Gaddafi has been killed...

This is good news but the question is: who will take over Libya government and will they go back to their old tricks or become democratic?

http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-dictator-moammar-gadhafi-dead-rebels-claim-122438187.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-20/moammar-gadhafi-libya/50836710/1

I don't think those Rebels have thought about the big picture aside from over-throwing their Dictatorship Government!

He's dead.

Libyan foreign minister has confirmed it. Plus there are some great photos here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/oct/20/syria-libya-middle-east-unrest-live#block-38

and here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYN0zTQ242w

Reuters confirmed it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-idUSTRE79F1FK20111020


What a damn shame. I guess the West would rather have Libya ruled by Al-Queda-linked rebels and racists, rather than the Gaddafi regime. It's funny, because I still remember the days when Al-Queda were "the bad guys".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebels-settle-scores-in-libyan-capital-2344671.html

So long, Gaddafi.

Look at these savages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVIkck02qao&feature=share
(Graphic content)

It's no wonder why dictators like Hussein and Gaddafi rule with iron fists.

and here we are supporting this barbarism!!

Mr. Brown wrote:

Look at these savages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVIkck02qao&feature=share
(Graphic content)

It's no wonder why dictators like Hussein and Gaddafi rule with iron fists.

To the contrary. The iron fists are what breeds the savages.

Not that some particularly gifted nations couldn't mange to cultivate their own brand of savages, entirely without iron fists to absolve them. One wonders how excellent they could do if they just went through a few decades of the Iraq-Syria-Libya school themselves.

Gaddafi was the man with the golden gun:
http://gizmodo.com/5851876/qaddafi-died-packing-a-giant-golden-gun

So, Libya is now, like, a democracy & stuff?

Cool story, CNN.

Not mourning the motherfucker, but history shows us that fresh tyrants often spring from the ashes of old ones. We may yet rue the day we decided Libya's civil war was our playground.

To go from the highest office and position in the land, to cowering in a shitpipe below the road, must have shattered his virility. At least Saddam had the courtesy of being executed without being dragged through the streets.

If I'm ever a tyrant, which I am, please, allow me my dignity and throw me out of a high window like Jezebel. After kissing my ass of course.

I wonder if the report that he was 'cowering in a sewer' will follow the same path as the report that 'Osama tried to use one of his wives as a human sheild'.

So onto Mugabe now.....ooops no no oil so that remains none of our business I guess.

I'm sure your sympathy for mr. Gaddafi will be appreciated by the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Brown. Regardless of what comes in its place (and I'm not believer in instant-democracy either) it's hard to fault the Libyan people for having gotten rid of that madman.

Dude had some flashy style.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

To go from the highest office and position in the land, to cowering in a shitpipe below the road, must have shattered his virility. .

All his bodyguards were chicks from what I understand, so his concept of virility may have been somewhat different than ours. But yeah, whether it's cowering in a sewer, a spider-hole, or behind one of your wives, these terrorists and dictators sure do like to punk out when it comes time to stand up and fight for themselves.

Mr. Brown wrote:

I think killing him was the humane thing to do. First of all, he looked like The Scarecrow from the Batman comics. Like someone had stitched a new face on him or something.

Secondly, the man wore curtains and bedspreads as active daily wear. Not only did he commit crimes against humanity, but he also committed crimes against fashion.

I had an argument with a commie today at work who vociferously protested against the killing of not only Qaddafi, but also Bin Laden, saying that justice wasn't done, they deserved "fair trials", the CIA is trying to cover up something, blah blah blah. :evil: You just can't reason with some people.

Salomé wrote:

I'm sure your sympathy for mr. Gaddafi will be appreciated by the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Brown. Regardless of what comes in its place (and I'm not believer in instant-democracy either) it's hard to fault the Libyan people for having gotten rid of that madman.

I'm not making the man out to be a saint. And I'm not disappointed about another tyrant being toppled.

However, I'm looking ahead, and I'm looking at the regime that's going to take Gaddafi's place. The Libyan rebels are linked to Al-Queda--that's a fact. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Al-Queda was responsible for 9/11, and bombings in London and Madrid. And now the West is sympathizing with these rebels who are in bed with the "bad guys" who completely fucked up our way of living? That makes no sense to me.

I'd rather have strongmen like Gaddafi and Hussein in power; these types of people can be bribed and cajoled. Muslim extremists, on the other hand, can't be. They seem to have one, obvious mission.

I know it isn't politically correct, but I'd much rather have stylishly-dressed scumbags like Gaddafi "running the show" in the Middle East and keeping their countries in check. That way, our half-witted leaders won't be compelled to waste tax payers' dollars and valuable resources to "run the show" for them.

I get what Brown is saying, the lesser evils.

Dictators always get toppled though. People like to be free. Good riddance. Hope the new boss isn't the same as the old boss. The west should have taken him out long ago, if only for the Lockerbie bombing,but alas the west must also make compromise with bad guys for broader strategic goals, but the Lockerbie thing made all western accomodation with this psycho real odious. So it is real nice to know he's finally out of the picture.

lachesis wrote:

So onto Mugabe now.....ooops no no oil so that remains none of our business I guess.

If we did intervene you'd be screaming "racist colonialism!"

I am also afraid that we get new regimes that are more religious extremist than the good old nutjobs that sat before on the throne. I am not so certain that the Islamic Spring is such a great development in the long run. I fear that we in the west underestimate the power of the Islamic religion in the so-called liberated countries.

In that sense I rather had the known nutters than the unknown that are currently in the driverseat.

I think it will take a long time for Libya to ressurect simply because after 42 years of dictatorship the infrastructure was pro-Gadaffi. It will be totaly replaced and that will take a lot of time and effort. And they, the twenty odd tribes that live in Libya, are already dissagreying with each other.

I found the images shown of Gadaffi and his son alive and then death very disturbing. And there was little chance to get away from them. We did hide our paper today on page 1 there was a huge photo of a dead Gadaffi. Not a nice image having around with yound daughters. The media-circus is a bloody disgrace.

I believe they were both excuted, which is understandable when I consider the dictarship of mr. G, but like with Osama I cannot say I feel it is the right thing to do. Instead of being opposed with the responsibility of their acts and being questioned about certain acts there now will be silence and secrecy again.

CJB wrote:

lachesis wrote:

So onto Mugabe now.....ooops no no oil so that remains none of our business I guess.

If we did intervene you'd be screaming "racist colonialism!"

I'm British so the label is often applied anyways.....but in truth it's just a churlish idea, I really don't feel the west achieves anything by these interventions and wars, as noted the 'democracies' that follow are often as corrupt and cruel as the dictators they displace and long term hatred is compounded. We have appliied one consistent strategy in the middle east since the onset of their terror campaigns - the exact same strategy as actually initiated the terrorism. The middle east has a long history of internal nomadic conflicts, the intervention of the east and west has only seemed to expand the scope of this aggression and fuel it with the arms we readily sell them when they alternately fall in favour.

lachesis wrote:

I'm British so the label is often applied anyways.....but in truth it's just a churlish idea, I really don't feel the west achieves anything by these interventions and wars, as noted the 'democracies' that follow are often as corrupt and cruel as the dictators they displace and long term hatred is compounded. We have appliied one consistent strategy in the middle east since the onset of their terror campaigns - the exact same strategy as actually initiated the terrorism. The middle east has a long history of internal nomadic conflicts, the intervention of the east and west has only seemed to expand the scope of this aggression and fuel it with the arms we readily sell them when they alternately fall in favour.

This is a man who knows how to deal with those third-world savages:



"We must rip out their entrails and drag them from here to Damascus until they include us in the peace process!"

Let the Somalization of Libya begin! I'm perplexed at why Italy and France are especially so happy to have such a clusterfuck developing at their doorsteps. They don't have enough Libyan migrants already?

lachesis wrote:

We have appliied one consistent strategy in the middle east since the onset of their terror campaigns - the exact same strategy as actually initiated the terrorism.

Right, so Islamic terrorism is actually the west's fault. If only we'd been nicer, they'd behave themselves. Yep sure.