Who was Mr Gadaffi?

Do you wish me to place some straws up for you to clutch?

Unsourced counter arguement, as usual.

But answer me this.

Were they, or were they NOT higher, under Gadaffi?

Did he, or did he not offer free eduction, and I mean a COLLEGE ed?

Does that or does that not sound rather odd for a brutal dictator?

 

Is that your real issue, Jack.. Is it something to do with the "white man"?

Khadafi wasn't sodomized and murdered by a white man, Jack.

 

No.

The elites made it possible for men who acted like savages to do it.

They stood watching it.

No surprise, the West seems to have gotten sexually perverse over such things.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...celebrating-brutal-deaths-qaddafi-saddam.html

 

All the oil producers offer free education as well as university education.

 

Which elites.. there were no white people around when Khadafi was captured, nor was there any military training or discipline among the young Libyan rebels..

Who exactly are you blaming here?

There are many immature young men from Africa and the ME who take NO responsibility for their own destiny and blame everything on whites..

Are you one?

 

This thread is about Libya.

AFAIK, we have not as yet invaded all oil producers.

 

We? Who are you planning to invade and why?

 

I'm not.

Stop being obtuse, Margot.

You're better than that.

 

Oh no, no, no, no, my friend. I do see how cynical 'the West' can be. I am partially aware of the way it functions and imposes its own 'different' form of propaganda. I do prefer it over a dictatorship, though. It gives me much higher opportunities to make something of myself (= the highest possible unit that cannot question or change true capitalist authority) without fellating anyone along the way.

But you didn't really do what I asked you to. In order to preserve his regime, a dictator MUST at all times kill his enemies, oppress the thinkers of the country & delay the natural maturing of society. This is the only way to remain in charge for several decades. You have no idea how many innocent people were tortured and killed so that he will remain in charge. And I don't judge that particular case. That is the #1 rule in the dictator's survival guide. Kill the ones who question you. There is no need for proof, history suggests there is an enormous change this has happened.

Once again, nobody should be humiliated in such a brutal way. But a man or woman who lost their loved ones can fall into a state of rage and this is not abnormal.

I do get, however, that behind your very questionable statements, your main argument is that Gaddafi secured a working independent economy for Libya. Even if we accept this as the absolute truth, the country is still screwed. Had he remained in charge, the money would have gone to preserving his reign. Now it could be exploited by other countries. In any case, Libya was not a particularly successful place, it did not have outstanding economics or brilliant governing. It was a f* up. This is why rebels got angry, you know...

But.......... I guess no matter what I say, it will remain unheard.

 

Again, all of this is merely your opinion, and most of it factors out the many facts that I cited before.

Margot did that, and now you do that.

Why is this, I wonder?

You want to know why I think you believe Gadaffi deserved the title of a 'dictator'? Because for decades, in the West, this is what the media here told you he was. Unquestioningly. If you truly knew what an malevolent dictator was, then you would know that Gadaffi did not fit that MO. I am not in the business of repeating myself, but educating your people to think for themselves, and encouraging them to set up what are effectively direct community democracies, as opposed to the inherently corrupt system of representative democracy that we have here, making sure their health is good,and water plenty for them, those are not the actions of a bad man, imo.

If you think these are the actions of the evil dictator, as sold to you by Western media, then I'm afraid we simply have a different understanding of what true evil is.

I am not religous, but there is a passage in the Bible in which I feel serves well to illustrate my point.

'Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?'

Luke 6:41

For me, this is a warning not to look outward, point a finger, and be critical of the actions of others, or in this case the infrastructure of another, without paying heed first to the many evils done by yourself, or bad actions. Only when you can say you are free of those, can you look at others and perhaps suggest they follow you.

In other words, what does a nation whose people are habitually tricked into perpetual conflicts, invasions, occupations, assasinations, etc, etc, etc, what right does that nation have to look to Libya and point out the speck of dust in their eye?




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdeLv5lFPuw"]Understanding the Green Book & Libyan politics, the easy way - YouTube[/ame]

 

I have never met Gaddaffi nor have i lived under his rule, but i think most of us know that there were human rights abuses under his rule but i don't think that you can dispute that under his leadership Libya progressed and prospered.

But i was sick to my stomach the way he was treated dragged through the streets and then executed, and i think that all governments should stop all aid to Libya until a thorough investigation is launched and those who did this put on trial

 

Some humanity arrives at last.

And if the ICC is really independent and not a U.S. puppet, NATO will be found guilty.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...to-be-investigated-by-ICC-for-war-crimes.html


Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the court’s chief prosecutor, told the United Nations yesterday that Nato troops would be investigated alongside rebel soldiers and regime forces for alleged breaches of the laws of war during the battle to overthrow Col Muammar Gaddafi.


As well as the original charges that Gaddafi and his close family perpetrated attacks on Libyan civilians, there are a series of complaints about the Western alliance and its allies in the National Transitional Council (NTC) under consideration.


“There are allegations of crimes committed by Nato forces, allegations of crimes committed by NTC-related forces … as well as allegations of additional crimes committed by pro-Gaddafi forces,” said Mr Moreno-Ocampo. “`These allegations will be examined impartially and independently by the prosecution.”


In the last weeks of the war, the Gaddafi regime alleged that 85 civilians were killed in a Nato air strike near the front line town of Ziltan. Khaled Hemidi, a regime general, filed a lawsuit before a Belgian civil court in Brussels accusing Nato of killing his wife and three children in an air strike on June 20 near the town of Surman.


Mr Moreno-Ocampo also said that reports continued to emerge that Gaddafi’s son, Saif, is trying to flee Libya with the help of mercenaries. He said his organisation had “received questions from individuals linked to Saif al-Islam about the legal conditions attaching to his potential surrender”.


Representatives asked questions such as what would happen if he appeared before judges and the various conviction and acquittal possibilities, the prosecutor told the UN Security Council, which referred the Libya case to the ICC.

The court had “clarified” that under its founding Rome statute “he may request the judges not to order his return to Libya after his conviction or acquittal”.

“Judges can also decide if he may be extradited to another state,” the prosecutor said. “We are also receiving information that a group of mercenaries may be endeavouring to facilitate his escape from Libya. We are calling upon states to do all that they can to disrupt any such operation.”

Mr Moreno-Ocampo said it was possible that Libya’s new government could be given jurisdiction in the case against Saif Gaddafi and Abdullah al-Senussi, the late dictator’s brother-in-law and intelligence chief.

In the written text of a speech to the Security Council, Mr Moreno-Ocampo said he was investigating if Gaddafi, who died shortly after his capture by government forces last month, and his former spy chief ordered mass rapes.

The ICC issued warrants on June 27 against Gaddafi, Saif and Senussi accusing them of crimes against humanity during operations against Libyan protests.

Charges against Gaddafi could be formally dropped when the court gets official proof of the former dictator’s death on Oct 20, the prosecutor said.

Saif Gaddafi and Senussi had not been seen since and Mr Moreno-Ocampo said his office was “galvanising efforts” to bring the pair to justice.



Here is who NATO backed and watched btw


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRTed8PO-1g&skipcontrinter=1"]Gaddafi sodomized: Video shows abuse frame by frame (GRAPHIC) - YouTube[/ame]

 

Who was Gadaffi?


Simple anwser, he was a opportunist.

He played the anti-imperliast card when it suited him, and jumped in bed with western powers when he needed too.

 

Jack Napier, NATO won't be found guilty no one will the rebels and western governments will supress it or the result will find Gaddaffi was killed in the cross fire

 

Well, you could reverse that, how long ago was it since the West were parading him around as their new pal?

 

Sadly, you are likely right.

This is because we are run by criminal mafia.

And like criminal mafia, they essentially buy the 'judge', as it were.

But let me ask you this - do you consider yourself a free man, while you live under the regime of these criminal mafia?

Or is it a mere illusion of freedom..?

 

That all depends on how you define free?

Freedom for me is being able to live in my own home and not have the government on my back every two seconds with a new tax or a new law to curb our privacy or a new law so that we can't say things about our elected government or the ability to have an open government that actually tells us EVERYTHING. Until that happens you are never free

 

I'm pretty sure the tittle of this thread was "Who was Gadaffi".

But I see your point.

 

I need more research before I go further, but you are pretty much arguing semantics.

 

Thanks.

It is rare for someone on here to admit that they do, even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

And that is what I have brought to this presentation, Bluespade, evidence that Gadaffi achieved so much for his people, evidence of those achievements, they weren't pipe dreams, the high literacy levels, free college education, excellent healthcare, mortgage assistance, moderate view of Islam, assistance with getting married, the 'eight wonder of the world' river, all of that was real, and none of those things are consistant with the image we were fed of a 'brutal dictator'.

We have seen evidence of a capture and dehumanisation that only the most hardened psychopath would not condemn,.

We have seen the very 'rebels' (aka terrorists, in any other language), armed by NATO thugs, using one of those guns to sodomise a man.

And now evidence that NATO troops were on the ground, at the time.

Ugly is ugly, and wrong is wrong, Bluespade.

You are an intelligent person, you know that is true.

Were I living in 30's Germany, and could see what was starting to unfold there, would it be unpatriotic of me to have spoken out against it, or at the very least, did all that I could to resist it?

Of course not.

Indeed, there were Germans who saw what was unfolding, there were Germans that did resist, and they, at least in my eyes, they are true heroes, as it takes courage to go against the grain. Mass media brainwashing + social peer pressure is powerful. It takes a brave heart to resist giving in to that. And so, as with my German example, one is not unpatriotic if you are American or British and yet criticise actions you see as disgusting, carried out by your own Goverment. On the contrary, a true patriot will not stand for these things being done in the name of his or her country, and speak out against it, exposing them for what they really are, at every possible turn.

Jack

 

If that is your definition of free, then you are not free.

 

Of course not Jack, our form of democracy is we get an option of two parties and if we vote for a third party when the preferences come into effect it goes to one of the two major parties. In effect we don't really elect the best people for the job we elect one of two donkey candidates who have been selected by someone higher up

 

Considering your point was to raise awareness as to what are the good policies of Gaddafi, you have another forum member who went on to find out 'hidden' stuff.

If I knew how the reputation points work, I would have given you one, Jack Napier.

I stand by everything I have said, though. You still need to reduce the inexplicable respect in your posts over such a figure. Not media talking there. Not common sense. Just accept that the truth is in the middle as always. He could have been a dictator and given some of Libya's resources to the people at the same time. His death is not surprising, nor should it attract any interest as such.

In fact, it might have been designed to give new Libya a bad name, so that exploitation of oil will be justified. And you are following whatever they tell you. The guy was coughed, humiliated and killed. This sometimes happens when you try to rule a country for your entire life. It's dirty stuff we don't know much about, so I wouldn't play along with the titles in newspapers.

 

I think the only images we need is Libyans being gunned down in the streets by Gaddaffi's military. You list all these accomplishments, but none of those matter in the end, because his people overthrew him. None of his accomplishments give him a right to brutally suppress his people.

I'll be the first one too say that my government had no right to interfere with what happened in Libya, and in the end the west's interference has only caused more chaos.

I agree with you 100% on this point.

 

Libya's oil isn't being exploited and the new Libya is preparing for elections..
The interim PM is a real decent electrical engineer who taught at the university of Alabama.

There is no middle truth about Khadafi.. He was mentally ill as early as 1970.