Gaddafi dead.

A Dub in Glasgo

Killed in crossfire.... apparantly

As for those deluded who blame Gaddafi for the actions of the IRA as he traded arms with them, you guys have a lot to learn about the global arms trade. Hell, you might even be surprised at who the biggest arms traders are!

MysticalRain

Boskowski wrote: »

Murderous tyrant?
Was he though? Where do you get that from? Or are we stretching the definition of 'murderous tyrant' a bit?

Just ask any Libyan person.

Boskowski

Right. Anyone from Lybia please?

OS119

Boskowski wrote: »

Murderous tyrant?
Was he though? Where do you get that from? Or are we stretching the definition of 'murderous tyrant' a bit?

John Simpson was on BBC radio yesterday with a little titbit from Tripoli in the 1980's (i think) - apparently the Italian Ambassador (the Italian embassy was next to Gaddafi's compound and looked over the wall) told him that they had had to ask Gaddafi's staff to move the bins in the compound, because the staff at the Italian embassy could see piles of Human limbs in the bin shed.

nice.

Jaap

Gaddafi's death I'm sure will be celebrated in hundreds and thousands of homes in Northern Ireland and the rest of UK.
If it wasn't for Gaddafi then I'm sure hundreds of lives would not have been lost as a result of IRA / Sinn Fein terrorist attacks.
Hopefully the new government in Libya address the need for compensation to all those killed in the UK by the IRA armed with Libya weapons / bomb-making material.
Has Martin McGuiness made a statement yet on the death of Gaddafi? WOuld be interesting to hear what he has to say.

COYW

Jaap wrote: »

Has Martin McGuiness made a statement yet on the death of Gaddafi? WOuld be interesting to hear what he has to say.

I doubt he'll make any comment. He has spent the entire campaign dodging questions about his terrorist past. Considering the current world view on Gaddafi, I doubt that he wants to been seen to have had any links to him. It wouldn't reflect well on St. Marty.

davoxx

Jaap wrote: »

Gaddafi's death I'm sure will be celebrated in hundreds and thousands of homes in Northern Ireland and the rest of UK.
If it wasn't for Gaddafi then I'm sure hundreds of lives would not have been lost as a result of IRA / Sinn Fein terrorist attacks.
Hopefully the new government in Libya address the need for compensation to all those killed in the UK by the IRA armed with Libya weapons / bomb-making material.
Has Martin McGuiness made a statement yet on the death of Gaddafi? WOuld be interesting to hear what he has to say.

surely the ira would have bought their weapons and explosives elsewhere ...
and the only reason america did not jump in to sell them some was that their order was too small ...

so before you start blaming Gaddafi, stop and think about who you should really be blaming ...

davoxx

COYW wrote: »

I doubt he'll make any comment. He has spent the entire campaign dodging questions about his terrorist past. Considering the current world view on Gaddafi, I doubt that he wants to been seen to have had any links to him. It wouldn't reflect well on St. Marty.

you misspelt freedom fighter ... but don't let that stop you throwing a dig at marty ...

and i'm sure tony 'the lair' blair will not comment on the deals he was trying to secure with gaddafi either ...

Scofflaw

davoxx wrote: »

you misspelt freedom fighter ... but don't let that stop you throwing a dig at marty ...

and i'm sure tony 'the lair' blair will not comment on the deals he was trying to secure with gaddafi either ...

You don't listen, do you? Banned for a day for continuing to personalise the debate after being warned.

moderately,
Scofflaw

DB21

I really don't think people get how bad it was under Gaddafi in Libya. I have extended family over there, and they fled the country a couple of times during the rebellion. The first tiem, they wouldn't say a word against Gaddafi. Once it was apparent he was out of power, they talked freely about the negatives of his being in office. So there you are, the single biggest negative of Gaddafi's regime: No freedom of speech. So excuse me if I'm happy that people can talk freely in the streets again.

carveone

All I can say is that I hope people won't continue to argue the past while ignoring the future. Like a lot of Africa, Libya has enormous resources available. I hope they use them to the benefit of their people.

Like many previous revolutions, there's a chance that this one could degenerate rapidly. Many people's revolutions (or whatever you want to call them) suddenly become a search for collaborators, followed by divisions on religious or tribal or ideological grounds. Various groups get involved and start resource stripping the country. Africa and Asia have a long history of this, the West even longer (although WWII pretty much tired us out).

With constructive help, Libya could become a great country. Or it could turn into Afganistan after the Russians left. This things happen fast...

walshb

I watched the footage yesterday and had to say it was very disturbing. No matter what he was or what he is "alleged" to have done, the images of a human being begging for his life is disturbing. So, I wonder will NATO and its allies call for the person who murdered Gadaffi to be tried for murder? They seem so concrened for Libya, justice, democrtacy etc, will they now show us that justice, and democracy?

Min

It is good to see the UN human rights office has called for an investigation into his death.

It appears he was taken alive and killed, no doubt much to the relief of western countries who talk about the rule of law when it suits, but nothing when it suits them.
I was looking forward to hearing the truth about western nations supplying Gaddafi with weapons to kill his own people.

Here is what Amnesty International said "Right until 2011, the United States, Russia, Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Britain, Turkey, Ukraine and the Czech Republic supplied weapons to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa in large or small batches. Apparently, the governments of these countries turned a blind eye to the fact that these weapons could be used to quell popular protests, kill civilians."

Gaddafi would have never been allowed to face proper justice for the following reason:

http://www.eurasiareview.com/20102011-us-europe-supplied-weapons-to-repressive-governments-in-middle-east-north-africa/

The United States, Russia and other European countries provided large quantities of arms to repressive governments in the Middle East and North Africa before the revolts that began this year, despite ample evidence of the risk that those arms supplies would be used in such a way as to account for serious violations of human rights says Amnesty International in a report released today.

The document, entitled ‘Transfer of weapons in the Middle East and North Africa: lessons for an effective Arms Trade Treaty’, examines arms exports to Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen since 2005.

The main suppliers of weapons to the five countries mentioned in the report are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Russia and the United States of America.

The report cites 11 countries (including Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Russia, United States of America, Turkey and Ukraine) which have provided military assistance or approved exports of weapons, ammunition and related equipment to Yemen, where hundreds of protesters have been killed this year.

One minute Gaddafi is their friend, then they decide time is up and again the arms industry makes more money from taking out the man they made lots of money from.
They all helped to keep the people oppressed, then they ride in and pretend they are with the people.

Well done Europe, United States and others who have been nothing but hypocrites, stand at the front Mr Berlusconi, Mr Sarkozy, Mr Cameron, Mrs Merkel and whoever leads Malta - the leaders of the top 5 countries in the European Union that supplied weapons to Gaddafi, special mention to Mr Obama, the leader of the country that was the biggest supplier of all of weapons to Libya, celebrate your hypocrisy, you build up leaders and help keep them in power and depose them when it suits.

nacho libre

It was odd to hear William Hague say yesterday that his Government oppose extrajudicial killings

jmayo

walshb wrote: »

I watched the footage yesterday and had to say it was very disturbing. No matter what he was or what he is "alleged" to have done, the images of a human being begging for his life is disturbing. So, I wonder will NATO and its allies call for the person who murdered Gadaffi to be tried for murder? They seem so concrened for Libya, justice, democrtacy etc, will they now show us that justice, and democracy?

People appear to think this was a grand plan by NATO, Western Governments that had dealt with gaddafi and thus wanted to silence him, when it most likely was just a bunch of people who probably wanted their own swift revenge for the years they had to suffer under his regime.

The rebels are for the most part not trained soldiers part of a disciplined army.
A lot of them are guys who have aces to grind against Gaddafi.
Some of them may have been imprisoned or worst and may have had family member who had suffered at Gaddafi underlings.

If the normal Iraqis had captured Sadaam do people think he would have made past the first hour ?

People appear to think that the bad guy when captured is handled with kid gloves according to the Geneva convention. :rolleyes:
This may happen with well disciplined armies but not when it is a civil war with people with very personal axes to grind.

People are often swiftly dealt with and people who want a piece of their own justice and they aren't particularly thinking about big show trials and media opportunities.

walshb

jmayo wrote: »

People appear to think this was a grand plan by NATO, Western Governments that had dealt with gaddafi and thus wanted to silence him, when it most likely was just a bunch of people who probably wanted their own swift revenge for the years they had to suffer under his regime.
.

.

NATO played a massive part in what happened yesterday. Massive. Now, I wonder if they will call for the killers to be tried for murder, which is what happened the other day. Humans acting like savages.

nacho libre

walshb wrote: »

I watched the footage yesterday and had to say it was very disturbing. No matter what he was or what he is "alleged" to have done, the images of a human being begging for his life is disturbing. So, I wonder will NATO and its allies call for the person who murdered Gadaffi to be tried for murder? They seem so concrened for Libya, justice, democrtacy etc, will they now show us that justice, and democracy?

The Islamists who murdered Khamis(the former NTC rebel commander) have not been held to account. So i have my doubts anyone will be held to account for Gadaffi's summary execution.
The disturbing thing is Gadaffi wasn't lying when he said many of the rebels in Benghazi are Jihadists. These guys are major players in the rebel movement. They won't just go away quietly.
There has already been a US intelligence report citing concerns over the intentions of some of these individuals in post- Gadaffi Libya.

walrusgumble

LordSutch wrote: »

You are kidding, right ? surely you are aware of the current debate re Mr McGuinness, (did he leave the PIRA in 74') or did he stay right up till 94'? was Adams even in the PIRA, was Martin Ferris in the PIRA? - so many PIRA/Sinn Fein interconnected stories, so many deep connections, with most people agreeing that the PIRA & Sinn Fein were two sides of the same coin, who were supplied by Gadaffi! and yet you print that :rolleyes:)

Gadaffi was (in the 80s) a keen supplier of Semtex, Mortars, and AK47s to the PIRA, and many innocent people on this island died as a result of Gadaffi's supplies.

Dot, does not deny that Gadaffi supplied arms. He supplied arms to other nations as well, as he loved nothing better than to see big boys like Britain suffer. IRA, like other paramilitaries, took advantage of this arrangement. It made sense logistically sense the US, its normal main source of support (via Irish Americans and old Tan War Veterans who were still alive), would never have allowed arms out of the state in such numbers. The British would have been all over those ships like a rash. They knew that the Libyans were helping and they made sure it was intercepted. I doubt that the IRA gave a monkeys who supplied, so long as they got their equipment. Does not mean that the IRA supported Gaddafi. Many would barely have a clue who he was.

Can you cite any literature or even research carried out, that shows that the IRA felt one at kinship with Gaffadi? Even the British, I would imagine would feel that that would be a bridge too far. Wouldn't imagine supposed the die hard Catholic number (probably wrong use of words) would have much time for Gaffadi's Muslim views, would you?

Sean Russell dealed with Nazi Germany in the WW2. It was simply to get arms. Hell, even Frank Ryan, a man who could hardly be said to like Nazism, ended up (through no real choice) with them. Yet, they get hammered on this. But when we look at someone like Eoin O'Duffy, who was a blatant admirer of Mussolini and Hitler (maybe without really realizing what they were really doing), all is quite. Why was people like Richard Mulchay involved with this nonsense?

What about the Loyalists who went to Germany, Apartheid South Africa, Allegedly Israel (IRA sought help from PLO) and of course Britain itself, for arms? Where did the people who bombed Dublin & Monaghan get their gear? (Considering what was going on in London and elsewhere in the UK with the IRA, to me, without being flippant, it was inevitable that the Loyalists would target the South) I doubt the Loyalist really cared where they got their equipment, so long as they got it.

Lets not be too hypocritical, shall we.

Funny enough, according to Tim Pat Coogan, Gaddafi was a big fan of one Charles J Haughey, during Haughey's renewed "Republican mood" when he was declaring NI as a failed entity and not supporting Britain during the Fawklands. I understand Gaddafi based his education system on, ahem, the Irish system.

jmayo

walshb wrote: »

NATO played a massive part in what happened yesterday. Massive. Now, I wonder if they will call for the killers to be tried for murder, which is what happened the other day. Humans acting like savages.

Yeah at the same time all of Gaddafi military are charged with murder.
War is a dirty business and civil wars are often the most dirty and vicous.
Gaddafi fought dirty and he died dirty.

They just skipped the trial.
In any trial he would have been found guilty and sentenced to death.

Perhaps you are of the mindset that thinks he should not face death sentence and should just be sentenced to a few years in jail ?

walshb

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah at the same time all of Gaddafi military are charged with murder.
War is a dirty business and civil wars are often the most dirty and vicous.
Gaddafi fought dirty and he died dirty.

They just skipped the trial.
In any trial he would have been found guilty and sentenced to death.

Perhaps you are of the mindset that thinks he should not face death sentence and should just be sentenced to a few years in jail ?

And how many rebels or NATO killers will face trial?

The rebels were given a free reign to kill and oust. A free reign by a foreign invader. Libya is ****ed now, and will be in trouble for generations

nacho libre

walrusgumble wrote: »

Dot, does not deny that Gadaffi supplied arms. He supplied arms to other nations as well, as he loved nothing better than to see big boys like Britain suffer. IRA, like other paramilitaries, took advantage of this arrangement. It made sense logistically sense the US, its normal main source of support (via Irish Americans and old Tan War Veterans who were still alive), would never have allowed arms out of the state in such numbers. The British would have been all over those ships like a rash. They knew that the Libyans were helping and they made sure it was intercepted. I doubt that the IRA gave a monkeys who supplied, so long as they got their equipment. Does not mean that the IRA supported Gaddafi. Many would barely have a clue who he was.

Can you cite any literature or even research carried out, that shows that the IRA felt one at kinship with Gaffadi? Even the British, I would imagine would feel that that would be a bridge too far. Wouldn't imagine supposed the die hard Catholic number (probably wrong use of words) would have much time for Gaffadi's Muslim views, would you?

Sean Russell dealed with Nazi Germany in the WW2. It was simply to get arms. Hell, even Frank Ryan, a man who could hardly be said to like Nazism, ended up (through no real choice) with them. Yet, they get hammered on this. But when we look at someone like Eoin O'Duffy, who was a blatant admirer of Mussolini and Hitler (maybe without really realizing what they were really doing), all is quite. Why was people like Richard Mulchay involved with this nonsense?

What about the Loyalists who went to Germany, Apartheid South Africa, Allegedly Israel (IRA sought help from PLO) and of course Britain itself, for arms? Where did the people who bombed Dublin & Monaghan get their gear? (Considering what was going on in London and elsewhere in the UK with the IRA, to me, without being flippant, it was inevitable that the Loyalists would target the South) I doubt the Loyalist really cared where they got their equipment, so long as they got it.

Lets not be too hypocritical, shall we.

.

Yes. It's incredibly biased to selectively condemn arms dealing between a paramilitary organisation and a dictator, while ignoring the fact western governments are often happy to sell arms to unsavoury types.
With this in mind I haven't seen any condemnation of Britain for training Saudi forces and supplying them with weapons, these forces recently went to the aid of the regime in Bahrain to crush a protest movement in that country.

meditraitor

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Semtex was made in Czechoslovakia. But Gaddafi's regime shipped huge quantities of it to the Provisional IRA.

Sorry I should have said USSR, always get Russia mixed up. Gaddhafi didnt donate the semtex to the IRA. It was business.

Same way Isreal dont take the blame for all the deaths caused by their arms sales into africa....and why would they.

You want to lay the blame for the semtex deaths and destruction, lay it at the door of the people who supported(financially) the IRA and the bombers themselves.

jmayo

walshb wrote: »

And how many rebels or NATO killers will face trial?

You don't get it, do you ?
The winners write the rules.
Go back as far as the Roman Republic and you will find the same.

walshb wrote: »

The rebels were given a free reign to kill and oust. A free reign by a foreign invader. Libya is ****ed now, and will be in trouble for generations

On your reasoning Libya was better off under a despotic dictator and his family because it was stable.
Likewise I bet you reckon that Iraq was better off under a despotic dictator.

Do you think that despotic regimes are worth it because they bring stability ?

You could argue the above, but you could also argue at least now they can decide their own fate, for better or worse.
(and I just bet you are going to counter about how they will be influenced by all those evil foreigners) :rolleyes:

Actually one could turn your reasoning a different way and one could say the Western world would be better if these countries were stable and under despotic regimes, in which case why did they bother trying to help get rid of them.

Oh and to counter your regime change answer, they might have achieved regime change with a few well placed bombs and bullets, not all out war.
The Soviets were experts at it.

IMHO this thread really illustrates that some people reckon that anyone, no matter how bad they are, are preferable to the US, Britain, etc etc.

If the Western world had not stepped in to help the rebels, I would wager that the same posters would be on here complaining how the western world were doing nothing, because they wanted to keep "their friend" in power. :rolleyes:

Jonny7

Gaddafi didn't accuse "many", he accused all of them (protesters) of being Al Qaeda or of being drugged.

Much like Assad has accused all Syrian protesters as being armed terrorist gangs.

Whilst there are extremist elements and even ex-Al Qaeda within the rebels, they are, by a large majority, civilian and ex-military

Unfortunately the "West" is involved in Libya, so suddenly after the UN resolution passed in mid-march there has been a deluge of posters who are hijacking the situation just to malign the US/NATO/etc

The appeasement of a brutal (ex) dictator, the painting of the rebels as "mostly" Al Qaeda, the branding of NATO as some sort of self-serving political entity - twisting the narrative basically.

Some even seem more overtly "horrified" and "concerned" over Gaddafi's death than by the innocent people he was having killed from Feb onwards.

There are tragedies and atrocities going on on both sides, the rebels are no saints, and the media, to be fair, are grilling the NTC on this, questioning the rebels, and questioning the future.

walshb

jmayo wrote: »

.

IMHO this thread really illustrates that some people reckon that anyone, no matter how bad they are, are preferable to the US, Britain, etc etc.
:

I don't reckon that. I do reckon that the west and its interference have caused untold misery and have actually prolonged the problems.

Wait for it. Libya will be a war zone for years' to come.

Look at Iraq. In a heap sice Sadaam was taken out. Bombings non stop. Killing snon stop and death non stop.

This invasion and bombing had nothing to do with the poor people under Gadaffi.

nacho libre

The rebellions Gadaffi put down in the past in Benghazi were of fighters belonging to islamist groups. So it's quite reasonable to believe, given this uprising began in Benghazi, a majority of the people involved in the initial rebellion were of the same mindset.

Indeed the top commander in the rebel movement was handed over to Gadaffi by the CIA for torture. So it's clear islamists have a leading role in the rebellion.

the cynicism of NATO action comes from analysing western foreign policy over previous decades.

which show the west was often instrumental in bringing despots to power and ensuring they remained in power so long as they were amenable to western interests. if, as I've always maintained the intervention in Libya, was about aiding people who wanted freedom and democracy then i support it. it's just that, as I've previously said, despots were often propped up by the west. The sudden clamour for liberating them from repression often seemed to coincide with these regimes opposing the interests of a powerful western government.


i think what this thread also demonstrates is that, in the final analysis some people are prepared to overlook or minimize the crimes of the winners, because they want the scraps from the table.
it may also be that, it's easier for some people to condemn Russia because they are ideologically opposed to them rather than those they identify with

it certainly seems this way when you see some Fine Gael supporters continually bashing Sinn Fein for their past, but the same people tend to be quiet about their own parties association with violent and undemocratic movements.

walrusgumble

walshb wrote: »

I don't reckon that. I do reckon that the west and its interference have caused untold misery and have actually prolonged the problems.

Wait for it. Libya will be a war zone for years' to come.

Look at Iraq. In a heap sice Sadaam was taken out. Bombings non stop. Killing snon stop and death non stop.

This invasion and bombing had nothing to do with the poor people under Gadaffi.

I too would be cynical, in light of history of other countries, that given 5- 10 years Libya will be at war with itself. The countries that helped out, can't now just feck off and leave. The problem is, they naturally won't assist the people out of charity, but will naturally want a slice of the pie. How long would that be tolerated? Hopefully, Libya will be the exception to the precedent before it.

AlekSmart

MysticalRain wrote: »

Normal people don't eulogise tyrants.

I would be in agreement with this statement,if twere true,however it's not.

There are few posters here eulogising Gadaffi,however there are some,and I am one,who refuse to buy into the mad-dog,murderous,cruel,despotic dictator tag which,it appears has to be appended to any factual report coming out of Libya now.

From where I sit,Col Gadaffi took control of a feudal,tribal, backward country ruled by a monarch of considerable wealth and over the next 40 years presided over a development of it's infrastructure which would have been far lower down the to-do list of King Idris.

However in the vernacular of the victor,it's just easier to run with the "murderous tyrant" bit...even though we still await the mountains of innocent civillian corpses required to prove that status.

Even worse (or better) we have substantially more walking,talking and very much living evidence that Gadaffi tended to imprison those convicted of crimes against his regime rather than simply put them up against a wall and shoot them,as a genuine "Murderous Tyrant" would.

Right now I would suggest that Libya is awash with Murderous Tyrants,each one expanding and developing their power base.

Interestingly enough the French Foreign Minister,Alain Juppe has been spectacularly quick out of the traps to recommend and end to NATO's Libyan involvement......

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/nato-operation-in-libya-finished-francersquos-alain-juppe-2913358.html

"The operation must now conclude because our objective, which was to accompany the forces of the National Transitional Council in the liberation of their territory, has now been reached," Juppe said.

"Our goal was not to kill Gaddafi. When I say us, I'm talking about the coalition, of France within Nato. Our goal was to force him to relinquish power. It was then up to the National Transitional Council to capture and judge him," he said.

Interesting quote I feel,and it suggests that M.Juppe has a bit of a Jesuitical bent about him as he skillfully skirts the issue of resolution 1973's relevance to what NATO has been doing since the initial threat to civilians in Benghazi was neutralized.

It now appears that France realizes the danger of it's military involvement being required to support one or more of the Transitional Council Factions in what will doubtless be a bloody period in the history of post-Gadaffi Libya.

The U.N./NATO alliance is now in a somewhat precarious position and it will indeed be interesting to note just how cohesive the "Alliance" remains in the wake of Col Gadaffi's summary execution.

Reading from some accounts it's interesting how the Colonel is only one of a job-lot of influential Libyan administrators eliminated yesterday....

Between 17 and 20 of Gaddafi’s most senior supporters were killed or captured alongside him. The leader of his armed forces, Abu Bakr Younus, and Gaddafi’s son Mutassim were killed, while Ahmed Ibrahim, a cousin and adviser, and Moussa Ibrahim, his official spokesman, were captured.

Saif al-Islam, the son Gaddafi wanted to succeed him, was also captured, after his convoy was reportedly hit by a strike from an RAF jet near Sirte

To me,Col Gadaffi's eventual capture and execution stinks to high heaven of a highly orchestrated set-up with the excitable and youthful rebels being ever willing to provide the patsy's.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist,and even here I won't suggest it.

I believe it to be a far more overt muscle flexing exercise by the NATO "allies",a form of shock and awe,to establish their dominance over the now fragmented Libyan nation.

It's worth noting also how the Colonels funeral is to be held in private...as I continue to believe that a substantial number of the Libyan people never clambered aboard the "Revolutionary" bandwagon so successfully set in motion by U.N. resolution 1973....

It is these people now,who are disenfranchised and cut adrift in the "New" Libya and who may well seek out a new leader capable of stating their desire to once again be a strong,independent Libya,rather than a State in thrall to Mssrs Cameron,Sarkozy and Berlusconi.

MysticalRain

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would be in agreement with this statement,if twere true,however it's not.

There are few posters here eulogising Gadaffi,however there are some,and I am one,who refuse to buy into the mad-dog,murderous,cruel,despotic dictator tag which,it appears has to be appended to any factual report coming out of Libya now.

From where I sit,Col Gadaffi took control of a feudal,tribal, backward country ruled by a monarch of considerable wealth and over the next 40 years presided over a development of it's infrastructure which would have been far lower down the to-do list of King Idris.

However in the vernacular of the victor,it's just easier to run with the "murderous tyrant" bit...even though we still await the mountains of innocent civillian corpses required to prove that status.

Even worse (or better) we have substantially more walking,talking and very much living evidence that Gadaffi tended to imprison those convicted of crimes against his regime rather than simply put them up against a wall and shoot them,as a genuine "Murderous Tyrant" would.

Right now I would suggest that Libya is awash with Murderous Tyrants,each one expanding and developing their power base.

Interestingly enough the French Foreign Minister,Alain Juppe has been spectacularly quick out of the traps to recommend and end to NATO's Libyan involvement......

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/nato-operation-in-libya-finished-francersquos-alain-juppe-2913358.html



Interesting quote I feel,and it suggests that M.Juppe has a bit of a Jesuitical bent about him as he skillfully skirts the issue of resolution 1973's relevance to what NATO has been doing since the initial threat to civilians in Benghazi was neutralized.

It now appears that France realizes the danger of it's military involvement being required to support one or more of the Transitional Council Factions in what will doubtless be a bloody period in the history of post-Gadaffi Libya.

The U.N./NATO alliance is now in a somewhat precarious position and it will indeed be interesting to note just how cohesive the "Alliance" remains in the wake of Col Gadaffi's summary execution.

Reading from some accounts it's interesting how the Colonel is only one of a job-lot of influential Libyan administrators eliminated yesterday....



To me,Col Gadaffi's eventual capture and execution stinks to high heaven of a highly orchestrated set-up with the excitable and youthful rebels being ever willing to provide the patsy's.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist,and even here I won't suggest it.

I believe it to be a far more overt muscle flexing exercise by the NATO "allies",a form of shock and awe,to establish their dominance over the now fragmented Libyan nation.

It's worth noting also how the Colonels funeral is to be held in private...as I continue to believe that a substantial number of the Libyan people never clambered aboard the "Revolutionary" bandwagon so successfully set in motion by U.N. resolution 1973....

It is these people now,who are disenfranchised and cut adrift in the "New" Libya and who may well seek out a new leader capable of stating their desire to once again be a strong,independent Libya,rather than a State in thrall to Mssrs Cameron,Sarkozy and Berlusconi.

With all due respect, I think you are confusing your own opinion with reality, and a post like that would be better off on some conspiracy theory blog than a forum like Politics on boards.ie. Gaddaffi's crimes are numerous and well documented as everyone from the UN, to Amnesty International to Al Jazeera have shown.

Arguing based on conjecture that Libya is better off under Gaddaffi is like arguing that Ireland would have been better off under our British rule because the British built better roads, had a pretty decent legal and administrative system, and the rebels would have promptly begun murdering each other as soon as the oppressors left anyway.

The problem some people have in these situations is that their understandable skepticism of Western foreign policy runs so deep that they tend to go completely off the deep end in believing all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories and nightmare scenarios every time the West lift's a finger to intervene over there. I have a healthy level of skepticism myself regarding the West's posture towards the Islamic world, and I've been a regular protestor at various anti-war demos over the years. But I am at a loss to understand a lot of what's been posted here about Gaddaffi. It's like some people are living in some weird parallel universe.

lastlaugh

andyjo wrote: »

I feel sorry for the little girl in Enniskillen killed by Gadaffis Semtex, whose dying words to here father as she lay under the rubble was " Daddy, I love you".

I feel sorry for the little kids and widows of people who had to check under their car for the little lunchbox full of semtex which came from Gadaffi....7 days a week, 365 days a year.

I'm glad you have feelings too.

Tell me though, how do you feel when when you see the video of Gadaffi dying and the 'rebels' jumping around in celebration?

If it's anything other than disgust, then I think you are warped.

InTheTrees

walshb wrote: »

And how many rebels or NATO killers will face trial?

The rebels were given a free reign to kill and oust. A free reign by a foreign invader. Libya is ****ed now, and will be in trouble for generations

Funny guy!

The people rise up and oust the blood thirsty murderous tyrant and you want to put them on trial?

Why? Because you think whatever comes next could/might be worse so they should have just stuck with the tyrant they knew?

Talk about defeatist logic. Grow a pair.

InTheTrees

lastlaugh wrote: »

I'm glad you have feelings too.

Tell me though, how do you feel when when you see the video of Gadaffi dying and the 'rebels' jumping around in celebration?

If it's anything other than disgust, then I think you are warped.

I see psychologically damaged abuse victims who have been driven to this by years/generations of maltreatment.

Sure its disgusting. Its as disgusting as a rape victim fighting back. Revenge is a disgusting thing.

But I dont begrudge them taking their lives into their own hands.

And if gadaffi was really concerned about the outcome there were many many opportunities for him to have chosen a different course to the one he did.

gurramok

nacho libre wrote: »

The rebellions Gadaffi put down in the past in Benghazi were of fighters belonging to islamist groups. So it's quite reasonable to believe, given this uprising began in Benghazi, a majority of the people involved in the initial rebellion were of the same mindset.

How do you know? Proof? Love to see where you sprung this allegation from.

nacho libre wrote: »

Indeed the top commander in the rebel movement was handed over to Gadaffi by the CIA for torture. So it's clear islamists have a leading role in the rebellion.

One man out of hundreds of commanders, yes lets ignore the will of the people in Libya.

lorrscann

Libya carried out justice on someone who caused them so much grief.. he should have given up months ago but he knew his crimes would be found out

lastlaugh

InTheTrees wrote: »

I see psychologically damaged abuse victims who have been driven to this by years/generations of maltreatment..

Are you talking about the video where Gadaffi is near death and the 'rebels' are celebrating?

I'd agree with the psychologically damaged bit alright. Getting the mobile phones out to get it on video

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sure its disgusting. Its as disgusting as a rape victim fighting back. Revenge is a disgusting thing.

Referring to the rebels celebrating in the video as 'rape victims' is pushing it a bit don't you think?

InTheTrees wrote: »

But I dont begrudge them taking their lives into their own hands.

Yes, they are so brave with NATO airstrikes behind them.

InTheTrees wrote: »

And if gadaffi was really concerned about the outcome there were many many opportunities for him to have chosen a different course to the one he did.

I agree, he should have legged it earlier.

While I'm not condoning Gadaffi in any way, I find the videos I've seen as abhorrent.

dlofnep

Video footage of Gaddafi's capture (he was alive). Warning, it's pretty graphic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-video-of-gaddafi-capture/2011/10/21/gIQACvA72L_video.html

TOMASJ

dlofnep wrote: »

Video footage of Gaddafi's capture (he was alive). Warning, it's pretty graphic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-video-of-gaddafi-capture/2011/10/21/gIQACvA72L_video.html

Plenty recognisable faces on these videos of Gadaffi,s killers,for the war crime investigators,
Or is that only a one way street.

Athlone_Bhoy

Arfan wrote: »

A scurrilous accusation from an illegal alien to earth!

They dropped into the German embassy together to express their condolences at Hitler's death.

Wasn't that Dev?

AlekSmart

TOMASJ wrote: »

Plenty recognisable faces on these videos of Gadaffi,s killers,for the war crime investigators,
Or is that only a one way street.

Yes TomasJ,the video evidence of Gadaffi's execution is clearly comprehensive enough to merit investigation,but as Gerrry Adams stated last night the "IRA has gone and Gadaffi has gone"...that appears to be the new mantra of post revolutionary justice and as such it's all we (and the New Libya ) have.

Its realistic to say that there won't be much of an investigation into this particular execution.

Gadaffi's legacy to his country and it's many and varied tribal citizens will be seen only in a negative sense.

Already the idylic times of "Old" Royalist Libya are being waved around as if the old King Idris was some form of enlightened benign wise man.

The 40 years of Col Gadaffi's rule allowed Libya to punch way above it's weight in the World boxing ring.

Libya's position and it's ability to maintain a developed status when surrounded by far less well managed Countries ensured that Gadaffi would always be seen as a "strutting peacock" by his detractors......"Hell man,this is fcukkixng AFRICA.....they have to need our aid...don't they...????"

But,Libya did'nt...Libya's position as No 1 African country in the United Nations Index of Human Development is one strong indicator of Gadaffi's long proven desire and ability to improve general living conditions for HIS people....oddly enough his nearest neighbours languish down at the bottom of the same list...but then again perhaps their people were a tad more liberated...allowing them to die younger of preventable disease or starvation......

As I've said before 40 years of Gadaffi's rule kept Libya out of the "Normal" African headlines of recurring Famine,Drought,Plague,Civil Wars...etc etc.

Today of course,post Gadaffi,these achievements count for nothing...and for sure Gadaffi will now face being stripped of the credit as the modern history of Gadaffi's Libya is hastily rewritten to make Revolutionary Knights out of Rebellious Knaves.

I'm quite sure I would have had a difficult time,with my western inclination,adapting to life in Gadaffi's Libya,but if I was living in a country where decades may pass without ANY recorded rainfall and my leader was striving to provide me with a constant,safe supply of water I'd perhaps have a more sanguine view of the lack of freedom to oppose his political viewpoints.......but that's only my personal opinion....;)

So TomasJ,I think you're correct Libya's new traffic arrangements are all one-way streets,devised and encouraged by the decidely new and not particularly "democratic" interventionist policies of the United Nations and it's military wing NATO.

With news slowly emerging of the unusual NATO Air Operations conducted above Sirte in the final hours of Gadaffi's life we could perhaps ask for the War Crimes Investigators to take a peek into the Sky as well...?????

partyguinness

A lot of senior government officials and business interets in the UK and US will be sorry to see Gaddafi gone.

Despite all the rubbish spoken by the politicians officially about being glad to see him gone, he was a good friend to the West and the new regime may not be so accomodating to Western business interests.

Funny how these rebels have now been elevated to "Freedon fighters" by the UK government on the BBC this morning. The Taliban were also freedon fighters when fighting the USSR but then became "Terrorists" when fighting the US and UK when they envaded.

The hypocrisy of the West is disgusting and quite frankly stomach churning and the media is more than happy to go along with it.

TOMASJ

partyguinness wrote: »

Funny how these rebels have now been elevated to "Freedon fighters" by the UK government on the BBC this morning. The Taliban were also freedon fighters when fighting the USSR but then became "Terrorists" when fighting the US and UK when they envaded.

The hypocrisy of the West is disgusting and quite frankly stomach churning and the media is more than happy to go along with it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the media "press & TV" when will we have a "media revolution" when the whole truth is told, instead of the usual tripe being trotted out by so called impartial journalists,

with John Pilger and a few others being the exception, 99% haven't got the balls to tell it like it is, for fear of loosing their job,

If things dont change within, we will end up with cartoon journalists similar to what Fox News and the Sun call reporters.

MysticalRain

I would appear that even the journalists at media outlets like Al Jazeera are now stooges of western imperialism.

hangon

I got a genuine nice reminder about the charter from a Mod for using a negative word about Gaddafi.
since that post the UN have called for an investigation as to was it crossfire or execution,like i said the video footage that was released by CNN after the TV watershed showed truly disturbing scenes.it is sad to see a new beginning starting as barbaric as a regime it overthrew.
lets hope it will not continue............... lets hope the new regime remember they will only last as long as NATO approve of them.

still waiting for elections in Egypt wonder will the Arab spring be remembered for replacing one despot with another or real Liberation?

this was the post,i am not so sure now i deserved the yellow card TBH when i compare it to what others have said:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75049091&postcount=100

nacho libre

gurramok wrote: »

How do you know? Proof? Love to see where you sprung this allegation from.




One man out of hundreds of commanders, yes lets ignore the will of the people in Libya.

Sure I just go around making things up for the hell of it :pac:

Benghazi is where the Islamic Fighting Group emerged, they had been opposing Gadaffi's rule for years until they disbanded. The LIFG was banned worldwide (as an affiliate of al-Qaeda) by the UN 1267 Committee.
Its stated aims are to establish an Islamic state in Libya and viewed the Gaddafi regime as oppressive, corrupt and anti-Muslim
One of al-Qaeda's most senior members, Atiyah Abdul-Rahman, was purportedly a member of LIFG as well

Abdel Hakim Belhad, a former member of the LIFG, is not just any commander, though, he's one of the main rebel commanders.

AlekSmart

It is interesting to read today of the statistics for the U.N./NATO Operation Unified Protector (!) .

Operation U.P.apparently will now end officially on the 31st October.

26,000 Sorties flown.
9,600 Strike Missions

Targets claimed destroyed- 5,900 including 1,000 tanks.

It appears the vast majority of sorties were flown by Britain and France in probably the best modern day example of "Entente Cordiale".

Pand

MysticalRain wrote: »

I would appear that even the journalists at media outlets like Al Jazeera are now stooges of western imperialism.

Al Jazeera has been the most criticised media outlet in its reporting of the civil war, probably because prior it was widely respected for perceived impartiality when it came to western affairs. But its not surprising when you learn its owned by the Qatar Media Corporation, the country known for its hatred of Gaddafi and the first nation that armed and supplied the rebels.

MysticalRain

Pand wrote: »

Al Jazeera has been the most criticised media outlet in its reporting of the civil war, probably because prior it was widely respected for perceived impartiality when it came to western affairs.

The only people criticizing Al Jazeera these days are the same far-left crowd who seem to believe that the channel is now a mouthpiece for Western Imperialism against the saintly Gaddaffi. That's a belief which is so extreme that even critics of Western foreign policy like myself would laugh at it.

But its not surprising when you learn its owned by the Qatar Media Corporation, the country known for its hatred of Gaddafi and the first nation that armed and supplied the rebels.

Correlation does not equal causation. That's a point which a lot of the conspiracy theorists seem to miss.

AlekSmart

MysticalRain wrote: »

The only people criticizing Al Jazeera these days are the same far-left crowd who seem to believe that the channel is now a mouthpiece for Western Imperialism against the saintly Gaddaffi. That's a belief which is so extreme that even critics of Western foreign policy like myself would laugh at it.


Correlation does not equal causation. That's a point which a lot of the conspiracy theorists seem to miss.

Very true,the point about media coverage is that its relevance to curious individuals is mainly in it being utilized as a tool to gather and assess information on any given topic.

Al-Jazz has over time moved from being an independently minded somewhat renegade organ into a far slicker globalized Mass-Media organ,with the attendant compromises which come with that Globalization.

For all of that,Al-Jazz would still be one of my first stops in gathering any information pertinent to its area of operation.

However it's the point at which neutral observers get comfortable with accepting the "News" reportage at face value that often represents a tipping-point in my personal wish and ability to reach my own conclusions.

AlekSmart

dlofnep wrote: »

Video footage of Gaddafi's capture (he was alive). Warning, it's pretty graphic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-video-of-gaddafi-capture/2011/10/21/gIQACvA72L_video.html

It's interesting to note how a debate has now sprung up purporting to be about concerns re the graphic nature of Gadaffi's capture and execution.

There is also the deeply unsettling evidence of Gadaffi being sodomized at a very early stage in his capture,which of itself should merit at least some investigation.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/111024/gaddafi-sodomized-video-gaddafi-sodomy

Then there are some more issues about the capture,detention and death of Mottassim Gadaffi of which there is also ample evidence of suspicious behaviour.

But at the end of the day the Gadaffi dynasty has been successfully ended by the Freedom Fighters and their U.N./NATO support.....

It's now some months since I posed a question on Boards as to when Syria was going to be 1973'd.....There were few responses,but those few declared that Syria and it's situation was "different" to Libya.....

http://observers.france24.com/content/20111024-deadly-syrian-crackdown-homs-sparked-by-fears-over-gaddafi-death

Obviously Syrian civilian casualities are "different" enough to allow a significant degree of Jesuitical consideration within the U.N./NATO inner circle...?

Pand

MysticalRain wrote: »

The only people criticizing Al Jazeera these days are the same far-left crowd who seem to believe that the channel is now a mouthpiece for Western Imperialism against the saintly Gaddaffi. That's a belief which is so extreme that even critics of Western foreign policy like myself would laugh at it.

Cute. The real reason why its getting so much criticism is because while it is very active in reporting news of the Libyan and Egyptian uprising (who where no friends of the Al Thani dynasty) it censorsed any on the arab spring protests in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Even in the case of Libya I havn't seen them publish any material that makes their clients in the NTC look bad, considering every western news outlet has published the story of the mass grave of executed Gadaffi loyalists yesterday, don't you think it's strange how theres no word of it on the AJ website?

Correlation does not equal causation. That's a point which a lot of the conspiracy theorists seem to miss.

What is so hard to believe about an undemocractic state owned media corporation reflecting the policies and views of its owner? I guess we all should have gave Pravda the benefit of the doubt:rolleyes: