• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Gadaffi captured or killed.

The guy who is taking the "credit" for that is 18 years old. Does that answer your question?

Rolfe.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Let's wait to know the full details first eh?
Click to expand...

Agree - it is easy for us to be all rational and outraged pounding on the keyboards from the safety of our homes or offices. Being out there in the middle of battle, emotions can run very high and be very unpredictable.

He simply could have already been bleeding to death with no hope of aid when someone put a bullet in him for the glory
 
Kestrel said:
Libya's oil revenues pose a great danger to it's future. Control the oil and you have plenty of money to pay the security force needed to secure power for a dictator.

The good news is that the people of Libya now know it's possible to overthrow an entrenched dictator.
Click to expand...

When the dictator is hated passionately by the West. Otherwise, they won't be any more able to do it on their own than this time.
 
Luzz said:
Even under war there are "rules". The guy was injured, he put no resistance, so why kill him?

I am not defending him, just curious, I want to know the logic and reasoning on why there was a need to kill him.
Click to expand...
There was no need to kill him it was just as another poster pointed out some glory hungry trigger happy kid shot him after he surrendered. An older and wiser soldier may have spared him.
 
Cainkane1 said:
There was no need to kill him it was just as another poster pointed out some glory hungry trigger happy kid shot him after he surrendered. An older and wiser soldier may have spared him.
Click to expand...

Well I would agree if you can show any evidence any of those involved where soldiers in any way
 
Toontown said:
You're breaking my heart.

The color to which you refer is the color of buzzard puke. He also brought a great odor to the international scene. His long rule over a large patch of monkey planet was yet another black smear upon the honor of an already thoroughly dishonored humankind. The best that can be said about mankind at this point is that they did try to do the jerk a couple of times, and may have finally succeeded.
Click to expand...

It's a sad day for the neo-Nazi's, truthurs and Cynthia McKinneyians of the world.
 
'That's for Lockerbie' with a picture of his corpse.

http://twitpic.com/738xd1


A false reality has been formed before our eyes. There are lots of bad people in the world, it's how we behave that concerns me and what's unfolding right now is a false reality, the end result of which is always more bloodshed, more theft and more iniquity not less.


ETA: Somebody with a semblance of reality, especially since he has just returned from Libya - Bloody Spring
 
Last edited:
Well, we don't know Gaddafi wasn't behind Lockerbie. We just have no evidence that he was, and rather good evidence pointing elsewhere. (The person we know wasn't behind Lockerbie is Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, not Muammar Gaddafi.)

That newspaper front page is sickening, in more ways than I can count.

Rolfe.
 
Buncrana said:
ETA: Somebody with a semblance of reality, especially since he has just returned from Libya - Bloody Spring
Click to expand...

From that:

This was what Gheddafi represented to many – and NATO’s bombing only seemed to harden these attitudes: “thousands of civilians murdered by bombs, missiles, Western terrorists and mercenary throat-cutters. What does one think the wanton destruction of all infrastructure, hospitals, schools, factories, waterpipes, homes, may have produced in the attitude of 6 million Libyans and 2 million well-treated, dignified migrant workers?”
Click to expand...

With regards to this article, color me severely skeptical.
 
Even if he wasn't behind Lockerbie he was behind loads of other things that fingered him as a tyrant.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, we don't know Gaddafi wasn't behind Lockerbie. We just have no evidence that he was, and rather good evidence pointing elsewhere. (The person we know wasn't behind Lockerbie is Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, not Muammar Gaddafi.)

That newspaper front page is sickening, in more ways than I can count.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


This is true. However after nearly 23 years, and especially after the fall of the old regime in Triploi, I'm sure if there was a hint of any evidence whatsoever,it would have been presented in jubilance. The best we ever got was Majid Giaka.

You have to wonder, just how many Giaka's are there in this world?..


Mister Earl said:
From that:



With regards to this article, color me severely skeptical.
Click to expand...



That's absolutely fine. Skeptics forum and all.

I'm sure you'll aford me the same courtesy, given the sentiments in that prominent British paper front page I posted above will be echoed across much of 'our media'. And quite frankly that particular allegation forms precisely part of this false reality.

.
 
Buncrana said:
That's absolutely fine. Skeptics forum and all.

I'm sure you'll aford me the same courtesy, given the sentiments in that prominent British paper front page I posted above will be echoed across much of 'our media'. And quite frankly that particular allegation forms precisely part of this false reality.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I find that page absolutely distasteful. Then again, if there'd been a page like that after the fragging of bin Laden, I probably would have been all for it. I guess context and whether or not you were victimized by the person, or believe your were victimized by the person, can vastly alter perception like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom