we didn't take him in alive.  That wasn't our fault we couldn't take him in alive for a trial.


That is fair enough. I was more commenting on all the comments about he deserves to squirm, and comments like Darkwings. You can't say "everyone deserves a trial, but he doesn't deserve one"

It's one thing to have a situation where things are chaotic and a dangerous person is put down. It is another completely to actively wish someone more harm after the fact and want to torture them. 

When you start wanting to torture someone for torturing others and being a coldblooded killer, the only difference between you is that you happen to be the one holding the gun, just as he was holding power before. If you want to claim people are worse and you have the moral authority you have to act like it.

I can't blame fighters for acting in the heat of the moment. I can worry about those that think he should have gotten worse.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 21, 2011)

Fay V said:


> He deserves death and no trial because he killed and tortured in cold blood, so lets kill and torture him in cold blood because we are better...only because we have the gun this time.



It's easy for us to sit back miles away from a warzone and say that what the Libyan people did to him was not the correct course of action.  And we may be right in that regard.

But considering everything he's put his people through the past 42 years, and especially the past couple of months, and being in the middle of a warzone, I think it's safe to say none of them were especially concerned about whether or not he should have been treated humanely or with sympathy.  



CrazyLee said:


> He may have been a dick but doing that kind of stuff just makes them almost as bad as he was, and probably won't make them feel any better. You don't torture and shoot an unarmed man.



To be fair, the man went beyond and above the call of what any rational human being can call being a dick, to the point where being called a dick would be a compliment.  This dude intimidated political opposition, ordered the executions and outright murder of his own people for dissension, ordered the executions of soldiers who refused to execute protestors and rebels, ordered airstrikes against his own people, and hired foriegn mercenaries for the purpose of killing his own people and intimidating foreign press.  That's not being a dick.  That's being a sociopathic asshole with complete disregard for human life.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Fay V said:


> That is fair enough. I was more commenting on all the comments about he deserves to squirm, and comments like Darkwings. You can't say "everyone deserves a trial, but he doesn't deserve one"
> 
> It's one thing to have a situation where things are chaotic and a dangerous person is put down. It is another completely to actively wish someone more harm after the fact and want to torture them.
> 
> ...


Not to mention imagine what would've happened if the loyalists found out Ghadafi was captured?  They probably would've tried swarming the rebels not caring how many of them died.
Shit would've gone seriously down had Ghadafi's soldiers found out.

So really if I was in one of the people's spot who captured him I would be freaking out cause damn that's between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not to mention imagine what would've happened if the loyalists found out Ghadafi was captured?  They probably would've tried swarming the rebels not caring how many of them died.
> Shit would've gone seriously down had Ghadafi's soldiers found out.
> 
> So really if I was in one of the people's spot who captured him I would be freaking out cause damn that's between a rock and a hard place.



It could have gone a lot of ways which is why actions in battle are different than commentary after. One of the loyalists could find out about the death and try to swarm anyway and take up as the second crazy ruler of the time. There's a lot of variables in the warzone, and again I don't blame them for killing him...though I think beating him and driving him around was a dick move. Can't say I'd do better but...well shoot higher than you can accomplish.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2011)

CrazyLee said:


> I hated the guy but it almost sounds like the people who captured him took their anger out on him, tied him to a truck, beat him, burned him with cigarettes, and maybe even tortured him. He may have been a dick but doing that kind of stuff just makes them almost as bad as he was, and probably won't make them feel any better. *You don't torture and shoot an unarmed man.*



He wasn't unarmed, he was carrying two pistols (one on his person within easy reach, if not already in his hand, another in his bag of "treasures"... that one was gold-plated, by the way).


----------



## Aetius (Oct 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Then the rebels started torturing him like an animal.



..and thats why you never surrender to Irregulars 

Wasn't too surprising see how hated he was by the people for all the shit he did to them.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Then you disarm him; *which is what happened anyway*.  Then the rebels started torturing him like an animal.


They still caught him while he was armed... what they did after they took his arms away is really their business.  Not to mention, from what I heard, he was killed by stray gunfire after being put in an ambulance.  But that hasn't been confirmed or denied, far as I've read or heard.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Here is a good collection of videos of Gadaffi's last moments.

If you look and hear closely at 1:11, you can hear gunshots and then barely see Gaddafi limp on the ground.

NSFW for Gore. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zizs7k7sVhU


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Oct 22, 2011)

Sorry guys, that was not a missile that hit him and caused this whole thing- alas it was me and I fired my bitch beam by accident. See I had a bad day and finally hit my breaking point and fired my bitch beam- striking him though leaving him just enough life to crawl away where then he was intercepted by the rebels. Thought I should clear that up...


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> That man is more than a murderer. Trials aren't given like gifts... Such a person is to be taken out the minute found, even though he could had been found dead before the millitia reached him.


You are right. Trials aren't to be given like gifts.

_They are given as a human right._


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Here is a good collection of videos of Gadaffi's last moments.
> 
> If you look and hear closely at 1:11, you can hear gunshots and then barely see Gaddafi limp on the ground.
> 
> NSFW for Gore. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zizs7k7sVhU


Omg the top comment on that.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Here is a good collection of videos of Gadaffi's last moments.
> 
> If you look and hear closely at 1:11, you can hear gunshots and then barely see Gaddafi limp on the ground.
> 
> NSFW for Gore. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zizs7k7sVhU


Fucking disgusting.

And I sincerely hope that the Obama administration doesn't release the photos of Osama Bin Laden in response to all of this, because apparently that's now an issue since Qaddafi's death.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Fucking disgusting.
> 
> And I sincerely hope that the Obama administration doesn't release the photos of Osama Bin Laden in response to all of this, because apparently that's now an issue since Qaddafi's death.



thats diff
this was a news reporter that got that on tape

their job is to do this


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Clayton said:


> thats diff


No, it's not.

We can see that Qaddafi's death might be separate issue, but since his last moments were verified through cell phone recordings, the same crazies more than likely responsible for demanding Obama's birth certificate are now demanding photographs of Osama Bin Laden while being autopsied, air-lifted, pranced around, etc.

And I believe that not showing the images of his last moments, or even Qaddafi's, though we're not in control of the latter, is the way a Democracy, Republic, (call it pathetic, call it what you will) etc., should morally conduct itself when it's disposed of terrorists and dictators.





Clayton said:


> this was a news reporter that got that on tape
> 
> their job is to do this


Reporter?

No, the AFP received the footage from a soldier who was there and had recorded it with a video camera. Doesn't necessarily make him a reporter, but my issue of dispute isn't who and who cannot fit the criteria of reporter, with technology anyone can be within reason; no my dispute is with the barbarity of the crowd who found Qaddafi. I am not ignorant of who Qaddafi was, or what he did, but my polarity to issues such as this stems from the fact that when presented with the opportunity to demonstrate better restraint and a trust in their new government, the Rebels responsible for collecting him chose instead to validate their own impulses, taking Qaddafi away like a trophy.

Don't like it, not trying to make it a point of debate, but those are just my opinions of the whole thing. It's like watching people celebrate Osama Bin Ladens death, and than re-calling when parts of the Muslim world were celebrating the terrorist attacks on September the 11th. That's just not the response we need, and it doesn't heal old wounds, but re-opens them and makes them deeper.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Look on the bright side, he will still be with us in Clubs everywhere.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Look on the bright side, he will still be with us in Clubs everywhere.


Catchy.

Goddamn catchy.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Look on the bright side, he will still be with us in Clubs everywhere.


Thank you for sticking a song in my head. 
Like i didn't have enough of those already :V


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 22, 2011)

Bambi said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> We can see that Qaddafi's death might be separate issue, but since his last moments were verified through cell phone recordings, the same crazies more than likely responsible for demanding Obama's birth certificate are now demanding photographs of Osama Bin Laden while being autopsied, air-lifted, pranced around, etc.
> 
> ...



Yeah but they aren't going to release the photos of Osama because it will start a war. I don't know if they had control of the recording, I don't know if it was live on TV or not. They have control over the Osama photos.

I can understand why they were so riled up in the video. It would be like the concentration camp victims taking on Hitler. Fuck, I would be celebrating that shit too.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Look on the bright side, he will still be with us in Clubs everywhere.


He will survive by his art.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> He will survive by his art.



Loved it.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 22, 2011)

He was such a snazzy dresser.

http://manolomen.com/images/Sarkozy and Kadhfai.jpg

Just look at the size of that Africa lapel. SUCK ON THAT SARA PALIN.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 22, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> He was such a snazzy dresser.
> 
> http://manolomen.com/images/Sarkozy and Kadhfai.jpg
> 
> Just look at the size of that Africa lapel. SUCK ON THAT SARA PALIN.



It's big and black and I'm for some reason extremely frightened by it.

Let me imagine it in a dark city alley wa-OHGODI'MGETTINGMUGGED.

:V


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Now I'm kind of sad he was killed. :C

_(OMG OBAMA KISSED OUR PRESIDENT! Total pals! I'm having it framed. :3c)_


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Now I'm kind of sad he was killed. :C
> 
> _(OMG OBAMA KISSED OUR PRESIDENT! Total pals! I'm having it framed. :3c)_



He was the best thing to come from UN speeches, they wont be the same anymore :C


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I will edit this or quote it again later to make a full reply cause i got a major stomachache
> 
> but i apologize, i thoguht it was an al jazeera reporter


Pfft, if you edit it that's fine, cuz' I'll read it. 

Just PM me once it's complete, and don't worry about apologizing. I wasn't judging you.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

Boo hoo trials. When NATO starts bombing people, the last thing you are gonna see is a trial. End of story. Coalition of the Willing and all that. But seriously, his trial would have been pretty open and closed, and THEN we would have killed him. Why are people so up in arms about cutting out the middle man? As if it was your justice to dispense in the first place. Get real. Are you from Libya? Then piss off.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> Boo hoo trials. When NATO starts bombing people, the last thing you are gonna see is a trial. End of story. Coalition of the Willing and all that. But seriously, his trial would have been pretty open and closed, and THEN we would have killed him. Why are people so up in arms about cutting out the middle man? As if it was your justice to dispense in the first place. Get real. Are you from Libya? Then piss off.


When NATO starts bombing kiss your ass goodbye.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> As if it was your justice to dispense in the first place. Get real. Are you from Libya? Then piss off.


It was NATO that stopped him in the first place...


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> It was NATO that stopped him in the first place...


And? My point is, the average internet denizen has absolutely zero right to demand shit from anybody. Postulate, whine, cajole, agonize, and philosophize all you wish, but the real answer is, nobody but the Libyans and their proclaimed allies have ANY right to any sort of justice. It's their country, their fight, and their revolution. The rest of the world ought to stay out of it, and in fact, ought have zero control or inffluence over it. And I still don't understand why a trial is necessaray. The guy is so convictable, it's hilarious. I think people are just sad they didn't get a fucking media circus over this one, no bread got tossed to the crowd of peons in this arena.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> It was NATO that stopped him in the first place...


Yep.

Without NATO, none of the rebels would have been able to do much of anything. So as for the whole dispense justice argument Azure introduced, everyone who was involved with the conflict, because of their involvement, can have a say in how it was conducted, and what results were. Regardless, this was a world event that we were all witness to, so no, you can't dismiss everyone elses perspectives with the ever so incredulous butt-out rebuttal especially when what we witnessed was more inhumanity that could have been averted.

Averted or not, it's still a valid lesson to learn from, and that's my dispute.

IMHO Azure, you're argument doesn't fit: it is like telling Americans at home not to bitch about the Haditha massacre, or the Abu Ghraib scandal, because hey, they weren't one of the soldiers perpetuating one of those two crimes.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Yep.
> 
> Without NATO, none of the rebels would have been able to do much of anything. So as for the whole dispense justice argument Azure introduced, everyone who was involved with the conflict, because of their involvement, can have a say in how it was conducted, and what results were. Regardless, this was a world event that we were all witness to, so no, you can't dismiss everyone elses perspectives with the ever so incredulous butt-out rebuttal especially when what we witnessed was more inhumanity that could have been averted.
> 
> ...


Bitch all you like, believe that you participated, think you had control. It makes no difference. Now go get your milk and cookies. And I'd love to see the proof that NATO was the clincher, but honestly, military strategy discussion is wasted on these people. Personally, fuck all that bullshit. It's over, he's dead, and every bellow for "justice" will go unanswered. It worked out just they way I though it would though, and in that I am satisfied. Now if only we could have done Iraq in a similar manner, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in today.

Oh, and BTW, America provided almost 100% of the firepower beyond the opening few days. LOL@NATO, what a scam!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Yep.
> 
> Without NATO, none of the rebels would have been able to do much of anything. So as for the whole dispense justice argument Azure introduced, everyone who was involved with the conflict, because of their involvement, can have a say in how it was conducted, and what results were. Regardless, this was a world event that we were all witness to, so no, you can't dismiss everyone elses perspectives with the ever so incredulous butt-out rebuttal.
> 
> It just doesn't fit, isn't logical, and is like telling Americans at home not to bitch about the Haditha massacre, or the Abu Ghraib scandal, because hey, they weren't one of the soldiers perpetuating one of those two crimes.


Without NATO the rebels wouldn't have even won, when Obama enforced a no-fly zone that tipped the tide of civil war.
Also I think what Azure is getting at is we can argue whether or not he deserved a trial, but when it's a hot warzone with bullets flying left and right that is a totally different situation from when Sadam was captured.
Sadam was captured not in a warzone, but cowering in a hole after he got his ass kicked.
Khadafy had he been captured later on after the battle ended he probably would've been taken in alive.
Osama wasn't captured alive cause his security guards were set on making sure the US didn't capture him alive.

If someone is dead set on going down fighting during a battle, they are probably going to go down fighting.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Yeah but they aren't going to release the photos of Osama because it will start a war. I don't know if they had control of the recording, I don't know if it was live on TV or not. They have control over the Osama photos.


Sure, but my point was that people are now using Qaddafi's video documented last moments as a launch pad to criticize the Obama administration for not releasing Osama Bin Ladens pictures. And my concern is that should a society stoop so low, we're only going to be enabling the wrong kind of ethics in our society, and that in the end of it all, we will be no different than the purported enemies we detest.

Plus, I don't want to share political bedding with the same people who think executing prisoners is super tits, regardless if whether or not they're innocent.





Clayton said:


> I can understand why they were so riled up in the video. It would be like the concentration camp victims taking on Hitler. Fuck, I would be celebrating that shit too.


Yeah, and so there's not much we can do about that because it's already happened. IMHO, I just don't like the justifications for the carnage, as well as the carnage itself. Some people will understand it, others will like it, and I am one of those people whose seen everything from the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs to El Blog Del Narco, and so I know out of experience from seeing those sorts of things that emboldening them with the kind of hysteria and blood thirstiness that they require to be seen as legitimate makes us all, regardless of guilt, valid targets for such violence. And I will say that such behavior is threatening to me; whether it's threatening to other people and they say it or not is their own choice.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Without NATO the rebels wouldn't have even won, when Obama enforced a no-fly zone that tipped the tide of civil war.
> Also I think what Azure is getting at is we can argue whether or not he deserved a trial, but when it's a hot warzone with bullets flying left and right that is a totally different situation from when Sadam was captured.
> Sadam was captured not in a warzone, but cowering in a hole after he got his ass kicked.
> Khadafy had he been captured later on after the battle ended he probably would've been taken in alive.
> ...


Not only is it that, it's the fact that beyond a few special forces teams, we were naught but aerial strikes and political nonsense. Our bodies weren't IN THE BATTLE. We were not risking our lives. The Libyan rebels did all of the grunt work, all the heavy lifting, and in my mind, deserve to dispense their victory as they see fit. And that they did. Justice was done, one way or another, there is ZERO need to quabble about how it was administered, and no way to undo this particular result. In short, Q.Q some more, internet.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Without NATO the rebels wouldn't have even  won, when Obama enforced a no-fly zone that tipped the tide of civil  war.
> 
> ...
> 
> If someone is dead set on going down fighting during a battle, they are  probably going to go down fighting.


I can see that as possibly  being Azure's point, but it read more like the age old, "it didn't  happen to you, so don't complain about it". And I am of the position  that turning the other cheek is what makes these same things possible,  so operating on that knowledge, I am speaking out about what I saw. I  know the thrust of his argument, we can't change Qaddafi's fate, or even  eventual fate, but it's this same practice of barbarism that seems to  flaw our ability to reach these people with rational consensus; so  speaking out about it when it occurs presents us with the opportunity to  more rationally confront it and our fears of it.

I also dislike  the idea that we cannot have an opinion about an international affair  unless it involves us. Same arguments we're walked out by  Paleo-Conservatives concerning Democratic critiques of Bush's handling  of the Iraq War, and Frances concerns, and England's concerns, and so  the butt-out argument is just heated blood in salt water for me, if you  catch my drift.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 22, 2011)

Smelge said:


> What is it with dictators, that when they get usurped, they try to hide in holes in the ground?



They watch too many videos of ostriches.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Serbia likes to say otherwise.  :V



We were trying to save Bosnia, we decided to bomb Serbia to get rid of our extra ammo :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> Not only is it that, it's the fact that beyond a few special forces teams, we were naught but aerial strikes and political nonsense. Our bodies weren't IN THE BATTLE. We were not risking our lives. The Libyan rebels did all of the grunt work, all the heavy lifting, and in my mind, deserve to dispense their victory as they see fit. And that they did. Justice was done, one way or another, there is ZERO need to quabble about how it was administered, and no way to undo this particular result. In short, Q.Q some more, internet.


It's one thing to talk about, "what if" when one is thousands of miles away, it's a completely different thing to be on the battlefield where death gives you highfives every time it passes by.  The people on that battlefield were fighting a dictator who treated others' lives like they were nothing.  If you lived in Libya and saw the atrocities he did first hand letting him live/letting him die would be a tougher choice than the people on this thread are making it out to be.  The rebels made the moral choice, Ghadafi was killed in a ambulance by stray gunfire.  They could have pulled out a gun and popped him in the head, but they didn't.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It's one thing to talk about, "what if" when one is thousands of miles away, it's a completely different thing to be on the battlefield where death gives you highfives every time it passes by. The people on that battlefield were fighting a dictator who treated others' lives like they were nothing. If you lived in Libya and saw the atrocities he did first hand letting him live/letting him die would be a tougher choice than the people on this thread are making it out to be. The rebels made the moral choice, Ghadafi was killed in a ambulance by stray gunfire. They could have pulled out a gun and popped him in the head, but they didn't.


I think executions like that ought to be made public. Just as a reminder to those who upset order, or in more realistic terms, rock the boat too much too often. People like that need to be shown what manner of consequences lay in wait for them down that road. Especially every little future dictator of the world. We haven't seen the last of his ilk, there is always one more.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 22, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Then your most technologically advanced fighter (at the time) was shot down by a 60's era SAM.


Gota love that Western Ingenuity :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> I think executions like that ought to be made public. Just as a reminder to those who upset order, or in more realistic terms, rock the boat too much too often. People like that need to be shown what manner of consequences lay in wait for them down that road. Especially every little future dictator of the world. We haven't seen the last of his ilk, there is always one more.


And without a doubt Khadafy will not be the last dictator to be usurped.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Azure said:


> Oh, and BTW, America provided almost 100% of the firepower beyond the opening few days. LOL@NATO, what a scam!


I'm starting approve your irresponsible defense spending. You do the dirty work and Germany and friends collect the moneyz. :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 22, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You are right. Trials aren't to be given like gifts.
> 
> _They are given as a human right._



This.

Has everyone forgotten that after WW2 _*Nazis*_ were put on trial and consequently sentenced for their crimes instead of being summarily executed? I find it somewhat incredible that the likes of Goering et al were "granted the fair trial they never gave to others" at Nuremberg, yet in the 21st century people in the West especially seem to believe that similar tyrants should summarily get a 9mm sentence just to satisfy their bloodlust.

Except... Milosovitch from Serbia got his day in court without anyone objecting (even if he died before the trial finished). So what was the difference between Milosovitch, Saddam, and Gaddafi?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 22, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Has everyone forgotten that after WW2 _*Nazis*_ were put on trial and consequently sentenced for their crimes instead of being summarily executed? I find it somewhat incredible that the likes of Goering et al were "granted the fair trial they never gave to others" at Nuremberg, yet in the 21st century people in the West especially seem to believe that similar tyrants should summarily get a 9mm sentence just to satisfy their bloodlust.
> 
> Except... Milosovitch from Serbia got his day in court without anyone objecting (even if he died before the trial finished). So what was the difference between Milosovitch, Saddam, and Gaddafi?



You also do realize that Nuremberg was a complete farce of a trial which was done mainly for PR reasons rather than actually proving that we're "better than them" right?  What good is a trial if it's done by "victor's justice"?  If they're not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of judges?  If they're conducted under their own rules of evidence?  The Soviets attempted to frame several of those men for the Katyn Forrest Massacre which they later acknowledged they own secret police was responsible for.  What part of that trial was "fair" again?

C'mon now.  What you're really advocating is a public event subjecting a war criminal to a one-sided trial for us to give ourselves the illusion of being better than these people when in reality we're just doing a modern version of dragging these people through the public square before we pass down our judgement upon them.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> C'mon now.  What you're really advocating is a public event subjecting a war criminal to a one-sided trial for us to give ourselves the illusion of being better than these people when in reality we're just doing a modern version of *dragging these people through the public square* before we pass down our judgement upon them.


Nope, you guys do that. :V


----------



## Bambi (Oct 22, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> C'mon now.  What you're really advocating is a public event subjecting a war criminal to a one-sided trial for us to give ourselves the illusion of being better than these people when in reality we're just doing a modern version of dragging these people through the public square before we pass down our judgement upon them.


Maybe you're right.

Suppose that any trial we ever had was naturally going to be one sided (remember when Khalid Sheik Mohammed was going to be prosecuted in a civilian court, and everyone pretty much said that if the civilian courts didn't turn up guilt, they'd consider "military tribunals" as a valid replacement?), than the point of a trial, that particular trial, is nothing more than state sanctioned moral role-play and flaunting. I've got some thinking to do in that area, unless there's a more informative position to find here later on.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

This just in Gadhafi's son has been captured alive and unharmed.
See whistleblowers, if the rebels were barbarians they would've just killed Saif.


----------



## RiskyFrisky (Oct 23, 2011)

Yay, evil madman is dead woooo!

It's too bad he was captured alive. According to video on Al Jazeera,(I was watching a video on their website and the guy they were interviewing said he died from a wound caused by a 9mm) he died to 9mm wound. I personally believe that means he was executed, immediate war crime(Like it matters). Though, the video of him being dragged about while alive after capture, shows him in a state of dismay and confusion, hinting that he may have been shot before hand. Though, he was found hiding in a hole, so was he shot before hiding? Or was he shot while hiding? Or just had the living hell beat out of him before they pulled him out? Then shot?


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 23, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You also do realize that Nuremberg was a complete farce of a trial which was done mainly for PR reasons rather than actually proving that we're "better than them" right?



Maybe you're thinking of a different Nuremberg trial, because the one that actually occurred had seven of the defendants sentenced to long prison terms instead of execution, three of the defendants acquitted, and in the case of Admiral Karl DÃ¶nitz, convicted _but not punished_ for carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare - because a person no less than Admiral Nimitz of the US Navy furnished an affidavit in support of the same practice that he himself had employed throughout the war in the Pacific.

I would hardly think that a "show trial" would have failed to convict all defendants on all charges and have them all executed, as per Stalin...



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If they're not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of judges?



Care to point out any actual circumstances where a person in court accused of a crime can pick and choose their judge?


			
				A. L. Goodhart said:
			
		

> Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, *it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges.* The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because '*a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens.*' (emphasis added)





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The Soviets attempted to frame several of those men for the Katyn Forrest Massacre which they later acknowledged they own secret police was responsible for.



Emphasis on *attempted*, as the other Allied prosecutors refused to support it. Again, a "show trial" wouldn't have tossed out such a juicy opportunity to further attack the defendants.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> C'mon now.  What you're really advocating is a public event subjecting a war criminal to a one-sided trial for us to give ourselves the illusion of being better than these people when in reality we're just doing a modern version of dragging these people through the public square before we pass down our judgement upon them.



I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a person from a country that believed in the rule of law and due process. By your logic, why have trials at all for _any_ crime? If we catch them and don't like them, they're automatically guilty, right? 

Perhaps Bernie Madoff should have received a summary 9mm sentence or danced the hemp fandango for all the lives he destroyed because he was obviously guilty, right?  Surely his trial was just "_dragging him through the public square before we pass down our judgement upon him_"? No? 

*Where's the cut-off limit where someone is "obviously" guilty and doesn't deserve a trial?* Do you _really_ want to start down the same slope as Stalin?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Maybe you're thinking of a different Nuremberg trial, because the one that actually occurred had seven of the defendants sentenced to long prison terms instead of execution, three of the defendants acquitted, and in the case of Admiral Karl DÃ¶nitz, convicted _but not punished_ for carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare - because a person no less than Admiral Nimitz of the US Navy furnished an affidavit in support of the same practice that he himself had employed throughout the war in the Pacific.



Yet one of the men acquitted was Hans Fritzche, a man who was only in the trial because the prosecution wanted to have someone on trial to take the place of Goebbels.  They very nearly could have convicted a man of crimes against humanity for simply being a radio announcer in Nazi Germany.  This same man also tried to challenge the infamous "Der Sturmer" published by Julius Streicher.

And speaking of Streicher, he was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging simply because he was anti-Semitic and had a newspaper which perpetuated his intolerance.  This is a large part of what I was talking about with how the trials used their own definitions of what constituted evidence of guilt for crimes against humanity.  He had absolutely NOTHING to do with the planning of the Holocaust or anything military related, yet he was put to death because he had an opinion and exercised his ability to speak that opinion.  But of course, he was a Nazi, so who gives a shit, right?

Of course Fritzche wasn't the only man that the prosecution attempted to use as a stand-in.  The prosecution attempted to charge Alfried Krupp for his father's use of slave labor in his industry.  Because it was so close to the trial he wasn't put up, and likely escaped the death penalty since others who were charged with perpetuating slave labor were executed.  Of course they weren't just going to let him go, so after Nuremberg they decided to try him anyway and was sentenced to 12 years for his father's crimes.  Glad we had a fair trial.



> I would hardly think that a "show trial" would have failed to convict all defendants on all charges and have them all executed, as per Stalin...



Funny you mention that, since the main Soviet judge was Iona Nikitchenko, who presided over many of Stalin's "show trials" during the Great Purges.



> Care to point out any actual circumstances where a person in court accused of a crime can pick and choose their judge?



I didn't say "pick and choose", I said "affect the selection".  The fact that all of the judges were from the three major powers against the Germans brings up issues of personal interest in the trials.  They were not deemed too close to the trial and therefore were allowed to preside.  In example, a defendant can't have a judge preside over him if he is accused of having murdered that judge's child.  The judge would be unfit to preside because of how close he is to the trial and would not give the defendant a fair trial.




> Emphasis on *attempted*, as the other Allied prosecutors refused to support it. Again, a "show trial" wouldn't have tossed out such a juicy opportunity to further attack the defendants.



Yet as I mentioned they still attempted to charge at least one defendant who had nothing to do with the whole thing, another who was guilty simply because he was anti-Semitic, and attempted to try another one because his father was unfit for trial.



> I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a person from a country that believed in the rule of law and due process. By your logic, why have trials at all for _any_ crime? If we catch them and don't like them, they're automatically guilty, right?
> *Where's the cut-off limit where someone is "obviously" guilty and doesn't deserve a trial?* Do you _really_ want to start down the same slope as Stalin?


 
What people here are advocating isn't a fair trial.  Many have stated, "well we should throw him on trial, and then execute him" for no other reason that they want to just say they gave him a chance to defend himself.  Specifically with Khadafy, no one here is interested in defending him and saying that he didn't do what he did.  We witnessed his crimes and the war he waged against his own people, yet his people are now demonized because they found him in a warzone and ended up killing him instead of saying "well, this guy's made our lives hell for 42 years, but we should hear what he has to say for himself."

In the instance of Saddam, his trial was heavily influenced by the American occupancy in Iraq.  Witnesses were instructed what to say by court staff and also claimed to be forced/tortured into providing false testimony.  Judges were replaced because of leniency towards the defense.  Evidence was allegedly fabricated.  Lawyers for the defense were ejected for questioning the legitimacy of the court and for arguing about American instances of torture.  All of this compounded with the fact that several international commentators have alledged that the date at which the verdict was passed down was done specifically to help the Bush Administration in order to influence the mid-term elections in 2006.

So given our recent past of trying war criminals, how exactly could we expect to give Khadafy a "fair trial"?


----------

