Gadhafi is in sooo much trouble...

geni said:
Unlikely. Asside from the issue of getting there there's the question of how long Chávez will last. More likely he will follow accepted protocol and head for saudi arabia.
Click to expand...
Don't the Saudis hate him?
 
Yeah. He stands accused - also, and with or without evidence - of plotting to kill King Fahd in 2003. One more exit blocked.

I find no moral reason he has to just leave the country he helped build, but I guess that's the only way to start breaking down the personality cult. Re-education camps might have to follow - there's millions of those buggers. The true Libyan people we're handing power to might be far outnumbered in Libya by loyalists who will be allowed to keep nothing of the system they've loved and watched be demonized and strangled unfairly their whole lives ... but hey, shouldn'ta been led by a guy we hate so much.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Yeah. He stands accused - also, and with or without evidence - of plotting to kill King Fahd in 2003. One more exit blocked.

I find no moral reason he has to just leave the country he helped build, but I guess that's the only way to start breaking down the personality cult. Re-education camps might have to follow - there's millions of those buggers. The true Libyan people we're handing power to might be far outnumbered in Libya by loyalists who will be allowed to keep nothing of the system they've loved and watched be demonized and strangled unfairly their whole lives ... but hey, shouldn'ta been led by a guy we hate so much.
Click to expand...

You've done nothing but sympathize with Libyan fascism and cast aspersions on the rebels since you got here. Like a stuck record of Gaddafi propaganda.
 
McHrozni said:
I guess you find rape and murder morally acceptable then?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, no I don't. Nor do I much favor wars being waged based on rumors. Unsupported and cartoonishly thick allegations accepted as fact by agencies who don't seem to care much about truth compared to bold action, etc - not a not a good enough reason, and in fact it isn't the reason we're fighting.

And as far as broken records go, how about Gaddafi must go, Gaddafi must go, Gaddafi must go ... for 42 years (minus the brief detente of recent years) that's been the answer to every question the West has for Libya. Framed to fit the mold, down the line - evil, slated for demolition and replacement with a more favorable dictatorship. Cause you'll need one to convince the majority of Libya to comply with the new management.
 
Virus said:
You've done nothing but sympathize with Libyan fascism and cast aspersions on the rebels since you got here. Like a stuck record of Gaddafi propaganda.
Click to expand...

I talk about what I'm interested in, and it's mostly the Libyan takeover the last few months, true. But I was a member for over two years before I took an interest in Libya at all. Please don't lie in a way that tries to make me seem "sent here." Your NWO employers prefer you be more subtle than that.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Contrary to popular belief, no I don't.
Click to expand...

You sure hide it well. For example:

I find no moral reason he has to just leave the country he helped build,
Click to expand...

You either consider rape and murder morally acceptable (which you just denied), consider "building a country", whatever that means, morally significant enough to offset rape and murder, or are contradicting yourself.

Occhams' razor says it's the last one and I tend to agree. Unless you can show otherwise ..?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
You sure hide it well. For example:



You either consider rape and murder morally acceptable (which you just denied), consider "building a country", whatever that means, morally significant enough to offset rape and murder, or are contradicting yourself.

Occhams' razor says it's the last one and I tend to agree. Unless you can show otherwise ..?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Don't be so dense, if it can be helped. The middle part, the question mark you don't seem to have room for in your mind (and you're not alone), is encapsulated in the word "rumors." I do not support regime change based on rumors of rape and murder that are almost surely, in fact, untrue. Not that that matters, they're accepted (alleged=true when it comes to Gaddafi, by some mechanism I don't claim to understand) and the process is closer to done than starting so it won't stop.

Mercenaries: Hundreds, thousands alleged in Tweets, major factor in the violence, none yet found.

Mass rape: New evidence is a couple of black kids "confession" full of red flags of exaggeration and fiction, reports from rebel-affiliated doctors of finding viagra in dead Gaddafi soldiers' pockets, etc.

Attacks on proesters: The government swears these all happened as they attacked bases and police stations, especially the Katiba in Benghazi. The evidence I'm aware of supports this.

Aerial bombardment: No direct or compelling evidence it was ever carried out, and even orders to that effect only on word of at least four pilots who defected or ditched Feb 21-23 and lodged claims that really make little sense.

And don't forget snipers shooting babies, and so on...

So do you require that if a person is opposed to rape and murder, they must support any violent and anti-democratic regime change effort against a sovereign nation like, say, yours, if its enemies had lodged claims of these crimes?
 
I do not support regime change based on rumors of rape and murder that are almost surely, in fact, untrue.
Click to expand...

I'd believe that, if you were claiming you were marooned on a deserted island for the past 6 months or so.

But that isn't the case, so you're just contradicting yourself - either in where you've been this year, or in what you believe.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
I'd believe that, if you were claiming you were marooned on a deserted island for the past 6 months or so.

But that isn't the case, so you're just contradicting yourself - either in where you've been this year, or in what you believe.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Take your pick then, expert.
 
Caustic Logic said:
I find no moral reason he has to just leave the country he helped build
Click to expand...
He'll be killed if he stays. Through a NATO airstrike, rebel lynching or executed after a trial, makes little difference. Though he has few places to go, so his options are rather limited.

Re-education camps might have to follow - there's millions of those buggers. The true Libyan people we're handing power to might be far outnumbered in Libya by loyalists who will be allowed to keep nothing of the system they've loved and watched be demonized and strangled unfairly their whole lives.
Click to expand...
I doubt Gadaffi and his system are so widely loved in Libya. There will be many who lose their priviliges when he's gone, which will make them unhappy with the new government whatever it does.

And of course it remains to be seen how the new rebel government and the system it introduces will do. Libya doesn't exactly appear to be an easy place to govern.

Chicken or egg: Is it the ruthless autocrat's fault that his country is a basketcase, or is it the basketcase-country's fault that it can only be run by a ruthless autocrat?
 
egslim said:
He'll be killed if he stays. Through a NATO airstrike, rebel lynching or executed after a trial, makes little difference. Though he has few places to go, so his options are rather limited.
Click to expand...

First, that's not a moral reason. It might me a mortal one, if he takes it. But he's publicly stated he intends to live, fight, and die in his homeland. Most people do the baby-talk "oh, now, you know you don't want that. C'mon, let's be a good boy and just quietly go ... over there," be it the Hague or some refuge nation. Neither way out has eased his will to fight, as the ideas are sold - and I've never seen him give any reason to hope they would.

I doubt Gadaffi and his system are so widely loved in Libya. There will be many who lose their priviliges when he's gone, which will make them unhappy with the new government whatever it does.
Click to expand...

I admit I'm talking out my arse a bit when I speak of majorities, but so are most people, world leaders included, who pretend to know just what "the people of Libya" want. It's usually based on what a few loud rebels have told them. Panicked by the magnitude of their own chutzpah, they needed the support they alomost seemed to expect from day one. They want NATO to bomb their country until they have freedom - narrowly defined as an absence of Gaddafi.

But it will come at a high price and leave them indebted and subordinated to their new saviors. How many will be on the "we told you so" camp, we can't yet say. Or I can't anyway. A real expert might have a good guess.

Anyway, the best democratic sampling we've gotten yet, limited an indicator as it is, is the tribal conference of May 5 - and it suggests support for Gaddafi is still, as of then, in the large plurality if not majority range. (It was in a overwhelming majority among the 2,000 tribal elder who attended, so I fudge it down for the general populace). And that mostly just reflects non-Cyrenaica Libya, of course.

And of course it remains to be seen how the new rebel government and the system it introduces will do. Libya doesn't exactly appear to be an easy place to govern.

Chicken or egg: Is it the ruthless autocrat's fault that his country is a basketcase, or is it the basketcase-country's fault that it can only be run by a ruthless autocrat?
Click to expand...

Good points, and I've nothing to add there.
 
McHrozni said:
I'll settle with what I believed to be the case before you started clouding the issue - you're contradicting yourself and proud of it.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Well why don't you explain it then, so's I can correct myself? I'm not seeing it and I don't have all night to try imagining what you mean. Thanks, you cloud-buster you.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Well why don't you explain it then, so's I can correct myself? I'm not seeing it and I don't have all night to try imagining what you mean. Thanks, you cloud-buster you.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you've figured out how to spell out what you mean, if you haven't just gotten yourself too confused.
 
Well, someone is confused.

Maybe it's the guy arguing with himself who is confused.
 
Toontown said:
Well, someone is confused.

Maybe it's the guy arguing with himself who is confused.
Click to expand...

Good one. I guess the reminder quote was unnecessary and has the effect of making me seem to be arguing with myself. It was worth a giggle to see it that way a moment.

Of course I meant, in case it's still unclear, for McHrozni to explain his statement
I'll settle with what I believed to be the case before you started clouding the issue - you're contradicting yourself and proud of it.
Click to expand...

So, McHrozni, you decided I'd been proudly self-contradictory. But then I "clouded the issue" by, I guess, re-explaining the difference between crimes and rumors, and you've decided to stick with the first impression anyway?

So what was the contradiction? Thanks.
 
Well, until I hear back on that, I could re-visit the evidence. Mr. Moreno-Ocampo ...

The new charges based actually on a questionnaire, sent out

But Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading a UN rights inquiry into the situation in Libya, suggested that the claim was part of a "massive hysteria".

Mr Bassiouni told journalists that he had heard those claims when he visited rebel-held eastern Libya.

But when he went to Tripoli, "the same story comes up".

"This time it's the government people telling us, 'you know what? The opponents have a policy of rape, we have discovered that they are giving out contraceptives and Viagra pills'," he recounted.

"So I told them, 'this is exactly what the other side told us'," he added.

"What it is, at least my interpretation of it is, when the information spread out, the society felt so vulnerable... it has created a massive hysteria," said Mr Bassiouni.

The investigator also cited the case of a woman who claimed to have sent out 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse.

However, when the investigators asked for these questionnaires, they never received them.

"But she's going around the world telling everybody about it ... so now she got that information to Ocampo and Ocampo is convinced that here we have a potential 259 women who have responded to the fact that they have been sexually abused," Mr Bassiouni said.

He also pointed out that it did not appear to be credible that the woman was able to send out 70,000 questionnaires in March when the postal service was not functioning.

Nevertheless, the investigator said his team will examine the claims.

"We're going to go back and we're going to look at it," he said.

For the moment, the team has only heard of three cases.

"We've not investigated these cases, we hope to be able to investigate them. These would be in the midst of a military operation, a field operation. These would clearly be a war crime," he added.
Click to expand...
see:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...ria-investigator/story-e6frf7jx-1226072781882

So he doesn't completely dismiss that rape in a military context might well have happened in at least three cases. But some "hysteria" (think Salem, maybe) seems to be behind the massive narrative laid out for us, added to by each publicized and believed claim, collectively it's just getting nuts. Here's my overview, that somehow missed the questionnaire lady that Moreno-Ocampo cited. Mass rape and gang rape of women, children, and men in the thousands perhaps by now, including the ridiculous ED medicine claims Moreno-Ocampo tries to give credence to, even Abdullah Senoussi personally sodomizing an old man with a stick in an underground dungeon and Saadi Gaddafi ordering rape of male prisoners by African mercenaries.

As you can see, the 259 by questionnaire aspect adds little to the credibility of this complex of often cartoonish allegations.

The only response I've seen is semantical - a couple of women getting hysterical over Bassiouni's use of the word hysteria, and otherwise ignoring what he's said while grandstanding about silence and justice.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/0...er-over-claims-gaddafi-used-rape-as-a-weapon/
 
To clarify: I meant to finish the first lines of the above post but got sidetracked and hit submit early. It was just to re-introduce what Thunder brought it up in post 31 - a new basis for arrest warrants requested by the ICC's prosecutor.

Any thoughts on the factual basis for Mr. Moreno-Ocampo's additional move?
 
No?

Okay then, back to the original charges. Muammar is reported by Mr. M-O for issuing orders, and Saif for recruiting the mercenaries that still haven't surfaced, despite being captured in the hundreds. But Abdullah Senoussi, Muammar's brother-in-law and top officer for all things evull, is said to have a more direct-sounding "participation ... in the attacks against demonstrators."

I'm not saying this is what it is, but it might be. As mentioned above, this is an accusation from a rebel kid reportedly just freed from an underground prison in Benghazi:

After taking our clothes off, they took us to an underground cell. We were about 70 men. I recognized a couple of them.

They whipped and tortured us. Saadi Gaddafi and Abdullah Senoussi were there. What were they doing? They were telling the guards to rape us.

We were naked by then and the guads were harrassing us... I can't tell you what they did to us. Then they tied our hands and feet and blindfolded us and left us in those cells. No food, no water. They came often to piss on us. They were from Tripoli and Benghazi too.

One of us, a very old man, was begging for respect, but Senoussi abused him, putting a stick in his ... He hung himself later in the cell.

They kept on beating us up for five days. Two soldiers helped us by giving us mobiles to call our families and tell them where we are.

Later on, Senoussi came back with black African mercenaries to execute us on the gallows. They managed to hang three of us but they were interrupted. The protesters blew up the gates. As for Senoussi and his men, they were busy fleeing the compound. Some ran, some were killed, and some took us as hostages. We looked death in the eye.
Click to expand...

Youtube video of his maying all this
article with some added thoughts and sources

Credible? Accepted by the ICC?

Why is the whole evidence section of their public version of "prosecutor's application" redacted? Report PDF link.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom