Reuters Reports Death of Gaddafi In Libyan City of Sirte

I'm gonna wait: by Hartree · 2011-10-20 02:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is this as reliable as when they captured his son and he showed up on TV soon after?

I think they've supposedly killed Kamis a couple of times. Resilient young man, that one.

Re:I'm gonna wait: by Xest · 2011-10-20 02:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Well judging by the fact the BBC just posted a still from a live feed from Al Jazeera which shows someone who looks pretty much like Gaddafi being dragged through the street I'd say it's pretty much more reliable. It's further bolstered by the fact the kid who supposedly found him was shown waving round a gold plated desert eagle or similar. I doubt that's the type of expensive custom side arm that's just left lying around.
Unless Gaddafi is capable of coming back from the dead I think there's a fair chance he's gone.
Kamis is long dead, even Gaddafi's own Syrian based TV station accepted that.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, and infamous leaders have never had doubles.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by pixelpusher220 · 2011-10-20 02:37 · Score: 1

The important question...anybody seen Seal Team Six lately? ;-)

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:I'm gonna wait: by chill · 2011-10-20 02:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah...spread all over an Afghan hillside, unfortunately.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Moryath · 2011-10-20 02:58 · Score: 1

Very true.
Of course, there's also the theory (before he was finally killed, and in conspiracy theory circles still going on since nobody saw the body really prior to the abrupt "burial at sea") that Osama bin Laden had been killed years earlier and that the various radio broadcasts - note that after a certain date there were no more videos, just audio - were the work either of canny computer splicing or a simple voice-actor double.
Which reminds me... seen Elvis lately? Word is he's lost 100 lbs and was at Disney last week ;)
Re:I'm gonna wait: by SomePgmr · 2011-10-20 03:05 · Score: 1

You mean there could be TWO of Gaddafi?! I can't even imagine how hard it would be to find a passable look-alike that can also play a convincing "Liberace-fabulous dictator".
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:11 · Score: 0

Country leaders has been known to keep body doubles around.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by cjav · 2011-10-20 03:27 · Score: 1

I think this time there won't be a TV show appearance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQUShElCzE

Extremely graphic, you have been warned.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Billly+Gates · 2011-10-20 03:33 · Score: 1

"Unless Gaddafi is capable of coming back from the dead I think there's a fair chance he's gone."
oh?

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Rakshasa-sensei · 2011-10-20 03:35 · Score: 1

It is quite interesting, that the Norwegian special forces (consistently coming first in international competitions, and have extensive experience with operations in mountainous terrain) are one of the few forces in operating in Afghanistan that have a 'red card'. Basically they can veto their participation in any operation if they don't agree with some aspect.

There's a story of them using this red card during the planning of a joint operation with US special forces to take out a hilltop fortification, where the US wanted to fly in with helicopters. The Norwegians refused as it was too dangerous (as the above link makes clear, getting shot down can easily happen), and instead demanded they'd be dropped off more than 5 kilometers away.

So that's what happened, they were dropped off unnoticed and with minimal rations and water, then made the trek. By the time they arrived the US special forces were exhausted but the Norwegians were completely fine. While the US special forces spend a lot of time in the gym, Norwegian forces spend a lot of time walking in mountainous terrain. (which is a rather Norwegian train that even Swedish people find strange)
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:16 · Score: 0

Yeah...spread all over an Afghan hillside, unfortunately.
How's this insightful? Seems more like trolling.
And t's not even relevant: SEAL Team Six was estimated to be at 300 before that tragedy.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Kyont · 2011-10-20 08:04 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen Gaddafi and Tommy Lee Jones in the same room? Throw a fancy hat on him, and they are hard to tell apart. I'm just sayin'.

--
You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by icebike · 2011-10-20 09:18 · Score: 1

Can you imagine any amount of money that would induce Tommy Lee Jones (or any one else) to play Gaddafi the hunted man in the middle of a rebellion?

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 10:28 · Score: 1

> Unless Gaddafi is capable of coming back from the dead I think there's a fair chance he's gone
As long as he doesn't come back as Gandaffi the white.
Re:I'm gonna wait: by DaTFooLCaSS · 2011-10-20 14:24 · Score: 0

Link to said Al jazeera footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g07otrwI4j4
Re:I'm gonna wait: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 00:33 · Score: 0

Unless Gaddafi is capable of coming back from the dead I think there's a fair chance he's gone.
Kamis is long dead, even Gaddafi's own Syrian based TV station accepted that.
Okay, but what about his brothers Larrymar and Curlymar?

reports wrong by Thud457 · 2011-10-20 02:18 · Score: 2

Actually, it was Tito Jackson.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

First Kill by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:18 · Score: 0

First Kill

Netcraft... by idontgno · 2011-10-20 02:19 · Score: 1, Redundant

or it didn't happen.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-10-20 02:19 · Score: 0, Troll

You've let your government destroy lives and waste money sponsoring another pointless war to serve the interests of a powerful few.

Mission accomplished. Let the pillaging begin!

Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:23 · Score: 0

You need to get your tinfoil hat resized: it's cutting off the circulation to your brain.
Down with tyrants, that's what I always say.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Deus.1.01 · 2011-10-20 02:24 · Score: 1

You just described Gadaffi's nepotistic regime to a tee.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Xest · 2011-10-20 02:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry you must be confused. The thread about Saddam's capture was posted back in 2003 or so. This is the one about Libya and Gaddafi.
Wait, don't tell me you actually believe a grass-roots revolution led by the poor to topple an authoritarian leadership and it's elite minority is somehow sponsoring the interests of the powerful few?
Or perhaps you subscribe to hypocritical Russian politics where attacking a foreign sovereign state is always bad. Well, unless it's Georgia.
Or are you one of those dumb conspiracy theorists who thinks this was about oil or something?
The only self interest for the respective NATO countries involved in this was prevention of mass immigration to Europe if Gaddafi continued to make things worse in his country, but mostly this was the first bout of military action in a long while that was actually meaningful, just, and most importantly - succesful.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:36 · Score: 1

Frankly Hazel my dear, if taking out bastards like Gadaffi is a mission for NATO then long live NATO. You liberal idiots who always whine about any military action while implicitly supporting the likes of Gaddaffi are the ones who make the world a bad place.
Here is some news to you: Not all people are good. Some of them deserve what they get.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:39 · Score: 0

Sir you are a fool. Libya had some of the best healthcare and schooling in Africa. The reason the west lies about the régime is that for every westerner employed in the oil industry, the company had to employ a fucking Libyan too, who did Gadaffi think he was, trying to improve the lives of the people
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Deus.1.01 · 2011-10-20 02:45 · Score: 1

Right because those goods were provided to EVERYONE!

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by mvar · 2011-10-20 02:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only self interest for the respective NATO countries involved in this was prevention of mass immigration to Europe if Gaddafi continued to make things worse in his country, but mostly this was the first bout of military action in a long while that was actually meaningful, just, and most importantly - succesful.
Errr, well, no. Europe and especially France & Italy are very dependent on Libyan oil. It's not like one day the Europeans woke up and discovered that there's a dictatorship in Libya and some people are revolting against it. If not all, at least most European leaders (Tony Blair, Sarkozy, Berlusconi etc) have shaked hands with Gaddafi in the past in good spirit (just google it). And Europe's relationship with Libya was in good terms until 1 year ago. So, the matters in Libya are way more complicated than they seem (or than some mass media let us see them) and one must be really naive to think that this is just about some poor people revolting against an oppressing regime.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by shilly · 2011-10-20 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Look, Gaddafi was a complex and strange man, and there can be no doubt that he did some things for his own people and others that other, more straightforwardly venal Arab dictators, did not do. But: an entire nation was scared to criticise him for 42 years; he killed thousands of his own people in the most vicious and terrible ways; and he punished entire cities and regions whose support he thought he did not have fully. Net net, he was a vile and terrible dictator.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Xest · 2011-10-20 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Right, so dependent on it that since action in Libya European oil prices have actually largely stabilised rather than increased as would be the case if it was such an important source?
It's nothing to do with the fact European leaders waking up and realising he was a bad man, they knew this all along. It was about the fact the Libyan people and Arab/Middle Eastern people in general were ready to rise up, that was the fundamental turning point. Apparently you missed that rather major section in the news for the last 9 months+
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Xest · 2011-10-20 02:57 · Score: 2

Yeah, that's why the majority of Libyans were happy to step up and overthrow him.
Or are you going to extend your conspiracy theory into suggesting the west has succesfully manipulated the thoughts of an entire nation and they couldn't possibly have come to the conclusion they wanted rid all by themselves?
The people decided they wanted rid long before NATO stepped in, the only reason they failed to that point is because Gaddafi was bringing in foreign mercenairies and using overwhelming military force against the majority of civilians who wanted rid.
There's a good reason cities as massive as Tripoli fell against Gaddafi so quickly once the military threat vanished - because no one wanted him.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Xest · 2011-10-20 02:59 · Score: 3, Informative

Hey, don't generalise against liberals. I'm a liberal and I agree with you minus the anti-liberal stuff.
The problem isn't liberals, it's just that some people whatever their political leaning are complete idiots. Look at Sarah Palin, it sure as hell aint because she's a liberal that she's so stupid.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 03:00 · Score: 1

Dear AC, go fuck yourself. This gun toting meat eating liberal says we should have dealt with Gadaffi years ago. We should be helping Liberia as well and dealing with the LRA. We should pay for all this by getting the hell out of Afghanistan, except for the civilized regions of it. Let the hicks have their caves.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Down with tyrants, that's what I always say.
Now if the CIA would stop putting them in power, we could call this progress.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by mvar · 2011-10-20 03:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Allow me to not take the "news" as *facts*. My logic says that some powerful countries like France & Italy didn't agree with some of Gaddafi's oil policies so they helped the local population overthrow him. I'm not saying that Gaddafi wasn't a dictator and he didn't deserve to be hanged. But thanking NATO for its actions in Libya is hypocrisy at large - If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago. Oh and regarding the "mass immigration" to Europe, actually most of Europe's African immigrants don't come from Libya but from countries near the equator like Siera Leone, Liberia, Somalia etc (that happen to be in civil war for decades and NATO doesn't give a shit)
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:10 · Score: 1

Frankly Hazel my dear, if taking out bastards like Gadaffi is a mission for NATO then long live NATO. You liberal idiots who always whine about any military action while implicitly supporting the likes of Gaddaffi are the ones who make the world a bad place.
Here is some news to you: Not all people are good. Some of them deserve what they get.
Not that I disagree with you, but it's a little hypocritical. The US put Ghaddafi in power.
Set 'em up, knock 'em down. It's like 10 pin. The trick is to install another puppet tyrant in such a way that the US can say that they brought in democracy, and then take him out when he does something real bad, or refuses to toe the party line.
Remember, Ghadaffi was their boy until he stopped playing ball. I used to just hate listening to Hillary, the bullshit flows off her lips like water off a duck. I feel that way about Obama now. He has lost all my respect.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by couchslug · 2011-10-20 03:16 · Score: 1

Now go say that to the Libyans. In person, loudly and repeatedly.
Explain to them the joys of their lives under the old regime, as your insight clearly surpasses their personal experience.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by ackthpt · 2011-10-20 03:16 · Score: 1

You've let your government destroy lives and waste money sponsoring another pointless war to serve the interests of a powerful few.
Mission accomplished. Let the pillaging begin!
Their first headache is going to be disarming all the little militias which are armed to the teeth and accountable to nobody.
Can't say that's a pretty picture.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by chrb · 2011-10-20 03:31 · Score: 2

Actually, liberals have pretty much been unified in their stance against supporting dictatorship regimes, who murder their citizens and fail to respect basic human rights. Unlike some, other groups. Watch The War On Democracy and then show me a single liberal who supports overthrowing democratic governments. Show me a single liberal who is against basic human rights. In every case I can think of, liberals have opposed supporting these regimes, whilst those on the right-wing have often argued otherwise (though sometimes they do admit they got it wrong)
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2011-10-20 03:31 · Score: 1

Things will get interesting since many members of Gaddafi's regime that undoubtedly had a hand in most of the atrocities of his rule are now born again democrats, and the ethnic cleansing of black people done by "libyan democrats" will go unpunished. Maybe with is death now libyan people can start to ask the unpleasant questions to the members of his regime.
I find very impressive that many people can overlook the big burning elephant in the room that is libyan oil. For all the empty rhetoric about freedom that NATO used in Libya, they were very happy to go along with Gaddafi an all the arab ruthless bastards for several decades. Is patently clear that for european leaders the lives of brown skinned people are of less value than a dog.

--
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by ArcherB · 2011-10-20 03:32 · Score: 1

If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.
Actually Reagan tried that decades ago. Remember, Spain wouldn't let him fly over Spanish territory and our F111's had to fly all the way around Europe? Remember all the flack Reagan took for the collateral damage, including the death of a little girl?
Taking out an entrenched dictator is not as easy as it would seem, as recent history has shown.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by mvar · 2011-10-20 03:36 · Score: 1

He wasn't very entrenched in 2007 when he visited France or in 2009 when he visited Italy.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Chris+Burke · 2011-10-20 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dear AC, go fuck yourself. This gun toting meat eating liberal says we should have dealt with Gadaffi years ago.
I disagree. We never should have initiated action to take out Gadaffi. This is how you become occupiers (whether that's your intent or not, it is what happens), like we did after "dealing with" Saddam's regime.
Instead we should have waited for the Libyan people to initiate action to take out Gadaffi, and then helped them deal with Gadaffi themselves. Which is what we did. Planes in the air, advisers on the ground, and material support, but no U.S. marines patrolling Tripoli with us hoping that eventually Libyans will be able to do it themselves. Instead of us taking over Libya and then handing back to them when we feel they're ready, we helped Libyans take over Libya for themselves, and now it is theirs. This is infinitely better.
Imagine if the French had decided to "deal with" the British government in the American colonies well before the revolution. How hated would they have been? Instead, they provided significant -- I would say decisive -- support for a popular uprising, and thus became a great and loved ally of the U.S. for many years (minus a few disagreements and one quasi-war at sea), until Americans forgot that without the French we'd still be spelling color with a 'u'.
By the way, I do think we never should have supported Gadaffi and maybe this would have happened sooner.
Also, the right time to have dealt with Saddam was when the uprising occurred after Desert Storm. And we never should have supported him, either. Then we might have actually been greeted as liberators.
Going after every 'bad' guy is not the right way to exercise military power in a 'liberal' way. At least if it's the outcome that matters, not the feel-good activism aspect.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by chrb · 2011-10-20 04:05 · Score: 1

Wait, don't tell me you actually believe a grass-roots revolution led by the poor to topple an authoritarian leadership and it's elite minority is somehow sponsoring the interests of the powerful few?
It certainly benefits someone. Is anyone naive enough to believe that military intervention anywhere, by any nation, is not motivated by self-interest? If you truly believe that there has been an instance of selfless military intervention, then I would ask you to really study what actually occurred, because, from a perspective of basic economics, it is highly unlikely that a government is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing a war as a selfless act, i.e. one that they do not believe will benefit them in any way. Of course, that benefit to "the powerful few" may not be one that benefits the people of the nation that they rule e.g. war can be used to enable corporate expansion, access to natural resources, or just to shift large amounts of money from tax payers to the military industrial complex.
Remember the Bonus Army, where tanks were used in the streets of Washington D.C. to crush a non-violent protest by army veterans? Remember the Business Plot, where a few very powerful capitalists plotted to overthrow the U.S. government? Remember Major General Smedley Butler, a Republican who turned against the military industrial complex and authored War is a Racket? "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
There are obviously people who profit from war, and I'm not convinced that has ever changed. However, sometimes this can coincide with the interests of the people; hopefully Libya will turn out to be one of those times.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Chris+Burke · 2011-10-20 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

But thanking NATO for its actions in Libya is hypocrisy at large - If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.
No, because taking out a dictator in the absence of a local revolutionary force to combat the regime means that we have to not just take out the dictator but the rest of their military and government ourselves, so we become occupiers that hope to eventually hand the country back to its own people. You know, like in Iraq.
However supporting a popular uprising, preventing the dictator from being able to freely use their military hardware to crush the uprising, so that the people themselves can take the country back for themselves without us ever deciding whether or not they deserve it is how you show you care about the Libyan people.
Oh and obviously decades ago the U.S. didn't give two shits about the Libyan people. It was all about Israeli and Cold War politics. Controllable dictators were better than communists or free countries that might become communist was the official line. That's why we supported assholes like Gaddafi and Saddam.
Times have changed. And now, for the first time in decades, we've put ourselves on the right side of history.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 04:16 · Score: 1

I do not mean occupy, I mean send in a sniper and let him spend $1 to remove the problem. No need for the big military way.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by wintercolby · 2011-10-20 04:16 · Score: 1

I think lessons from the USSR/Afghanistan war should have been evident before the US went into Iraq or Afghanistan. The best part of NATO helping out and not getting knee deep in this conflict is the fact that now the NTC can claim 4 things: They were self-inspired, they are self governed, they are making their country better, and victory. When NATO invades a country with boots on the ground, the people left in power can rarely claim any of these things.

--
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-10-20 04:17 · Score: 1

Oh, OK, then. One side of my family was born in the middle of a civil war and grew up under what was, by every definition, a dictatorship.
Guess what?
It's not all Hitler and Holocaust.
A good dictatorship delivers a lot more for its people than a sham democracy. A good dictator especially delivers a lot more than a country ruled by a bunch of militias with no direction other than "eh Monsieur we just 'elped you you still gonna let us av some of ze black stuff yes?"
I'm sure a random Libyan would love the freedom and peace enjoyed by, say, a man living in a well-insulated cottage the highlands of Scotland. Unfortunately, the world's more complicated than "under dictator's boot" and "glorious Celtic^WAnglo-Saxon freedom".
See also China.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by JackDW · 2011-10-20 04:21 · Score: 1

I find it very difficult to convince myself that Iraq and Libya were different sorts of war. Seems like, in both cases, Western armies forced regime change that otherwise would not have happened. And this regime change came at great human cost.
We may imagine that Iraq was about oil, or perhaps the personal enrichment of Cheney and Halliburton. But Mr Blair, for one, supported it because he believed that regime change was the right thing to do. The real arguments for war in Iraq, beyond bullshit conspiracy theories, are pure liberal interventionism. They are identical to the arguments for war, sorry, intervention, in Libya.
Now, one can argue that the majority of Libyans supported that intervention, and that the majority of Libyans were very pleased to risk either being bombed by our air forces (many were), or being tortured and killed by rebels on suspicion of Gaddafi loyalism (many were). But nobody can know anything about the opinions of the majority of Libyans, then or now, any more than Mr Blair could have known anything about the opinions of the Iraqis.
Even today Mr Blair defends the Iraq war as doing more good than harm. He cannot admit he was wrong now. The human rights abuses of the new Libya are only just coming to light. I wonder if supporters of the new Libya will someday admit that they were wrong, or whether, like Mr Blair, they will always say that the war was the right thing to do.

--
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by CubicleView · 2011-10-20 04:34 · Score: 1

1$ for bullets... Why don't you just send him in with a knife you cheapskate.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 04:36 · Score: 1

Because then you have to get closer than 500 meters. Which is a shot I can make with a .300 winmag so I figure it should be easy for a military sniper.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Chris+Burke · 2011-10-20 04:37 · Score: 2

I do not mean occupy, I mean send in a sniper and let him spend $1 to remove the problem. No need for the big military way.
Then one of his many sons takes power, all his military and power structure is still in place, and his supporters -- and even detractors -- are rallied around opposition to Western interventionism.
Kinda like how whenever the U.S. or Israel rattle sabers at Iran, the Iranian regime becomes more powerful. Because even the many Iranians who hate the government would rather have it than have the U.S. try to 'liberate' Iran. The vast majority of them still believe in the Islamic Revolution, which was when the people overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator.
I mean it sounds nice in theory, but in reality you get to tick off the "good deed" checkbox while making the actual problem worse.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 05:12 · Score: 1

You sound like you might be a Republican voter. If that's the case, then you should be completely against this, and in fact you should support brutal dictators like Gaddafi. As you can see here and here, the right-wing hero Michele Bachmann has condemned Arab Spring, and has condemned Obama, saying his policies led to these uprisings, and that these uprisings are wrong and that we should be supporting brutal dictators in the middle east because this is somehow good for Israel.
If you're a Republican and you aren't in favor of brutal dictators, then you are extremely confused.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 05:14 · Score: 1

What a cheapass. A sniper should be using a .50-cal sniper rifle, and those rounds cost at least $5 each.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 05:15 · Score: 1

Well, I can show you one prominent Republican who is condemning the entire Arab Spring movement and says we should be supporting brutal dictators: Michele Bachmann.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 05:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's why the majority of Libyans were happy to step up and overthrow him.
Not quite, he had plenty of supporters, which is why the revolutionaries had such a hard time. It mirrors Iraq in many ways: Saddam was well-liked by certain groups in the population (namely the Sunnis), and hated by other groups (namely the Kurds and Shias). He treated the Sunnis well, and he was brutal with the others. He didn't stay in power by being brutal to everyone, he stayed there by having a large group of supporters. Sounds like Gaddafi was the same way; certain groups (in certain regions) he treated well, others he brutalized. So the supporters stuck by him when the others finally decided they had had enough.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Martin+Blank · 2011-10-20 05:19 · Score: 1

I think you're confusing Gaddafi with other dictators. He'd had the idea of the coup years prior, and the king wasn't liked or respected by much of the populace. Britain and the US may not have blocked the coup, but they didn't seem to have had an active hand in it happening.
Gaddafi became a problem within months of taking power, and by the early 1970s had allied Libya with then-Soviet-backed Egypt and Syria. By 1981, Reagan had given the CIA permission to take more decisive action in Libya since Gaddafi was funding and supplying terrorist groups from the Middle East to Ireland.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 05:20 · Score: 1

Nope. Some of us, including one prominent Presidential candidate still want to support assholes like Gaddafi and Saddam, and are totally pissed that these people have rebelled against them.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Martin+Blank · 2011-10-20 05:28 · Score: 1

The world used to be a much more complex place. Balancing the needs of a local people against the need to provide a bulwark against Soviet expansion meant making a decision favoring a relatively small group of people in a small region against the chances of communism taking over the world. In hindsight, it may seem that many of the decisions were bad ones, but by and large, winning the Cold War and then dealing with the dictators made more sense at the time.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:32 · Score: 0

I'm sure a random Libyan would love the freedom and peace enjoyed by, say, a man living in a well-insulated cottage [in] the highlands of Scotland.

What you did there. I see it :)
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by mvar · 2011-10-20 05:45 · Score: 1

No, because taking out a dictator in the absence of a local revolutionary force to combat the regime means that we have to not just take out the dictator but the rest of their military and government ourselves, so we become occupiers that hope to eventually hand the country back to its own people. You know, like in Iraq.
Like I already said above in my reply to ArcherB's comment, we could have easily taken out Gaddafi when he officially visited France in 2007 and Italy in 2009 (both countries are NATO allies). What we are talking about here is a Dictator with whom the western world had *officially* very good diplomatic relationships during the past years. Sarkozy & Berlusconi condemning Gaddafi as an oppressor while 2 years earlier they were welcoming him in their countries as an ally is hypocrisy at least. They could have at least waited a few more years like the US did with Saddam (another ex-ally of the west) so that the rest of the world forgot about it. Unfortunately for them, now we have Google :P
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Xest · 2011-10-20 05:46 · Score: 2

The issues the rebels have faced can be put down entirely to the challenges a civilian formed rebellion faces when fighting a well trained loyal military armed with modern Western supplied weaponry (i.e. French mobile artillery).
If Gaddafi genuinely had support from a large (as in a non-negligible percentage of the population) civilian base then that civilian base backed up by the military would've easily defeated the rebels even with NATO airpower. NATO airpower however allowed guerilla warfare to win out, and if we've learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan it doesn't matter how high tech and well equipped you are when you're forced into guerilla warfare it's ultimately the will of the people engaging in it that win out. The very fact guerilla warfare clearly won out against Gaddafi demonstrates the majority will of the people.
I'm not saying Gaddafi didn't have supporters, but more that the level of support he had was not large enough to hold sway over the majority of the population in the end. Many people were predicting the rebels would never take Tripoli because it was full of Gadaffi supporters and tribal alliances would ruin it, but it turns out that other than Sirte and a bunch of smaller towns that he didn't actually have much support after all. So much for the people of Benghazi, Tripoli and the Western tribes being unwilling to work together, it seems they've excelled at doing precisely that. Their coordinated assault on Tripoli and subsequent capture was incredible and it caught even the Gaddaffi's by suprise.
One final point is that even his military weren't completely supportive of him in the end, part of the success in Tripoli was that before the rebels arrived they had managed to get a major military leader in Tripoli to agree that if the rebels made it there, he would defect to them with his forces to avoid bloodshed. He did precisely that - even some of his supporters were only such because they feared the alternative whilst being sat in range of his secret police et al.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 05:59 · Score: 1

I never said Gaddafi had the support of a majority of the population, or even a large minority, but clearly he had enough support to make things very difficult in certain cities. But obviously he didn't have nearly the level of support that Saddam did.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by dotancohen · 2011-10-20 06:00 · Score: 1

If the NATO countries really cared for the Libyan people then they would have killed that asshole DECADES ago.
And why would they care so much about the Libyan people and not the Syrian people? Might it be because Syria is not a significant source of oil? Does your media even report what is happening in Syria today? (and for the past half year)

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-20 06:37 · Score: 2

Can you explain why NATO intervened to "protect the civilians" when Gaddafi's forces were shelling rebel-held cities, but stand back when rebel forces similarly shell cities held by Gaddafi's supporters?
How about the fact that rebels have instituted massive pogroms against Libya's black population, accusing them all - indiscriminately! - of being supporters of the old regime (I'm sure you've heard the phrase "African mercenaries" more than once), even with respect to people who are clearly civilians? The scale of this is large enough that several international human rights organizations have already noticed and are trying to raise awareness. But I haven't heard of any NATO intervention to stop this, despite their mandate saying exactly this.
What about purges of entire towns where population remained loyal to Gaddafi?
Gaddafi was a dictator, and I won't shed any tears about him. It does not excuse direct military intervention in a foreign country to blindly support one side in a civil war - ignoring any human right violations and war crimes committed by that side for the sake of political expeidence.
But then, that's nothing new for Western countries - we've seen it all in Kosovo back in 1999.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:41 · Score: 0

> If Gaddafi genuinely had support from a large (as in a non-negligible percentage of the population) civilian base then that civilian base backed up by the military would've easily defeated the rebels even with NATO airpower.
And that precisely what was happening before NATO intervened. The official regime was suppressing the uprising pretty effectively. And then the NATO bombings have begun.
Also, are you seriously thinking that all the NATO intervention did was to "level the playing field" so that both sides became equal in the military power sense? Let's see, the Gaddafi's forces were bombed relentlessly and the rebels weren't, the rebels had the entire NATO aerial firepower and intelligence at their fingertips and Gaddafi didn't. And you still think it was the pure guerilla warfare that decided the war?
One has to wonder how Gaddafi's forces have withstood for so long against the constant NATO bombings _and_ the rebels.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-20 06:41 · Score: 1

If Gaddafi genuinely had support from a large (as in a non-negligible percentage of the population) civilian base then that civilian base backed up by the military would've easily defeated the rebels even with NATO airpower.
If you remember how it went on early in the conflict (but already after NATO air forces intervened), that's pretty much how it went already. It started to change when NATO air assets moved on from only targeting loyalists' artillery shelling civilians to targeting all their military assets indiscriminately, and coordinating that with rebels so that the latter could advance right after the air strikes. Heck, at some point it was pretty much rebels themselves calling in airstrikes on enemy positions!
In a modern conflict, the side with uncontested air support wins, period. This is especially true of desert and urban warfare, where aviation is mighty effective - less so in mountains and heavily forested areas where visibility from the air hinders precise strikes. Guess which was the case in Libya?
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-20 06:42 · Score: 1

Or perhaps you subscribe to hypocritical Russian politics where attacking a foreign sovereign state is always bad. Well, unless it's Georgia.
I think it lines up pretty well with hypocritical US politics, where attacking a foreign sovereign state for "common good" is always fine, unless it's Georgia. ~
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:48 · Score: 0

> There are obviously people who profit from war, and I'm not convinced that has ever changed. However, sometimes this can coincide with the interests of the people;
However, sometimes this can coincide with the interests of some people
There, I fixed that for ya. I hope you won't argue that overthrowing Gaddafi wasn't in the interest of all Libyan people, as evidenced by their 8 month resistance against NATO and NATO-sponsored rebels.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Chris+Burke · 2011-10-20 06:53 · Score: 2

Like I already said above in my reply to ArcherB's comment, we could have easily taken out Gaddafi when he officially visited France in 2007 and Italy in 2009 (both countries are NATO allies).
Here's a link to my other post in response to someone suggesting assassination. TLDR version: Assassination is not regime change, so you accomplish nothing positive and actually make things worse.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by downhole · 2011-10-20 08:01 · Score: 1

Agree somewhat. In a way, we really should have moved against Saddam when the uprising occurred, like we promised them that we would, though it's arguable that it wouldn't really have worked out in the end. Because we didn't do anything when Saddam slaughtered them, they would never trust us again, and would never attempt another uprising while counting on foreign support to back them up. And so Saddam could never be removed without a foreign invasion and occupation.

--
I don't reply to ACs
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 08:11 · Score: 0

Parent is modded troll? Moderators sure have an anti-truth bent in their moderating. Maybe they'll wake up when the next OPEC oil country is invaded, by no less than the puppeteered President Barack Obama. His way of invading seems to be a couple hundred cruise missiles along with special forces on the ground and a few thousand Marines just off the coast. Two weeks after D-day hand over command to NATO and Voila! Absolved of responsibility for war! A Nobel Peace Prize winner's strategy for imperialism. Oh, and the controlled MSM should always parrot the "kinetic military action" propaganda. Obama couldn't possibly make war, he has a Nobel Peace Prize!
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 08:26 · Score: 0

You are the only person on the planet who thinks Michele Bachmann is a liberal.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by yurtinus · 2011-10-20 08:30 · Score: 1

Because American politics aren't divisive enough already... You aren't helping the debate by using the worst examples to characterize a group. Should we characterize all Democrats as their worst members? Your black and white view of politics is offensive and the core issue the US currently has in its two party system.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by mccrew · 2011-10-20 08:49 · Score: 2

Let me summarize for you: war is hell.

--
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-20 09:05 · Score: 1

Fine, so then call it what it is, and don't lie about its motivation. Last I checked, UNSC mandate was not for "war with Gaddafi". It was to "protect civilians".
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 09:34 · Score: 1

When did I say that???? I said she was a Republican, and that she supports brutal dictators, and by extension, we can assume most Republicans do the same. Basically, I was supporting chrb's last sentence.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 09:36 · Score: 2

Because American politics aren't divisive enough already... You aren't helping the debate by using the worst examples to characterize a group. Should we characterize all Democrats as their worst members?
Of course not, you should characterize them by their most prominent and popular members. For the Reps, that's everyone who's still running for President. For the Dems, that's Obama and co.
It's not like I picked some unknown Republican state legistator somewhere to make all Republicans look bad, I picked one of their most popular members.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by mccrew · 2011-10-20 09:50 · Score: 2

Let me summarize that for you: in war the first casualty is the truth.

--
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by yurtinus · 2011-10-20 10:09 · Score: 1

Running for president and losing popularity as people realize she's a nutcase... Your argument still doesn't hold water. Would you have characterized all Americans six years ago as gun toting Texas yokels? After all, we did *re* elect GWB at that time (collectively, as a nation). Or do you not count the people who didn't support GWB? Yet you would still count the majority of Republicans who think Bachman is a nutjob?

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 10:19 · Score: 1

No, I wouldn't have equated all Americans with Bush because he wasn't even elected by a clear majority (even in '04 it was a very close election).
I'll only count the alleged majority of Republicans when Bachmann leaves the race. Until then, they're fair game.
Similarly, I have no problem equating Democrats with Obama and his policies; heck, you can go to any Democrat discussion forum and read from all the people staunchly defending him even though he's adopted Bush's policies and made some even worse. I'll stop equating Dems with Obama as soon as they elect someone else in next year's Primaries to run against him.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by yurtinus · 2011-10-20 11:55 · Score: 1

I'll only count the alleged majority of Republicans when Bachmann leaves the race. Until then, they're fair game.
So as long as any nutbag declares themselves a contestant in an *open* race you'll apply their nutbaggery to everybody of the party... Well at least I know where you stand. This discussion may end now.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 12:35 · Score: 0

The US put Ghaddafi in power. Really? I don't know where people get this idea that the United States of America has absolute control over everything that goes on in the world. I find the belief rather similar to the beliefs of many inner city blacks that the United States governments controls everything in their neighborhood, and is secretly plotting to put ingredients in the fried chicken, soda, malt beverage products, and or T-shirts that will make them infertile ...
The US's contribution to Quadaffi was simply that we recognized the facts on the ground. The old monarchy was gone, and the new guy was in. We didn't care of the old monarchy much, and if we had a clue how bad the new guy was going to be we might have held our breath on recognizing the new government. However, at that time we were involved in another minor matter, stopping the stead of communism in Asia, and sort of busy at the moment with that issue. We certainly didn't look for another revolution to fund, nor did we finance, or participate in the Quafaddi coup.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by McGiraf · 2011-10-20 14:12 · Score: 1

All of this was done by NATO , AFTER they recieved assurance by the rebel leaders the OIL in LIBYA will be exploited by western OIL companies intead of the CHINESE companies that were ther before the revolt.
Iraq too was for OIL (they wanted to deal OIL in euros with France and Germany after the OIL for food program limiting exportation was to end ) notable Fance and Germany were against this American invasion of Iraq
Afganistan, the construction of an OIL pipeline was in jeopardy because of instability and Talibans asking for too much to let the pipeline be build.
OIL is the tyran
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Xest · 2011-10-20 22:00 · Score: 1

"If you remember how it went on early in the conflict (but already after NATO air forces intervened), that's pretty much how it went already."
Not really, NATO didn't defeat Gadaffi's armour etc. overnight, it took months, and the turnaround correlated nicely with that. When the contrast in military technology was balanced the rebels became the clear winning force.
"In a modern conflict, the side with uncontested air support wins, period."
Really? The West has "won" without a shred of doubt in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems a massive stretch to suggest air power works better in Urban settings than in mountains and forests. Particularly with the increased threat of collateral damage in urban settings. Even if your argument held true it makes no sense in the context of Iraq which is about as close to Libya as you can get by way of terrain, and guess what really got Iraq to the point where a pullout was feasible because there had at last become some semblance of an improvement there? feet on the ground, coupled with a shift in the will of the people.
Really, that's what matters, that's why things worked out in Libya - the people wanted it.
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by Xest · 2011-10-21 00:00 · Score: 1

"It does not excuse direct military intervention in a foreign country to blindly support one side in a civil war"
It does if the side of the civil war being supported is an overwhelming majority of the population being supressed only by superior military force as has clearly been the case in Libya.
It's simply unacceptable to sit by whilst the vast majority of a population is supressed by a dwarfed authoritarian minority.
For what it's worth, whilst many human rights organisations like Amnesty have indeed found evidence of human rights abuses amongst the rebels, they've also said it's not systemic as was the case with Gaddafi's regime and that the incidents were generally isolated. I fully agree where they've happened they should be dealt with, but to suggest they're a reason why we shouldn't have intervened? That doesn't even make sense - if you're arguing that we want to remove human rights abuses in this world because they're a bad thing then how can not intervening have possibly been a better option when under Gaddafi's regime such abuses were systemic, were far more horrific, had been going on for 40 years, and were rapidly escalating in the face of civilians protesting back against them?
Re:Congratulations, citizens of NATO countries! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-21 03:29 · Score: 1

The West has "won" without a shred of doubt in Iraq and Afghanistan?
In military terms? Yes, absolutely. The West lost because its ultimate goal was establishment of a friendly (preferably, puppet) regime that'd remain there in long term, and it turned out that there is significant opposition to it in both cases, which necessitated constant presence of military force in the country to keep it propped - and that is politically non-viable.

Really, that's what matters, that's why things worked out in Libya - the people wanted it.
I won't argue that the majority of Libyans supported the revolution. It is silly to dismiss the fact that Gaddafi also had significant local support, however, and reduce it to "some hired mercenaries and a lot of firepower". Even when you have artillery and tanks, you still have to man them with somebody. In truth, there were plenty of Libyans on both sides - which is even more evident now that rebels have started reprisals against loyalist supporters, evicting whole towns because of it.

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:20 · Score: 0

...who is the next Libyan dictator?

Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:51 · Score: 0

Doesn't matter, we'll kill him too.

Do bad he got killed... by Deus.1.01 · 2011-10-20 02:20 · Score: 1

Despotic murderers like him shouldn't be executed...THEY should be put in a fucking ZOO.

(inb4 "News for nerd wtf")

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Re:Do bad he got killed... by newcastlejon · 2011-10-20 02:30 · Score: 1

I'm not usually bloodthirsty but I'd rather they put his head on a pike for all to see. Similar spectacle, but without the expense of keeping him fed.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Do bad he got killed... by chill · 2011-10-20 02:41 · Score: 1

Why not do both?

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Do bad he got killed... by MalleusEBHC · 2011-10-20 02:56 · Score: 2

Admittedly this is all based on reports that I would only trust to be semi-accurate so far, but it seems pretty clear that he was not executed but was a casualty of war. The last loyalist bastion in Sirte has been home to intense fighting in the past few weeks, and now it's clear why. According to the report, Gaddafi was either killed in a convoy that was hit by a NATO airstrike or by NTC fighters on the street. Unless he was shot while trying to surrender, and I seriously doubt that he would surrender given the ferocity of fighting in Sirte for a clearly lost cause, he was killed in a legitimate military action. As great as it would have been to put him on trial for his crimes, there's often no choice when someone is committed to fighting to the death.
Re:Do bad he got killed... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:11 · Score: 1

Better yet, how about treating his corpse with more respect than he ever showed for his living citizens. Sort of like saying, "hey, we don't need to mutilate corpses to show we're right."
Re:Do bad he got killed... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:45 · Score: 0

A zoo that horribly tortures him too.
Oh... wait... that is a little redundant right?
But really, people of this scale of plain insanely idiotic criminals should just be tortured for the rest of their lives.
And I mean full-on torture, including healing them from potential wounds, only to inflict them again.
Human rights? They aren't human, they don't deserve to be a part of the human race, or any other race.
They should be classified the same as infections - they need to be suppressed and/or eliminated. (in other words, as a whole, tortured and pushed in to submission.)
I know, blah blah eye for eye, get out, this, people like this, they are the exact scenario that goes beyond that phrase.
They DESERVE to be punished painfully, it is absolutely 100% certain that they done these absolutely atrocious crimes against others, not like other cases of capital punishment and typical cases that cause a huge gray area of uncertainty.
I don't believe in capital punishment, but I do believe in absolute insufferable torture to the absolute worst of the worst who are 100% confirmed to be the criminal.
Vote for us and we will enact the AIT protocol today! Still totally serious though. To manmade hell with 'people' like that.

So this is /. related in what way? by MartijnL · 2011-10-20 02:23 · Score: 0, Troll

So how is this tech news?

--
http://virtualize.wordpress.com/

Re:So this is /. related in what way? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-10-20 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

So how is this tech news?
Read it again. At no point does it state "Tech news."

"News for nerds. Stuff that matters."

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by monzie · 2011-10-20 02:32 · Score: 1

"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" I guess they think this is the only site we visit.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by MightyYar · 2011-10-20 02:41 · Score: 1

The value of his rookie card is going to go through the roof.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Pat+Attack · 2011-10-20 02:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

I was just about to post the same thing. Seriously, If I want world political news, I can go to CNN.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:48 · Score: 0

I've made the same complaint when American political news was posted on /. I come to this site for tech news and would rather get my world news, if at all, elsewhere.
It's stories like this one that convinced me to ditch /. as my homepage of 8 years, and I'm closer than ever now to removing it from my RSS feeds. I want NEWS FOR NERDS.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:49 · Score: 0

Great. Who do we want dead next? I thought Bush was the out-of-control cowboy. I thought we were past the era of getting the US into new wars.
Honestly, I see the Middle East becoming much more unified and more of a threat as we replace a bunch of dictators who can't stand each other with like-minded Islamic governments.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by X0563511 · 2011-10-20 02:50 · Score: 0

Nobody forced you to open the story. Nobody forced you to read it, nobody forced you to go into the comments, and nobody forced you to post.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Tim+C · 2011-10-20 02:51 · Score: 1

And if you don't want to read this sort of thing, you don't have to click the link.

This sort of story, when posted here, always generates a large amount of discussion; it would seem that most of the readership approves.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Moheeheeko · 2011-10-20 03:01 · Score: 1

Because the USA is TOTALLY the only reason he is dead.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by badboy_tw2002 · 2011-10-20 03:03 · Score: 1

I'm guessing he would have whined about whatever story he clicked on. "Star Wars story AGAIN!" "New robots...stop posting commercial SPAM, homebrew robot stories only please!" etc etc etc. Then again, the whiners are as much a part of this site as anything else. If /. had comments from story 1, story 2 would have had a comment like
"Back in the day (yesterday), we used to get REAL stories. Chips & Dips has gone to hell! I'm out of here, let these retarded three digit users have this crap."
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by poity · 2011-10-20 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

but isn't "Stuff that matters" a clarifying explication of "News for nerds"?
in other words, it means to imply that "on this website, Nerd news IS what matters" rather than "on this website, Nerd news, oh and also other stuff that matter just as much"
and in every definition, "Nerd" means a one-track-mind dedicated to technology or other socially-atrophying pursuits
unless of course you redefine (and dilute) the word "Nerd" to encompass every field of interest, but then that would make "Nerd news" indistinguishable from just "news", and make /.'s motto rather banal and lifeless.
now, I'm not saying this news won't give us some very lively conversation, or that I don't appreciate it being here. on the contrary. I guess I'm being pedantic since this excuse always comes up whenever someone makes a point about the mainstream-ification, I guess you could say, of slashdot, and it always strikes me as unconvincing.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:12 · Score: 0

I seem to recall the Bamster telling us this would be "days not months" since we were heading up the NATO efforts and all that (and we are the head of NATO, btw).
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Richy_T · 2011-10-20 03:35 · Score: 1

And, at the end of the day, nobody forces us to come to Slashdot. And if they persist in posting irrelevant stories, we won't.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by X0563511 · 2011-10-20 03:53 · Score: 1

The door is over yonder... have fun! We'll try not to miss you too much.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by rich_hudds · 2011-10-20 03:53 · Score: 2

He had a golden gun. I reckon that alone makes the story worthy of Slashdot
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by theswimmingbird · 2011-10-20 03:56 · Score: 1

Slashdotters like having a reliable source of information ;] why should we look elsewhere?
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by SEWilco · 2011-10-20 03:58 · Score: 1

Maybe he was a nerd, and the media just hasn't been mentioning that.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:01 · Score: 0

since we were heading up the NATO efforts and all that
Yeah, just like you won WW2 while the rest of Europe was twiddling its collective thumbs.
Newsflash: politicians often say things that make their respective populace feel good. If those things happen to be true so much the better.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by lwsimon · 2011-10-20 04:28 · Score: 1

Until we force you to.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by shoehornjob · 2011-10-20 04:37 · Score: 1

Yeah this is something that should have been modded down in the firehose.

--
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-10-20 04:47 · Score: 1

He had a golden gun. I reckon that alone makes the story worthy of Slashdot
But did he have a dwarf man-servant?

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by elsurexiste · 2011-10-20 05:13 · Score: 1

Agreed. This is not a political blog, why are we having these stories? Especially when we can get better quality by going to Al Jazeera...
Somehow they modded you Troll... ah, well.

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by TheSpoom · 2011-10-20 05:24 · Score: 1

Really? This is a major world event. Do we really have to argue over whether or not it's "worthy" of Slashdot?

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by dotancohen · 2011-10-20 06:01 · Score: 1

Read it again. At no point does it state "Tech news."
"News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
Read it again. That slogan has been gone for months.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-10-20 06:23 · Score: 1

News for Nerds != Nerdy News
What's the point in even arguing this? Major world events have been a part of Slashdot since forever. Why bother contesting it?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-10-20 06:26 · Score: 1

But did he have a dwarf man-servant?
Duh, somebody had to betray him.
Actually Gaddafi went for the legion of supermodel body guards, not the little people. Seriously, that kind of Bond Villain. No, seriously.
And it was all about the gold too, so the only part that isn't Ian Flemming is the 9 months of military operations it took to get him, instead of one handsome Brit.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by poity · 2011-10-20 06:48 · Score: 1

I'm not endorsing GP's view that this news doesn't belong on /. I'm voicing the issue I have with the popular rebuttal as given here by L4t3r4lu5, which fails to bring me to that side of the argument. I expect well-reasoned counter-arguments and I see none; I'm in limbo here, that's what I'm saying.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:So this is /. related in what way? by Lugae · 2011-10-20 08:58 · Score: 1

Exactly. I've seen this complaint twice in two days now.
The Slashdot FAQ actually calls this "The Omelette".

"The Omelette"
Let me try to give you an analogy for Slashdot's homepage. It's like an omelette: it's a combination of sausage and ham and tomatoes and eggs and more. Over the years, we've figured out what ingredients are best on Slashdot. The ultimate goal is, of course, to create an omelette that I enjoy eating: by 8pm, I want to see a dozen interesting stories on Slashdot. I hope you enjoy them too. I believe that we've grown in size because we share a lot of common interests with our readers. But that doesn't mean that I'm gonna mix an omelette with all sausages, or someday throw away the tomatoes because the green peppers are really fresh.
There are many components to the Slashdot Omelette. Stories about Linux. Tech stories. Science. Legos. Book Reviews. Yes, even Jon Katz. By mixing and matching these things each and every day, we bring you what I call Slashdot. On some days it definitely is better than others, but overall we think it's a tasty little treat and we hope you enjoy eating as much as we enjoy cooking it.

Well, that's it then... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

Libya can proceed at full pace towards becoming a repressive Islamic repiblic along the Iranian model. I wouldn't like to be a woman there right now.

Re:Well, that's it then... by schwit1 · 2011-10-20 02:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

So true. The Muslim Brotherhood's motto is "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
To them democracy and Islam can not coexist.
Re:Well, that's it then... by LanMan04 · 2011-10-20 02:43 · Score: 5, Informative

In the words of the MB spokesman:
"We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people's will, removing all obstacles that restrict the functioning of civil society organizations, etc."

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:Well, that's it then... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:58 · Score: 0

Eh. Keeping your clitoris is overrated, anyway.
Re:Well, that's it then... by DigiShaman · 2011-10-20 03:00 · Score: 1

Which is why the islamic extremists hated America. *NOT* because of our foreign policy. That was a global excuse of justification to recruit additional members from around the world. No, the true reason they attacked the West is because democracy is the antithesis to their belief. You see, the act of democracy and self determination is an act of hubris. That in of itself is punishable by death according to Al-Qaeda.
I do have hopes that the Muslim Brotherhood would be more tolerant...more humble while still having strong faith in God. But, only time will tell.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Well, that's it then... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2011-10-20 03:07 · Score: 1

In that case they would have attacked Iceland.
Re:Well, that's it then... by seyyah · 2011-10-20 03:27 · Score: 1

Which is why the islamic extremists hated America. *NOT* because of our foreign policy. That was a global excuse of justification to recruit additional members from around the world. No, the true reason they attacked the West is because democracy is the antithesis to their belief. You see, the act of democracy and self determination is an act of hubris. That in of itself is punishable by death according to Al-Qaeda.
That's nonsense. Islamism is a movement against those who commit what they consider to be injustice or unjust rule. Now people can argue all they want about what constitutes injustice and whether there is any justification for the feelings of injustice. But to resort to "They Hate Our Freedom" is missing the point. Islamists are active or have been active against the USA (a non-Muslim democracy), Arab dictatorships (nominally Muslim), the USSR (most certainly not a democracy or Muslim) and even against targets in Muslim democracies, such as Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia.
There is no single reason for the use of violence in these cases, but it does come down to fighting what they consider oppression or occupation, or to fighting for supremacy within their own society.
Re:Well, that's it then... by Archangel+Michael · 2011-10-20 03:29 · Score: 2

Do you believe every spokesman? Or you just parroting what the official line is, even though we all know they are lying through their teeth to confuse useful idiots?

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Well, that's it then... by Billly+Gates · 2011-10-20 04:12 · Score: 1

Watching Fox News much?
In 1979 hardcore conservatives rallied for the Ayatolla protesting liberal and dangerous western corrupt values. They wanted what they have today in Iran and felt they would be blessed by Allah for doing just that. Many of them hated the Shaw as he was a dictator too.
Al Quada does not fund this. Just because the people are muslin (both sides I may add) does not make them all terrorists. We have some in the US army too who are muslim. Does that make the US part of Al Quada following this silly logic? Yes The Muslim bortherhood represents some fighters but not the majority.
They are an Islamic country so yes their new goverment is going to be muslim in origin, just like european and North American countries like Canada and the US are both Christian. The fighters and the arab spring are fighting for freedom, democracy, and economic equality, and an end to having a dictator decide their future for them. Not to be terrorist and turn Libya into an Afghanistan.
We will see what the new government hold but if the NTC wants a democracy the conservatives wont have the majority votes to turn themselves into a radical country. My hunch like Egypt there will be political parties but both sides do not want anymore oppression after suffering under Ghaddifi for so long.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Well, that's it then... by wintercolby · 2011-10-20 04:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

A good part of it is because the West helped in the creation of the state of Israel, just 30 short years after the Palestinians won their right to statehood for their part in dismantling the Ottoman Empire. Add onto this the West's continued meddling in their governments' affairs, assassinating their democratically elected leaders and installing better puppets, and you have a pretty clear picture of what has caused the radicalization of Islamic beliefs.

If it worked the other way around, with Iran assassinating US presidents in order to install Iran friendly dictators; if Egypt annexed large swaths of the East Cost of the USA to give back to the Native Americans; if the Middle East had their unified Islamic Government the way the EU and US are unified, and then randomly put boots on the ground and military bases throughout America . . . then you might be a radicalized Christian (or whatever your faith is).

--
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Re:Well, that's it then... by Grishnakh · 2011-10-20 05:26 · Score: 1

It's not just ancient history either: we have one prominent Presidential candidate right now who wants to stop these popular Arab uprisings and install brutal dictators again.
Re:Well, that's it then... by yurtinus · 2011-10-20 09:32 · Score: 1

Sort of like your foreskin, amirite?

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Well, that's it then... by yurtinus · 2011-10-20 09:47 · Score: 1

Is that what everybody is so terrified of? Islam spreading throughout the globe? Name one Christian sect which doesn't have in somewhere its core values "We are the one true church and everybody needs to join us to be saved." Name a country in the world that doesn't have Christian missionaries trying to convert the populace. In fact, let's just rephrase their motto in a way that most of the Western world will accept: "God is our objective. Jesus is our savior. The Bible is our law. Worship is our way. Go with God."

If you attack a religion it is going protect itself - usually by isolating itself. If you accept it, you can coexist. Get over your fears of people who think different from you.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Well, that's it then... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 00:38 · Score: 0

it's slashdot hes probally never had one to play with anyway

Arab spring my ass by unity100 · 2011-10-20 02:25 · Score: -1, Troll

ALL the 'revolutions' in middle east have 'muslim brotherhood' behind them. an american supported islamist organization. they worked for 10 years in libya for that. they were the main driving force in egypt.

the first thing the libyan 'rebels' did had been to immediately sell the filled gold reserves of libya for dimes, in order to 'pay salaries' (what salary?) and then to immediately start a private central bank.

libya was one of the few countries which was not burdened with international debts on loans taken from imf or other organizations or banks.

same goes for syria. they dont have a central private bank either. their central bank is state owned. aaaand -> voila ! 'request for democracy and freedom'.

arab spring seems to be a shitty operation by u.s. to topple unfriendly governments to install their own islamist supporters and to oblige the countries to financial system.

care to notice why there are no protests in saudi arabia despite it still lives under a rigid aristocratic caste and with middle ages laws ? and how saudi arabia sent military to suppress the protesters in bahrain brutally, and there has been no news of it in western media and u.s. had been silent about it, despite it came out barking at whatever happened in other countries ?

--
Read radical news here

Re:Arab spring my ass by murdocj · 2011-10-20 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

arab spring seems to be a shitty operation by u.s. to topple unfriendly governments to install their own islamist supporters and to oblige the countries to financial system.
Right. Which explains why one of the first governments that was overthrown in the "Arab Spring" was Egypt... a staunch US ally that the US had poured many billions of dollars into. Congratulations. You managed to set a new record for cluelessness.
Re:Arab spring my ass by schnikies79 · 2011-10-20 02:29 · Score: 1

I've heard plenty on the news about protest in Saudi Arabia and the government increasing handouts to calm them. It's been on CNN for months.

--
Gone!
Re:Arab spring my ass by iONiUM · 2011-10-20 02:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Uh, you do realize that actually the Muslim Brotherhood hates "western culture" and the U.S., right? They have also publicly stated that they would like to wage warfare on the west?
As such, your whole comment doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe it was a terrible troll attempt, I don't know.
Re:Arab spring my ass by Deus.1.01 · 2011-10-20 02:36 · Score: 2

I love the "media cover-up" mentality...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Saudi_Arabian_protests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Bahraini_protests
(posting a wiki source because they contain shitload of references to mainstream news)

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Arab spring my ass by WindBourne · 2011-10-20 02:44 · Score: 1

Yes, it is amazing how bad Libya and Eygpt were to America.
And when UK and France had to push America hard to go into Libya, it was all a plan on our part.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Arab spring my ass by aurelianito · 2011-10-20 02:49 · Score: 0

arab spring seems to be a shitty operation by u.s. to topple unfriendly governments to install their own islamist supporters and to oblige the countries to financial system.
Right. Which explains why one of the first governments that was overthrown in the "Arab Spring" was Egypt... a staunch US ally that the US had poured many billions of dollars into. Congratulations. You managed to set a new record for cluelessness.
I've dated a turkish journalist last summer (southern hemisphere summer). While we were dating, I asked her about the things that were happening in Egypt and who the "muslim brotherhood" are, she said exactly what the GP told you. They are a US intelligence thing or they were heavily infiltrated by them. I asked why would the US overthrow an allied government and she answered that they actually support the Muslim extremists in Turkey too (just a remainder: Turkey is a NATO country). The US does that to have leverage in the local politics.
I think that you (and not the GP) are the one who managed to set a new record for cluelessness.
Re:Arab spring my ass by Richard_at_work · 2011-10-20 02:49 · Score: 1

Don't let the fact that the US supported the prior regime make you think that they were best buddies - the US and Egyptian governments have had huge differences in the past, especially over Israel. Their relationship was more one of convenience than actual friendship - the US would have loved to have seen a better regime come into power in Egypt (whether they got one remains to be seen).
Re:Arab spring my ass by Sique · 2011-10-20 03:00 · Score: 1

This is just a single woman spreading conspiracy theories. And I know, that hormones can influence rational thought, but to throw away all logic just because some girl tells you strange stuff?
If you were a muslim extremist with a very negative attitude towards the U.S., would you join a movement which is supposedly sponsored by the very same U.S.? If not, who are the actual people the Muslim Brotherhood consists of? American patriots?

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Arab spring my ass by murdocj · 2011-10-20 03:03 · Score: 1

Right. I'm sure that I believe this "turkish journalist" can explain why the US spent many billions of dollars to prop up Hosni Mubarak so Egypt would maintain the peace with Israel (another staunch US ally), while SIMULTANEOUSLY backing a Muslin extremist group to overthrow that government. Do you really think the new government is going to be more friendly to the USA than the old? The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is somehow sponsored by the USA is just bizarre. I'm sure US intelligence is trying to infiltrate them to find out what they are up to, but you (and your girlfriend) have no idea what you are talking about.
Re:Arab spring my ass by LanMan04 · 2011-10-20 03:05 · Score: 1

It says right there on the page you cited that they don't. Quoting from the very first screen (MB spokesman):
"We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people's will, removing all obstacles that restrict the functioning of civil society organizations, etc."

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:Arab spring my ass by chrb · 2011-10-20 03:10 · Score: 1

Uh, you do realize that actually the Muslim Brotherhood hates [wikipedia.org] "western culture" and the U.S., right?
The issue is much more complex than "hating western culture", though there are some that do. Some hate their own rulers, who crushed any calls for political reform and civil rights with pure violence. Some hate the West because for decades the West was seen as backers of those despotic rulers; the West supplied military aid and weapons to the regimes of dictators, who went on to use those weapons against the people. Would you dislike China if they gave military weaponry to Al-Qaeda, who in turn used this weaponry against U.S. citizens? You would partly blame China for attacks using these weapons, right? And in the same way, there are many who partly blame the West for the injustices they have suffered. But, equally, there are many who recognise that the freedoms and democracy that those in the West have, are the same freedoms that they want for themselves. In particular, the Mu

They have also publicly stated that they would like to wage warfare on the west?
Citation? Their public policy is non-violence, and has been since the beginning. This is a stance that has been criticised by other Islamist groups. Certainly, there have been members of the group that have committed violence, but this is true of any large group of humans.
Re:Arab spring my ass by samkass · 2011-10-20 03:11 · Score: 1

Right. Which explains why one of the first governments that was overthrown in the "Arab Spring" was Egypt... a staunch US ally that the US had poured many billions of dollars into. Congratulations. You managed to set a new record for cluelessness.
The Egyptian government has yet to be overthrown. Egypt was ruled by the military before the arab spring, and it's ruled by the military today.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Arab spring my ass by unity100 · 2011-10-20 03:16 · Score: 1

http://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+brotherhood&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

--
Read radical news here
Re:Arab spring my ass by iONiUM · 2011-10-20 03:16 · Score: 1

It also says:
The Holy Land Foundation trial has led to the release, as evidence, of[82] several documents on the Muslim Brotherhood. One of these documents, dated in 1991, explains that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is "settlement," defined by the author[who?] as a form of jihad aimed at destroying Western civilisation from within and allowing for the victory of Islam over other religions.[83] In another one of these documents, "Ikhwan in America", the author alleges that the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US include going to camps to do weapons training (referred to as Special work by the Muslim Brotherhood),[84] as well as engaging in counter-espionage against US government agencies such as the FBI and CIA (referred to as Securing the Group).[85]
Re:Arab spring my ass by murdocj · 2011-10-20 03:17 · Score: 1

Tell that to Mubarak, he might have a different opinion.
Re:Arab spring my ass by SharpFang · 2011-10-20 03:21 · Score: 1

Do you seriously believe US is so inherently cohesive that it would never try to push two opposing agendas through two opposing internal forces? That there are no internal struggles and power games within the US that spill on other countries? Besides,
Supporting "friend Mubarak" was safer than allowing true democracy which would put completely unexpected and uncontrolled force at the helm. Pump dollars into Mubarak suppressing any opposition hostile to the US. Now that one force strong enough to take over and easier to control than Mubarak who began to grow his own spine and see the puppet strings, replace the faulty control interface with a more reliable one...

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Arab spring my ass by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:26 · Score: 0

Whether they got one remains to be seen.
Get your revolver Watson, the game is afoot!
Re:Arab spring my ass by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:29 · Score: 0

Actually their goal is not waging war on the western world but, in their own words, "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house."
Re:Arab spring my ass by samkass · 2011-10-20 03:46 · Score: 1

Tell that to Mubarak, he might have a different opinion.
You are referring to Air Chief Marshall Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak of the Egyptian Air Force, and the Egyptian army's previous pick to lead the country? I wonder who the army will pick as their next leader of the country?

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Arab spring my ass by X0563511 · 2011-10-20 03:56 · Score: 1

Make that: http://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+brotherhood
Thanks for including all that other garbage.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Arab spring my ass by aurelianito · 2011-10-20 07:12 · Score: 1

This is just a single woman spreading conspiracy theories. And I know, that hormones can influence rational thought, but to throw away all logic just because some girl tells you strange stuff? If you were a muslim extremist with a very negative attitude towards the U.S., would you join a movement which is supposedly sponsored by the very same U.S.? If not, who are the actual people the Muslim Brotherhood consists of? American patriots?
I would certainly trust her more than a nobody who writes in slashdot and is unable to analyse the reality in a non-binary way. The US is supporting the muslim brotherhood using the same strategy that they used before. For instance, they supported the Taliban (see Rambo 3, the movie, for details). They also supported lots of repressive regimes in Latin America (I know, I am from Argentina).
Re:Arab spring my ass by petman · 2011-10-20 20:29 · Score: 1

For instance, they supported the Taliban (see Rambo 3, the movie, for details).
Seriously? You're using movies for factual references?

--
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.

Ding dong... by bigredradio · 2011-10-20 02:26 · Score: 1

First thing that popped into my mind when I heard this was that damn song from the Wizard of OZ. Ding dong the wicked witch is dead! Now just waiting to hear:

As Coroner, I must aver
I thoroughly examined him
And he's not only merely dead,
He's really most sincerely dead

(Mayor)
Then this is a day of independence for all the Libyans
And their descendants
Yes, let the joyous news be spread
The wicked old witch at last is dead!

--
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX

Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave. by bstarrfield · 2011-10-20 02:29 · Score: 2

A trial would have been a farce. How can you try a dictator in the heat of battle, especially in a nation where the very same dictator had destroyed civil society?

Ghaddafi's government functioned as a true totalitarian regime, with all functional aspects deriving from the dictator himself. The Transitional Government still is in its infancy, and could not organize a legitimate court system for years.

What I regret is that Ghaddafi could not be interrogated by neutral agencies - say at The Hague. He had close relationships with the IRA, various Palestinian terrorist groups, and very interesting relationships with major oil companies. Now we cannot find out who he worked with, what bribes he paid, and what other crimes he and his government had committed.

And remember, this man ordered the destruction of an airliner, killing 270 in the air and on the ground - including a large group of college kids, researchers, purely innocent civilians. I hope the families and friends of the victims can find some peace that the murderer is dead.

--
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */

Good Riddance? by necro81 · 2011-10-20 02:31 · Score: 2

My first reaction is "good riddance." The human race is much better off without him; too bad it couldn't have happened 30 years ago, etc.. It really is a whole lot cleaner for him to be dead than to have him captured and alive, expounding his delusional nonsense to anyone within earshot, and all the messiness of putting him on trial.

On the other hand, his sudden death does mean that the Libyans, and the rest of the world, lose the opportunity to air out the closet (so to speak) and try him for his many crimes. The result would almost certainly have been the same (death), but the process would have been important for Libya: to delegitimize his legacy, to legitimize the rule of law under a new government, to exorcise old demons and grievances so as to move on, and to ferret out his many collaborators. I wouldn't say it was a complete success in Saddam's trial in Iraq. It may not come to pass for Mubarak in Egypt. The international criminal court has mad mixed success with the perpetrators in the former Yugoslavia. Still, I believe these things do matter, and there is merit in attempting it.

Re:Good Riddance? by Reziac · 2011-10-20 02:54 · Score: 1

Conversely, I look at the relative stability of Libya before and with Gaddafi, and I wonder if his removal is really such a good thing, especially for the average Libyan. Seems to me Libya is more likely to descend back into perpetual civil war than to become a "democratic" state.
And if you want to see what a relatively uneducated voting populace spits up for leaders, look no further than California. Name recognition trumped a 13% approval rate -- 100% were nonetheless re-elected last time around. Tell me how Libya will do better??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Good Riddance? by ScentCone · 2011-10-20 03:53 · Score: 1

I look at the relative stability of Libya before and with Gaddafi
That would be the same stable Libya in which they're finding mass graves full of people he killed off in order to keep down any challenges to his rule? The stability he said he was going to maintain by slaughtering eveyone in several villages/towns/cities because the people resisting him had managed to move into and through those places? Your idea of stability is pretty toxic.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Good Riddance? by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2011-10-20 04:05 · Score: 1

The ICC as a mayor weakness in the fact that the US government as been undermining it since the beginning, for the ones that mistrust US foreign policy this is a tacit admission that the US is committing crimes against humanity.

--
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Re:Good Riddance? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:40 · Score: 0

So they should never try? If california has such a problem with democracy, why even bother?
They have a chance to start a government fit for their people. I just can't fathom the idea of a citizen of a democratic nation implying another nation should keep their current tyrant because "I don't know if this democracy thing will work for us without trying."
Re:Good Riddance? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 07:41 · Score: 0

> That would be the same stable Libya in which they're finding mass graves full of people he killed off in order to keep down any challenges to his rule?
And you know about the mass graves how? Do you consider the rebels (or Quatar-sponsored Al-Jazeera) a trusted source?
> he was going to maintain by slaughtering eveyone in several villages/towns/cities because the people resisting him had managed to move into and through those places?
Villages/towns/cities? Let's not underestimate his crimes, he was slaughtering the whole countries/continents!
Seriously, it's by making such unfounded generalizations that the negative PR image is being imprinted into the public mind.
Re:Good Riddance? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 07:47 · Score: 0

The campaign against Qaddafi by the NTC will mean women are highly likely to be the biggest losers as an islamic republic is put in place.
The civil war is likely to tranform into an extended guerilla war, split along tribal lines. Not a good thing if you want to get the oil out.
NATO has always preferred a dictator, but Qaddafi was an unreliable one (he did accept the current NTC military leader from Guantanamo Bay to be tortured at the request of the Americans and Brits). The bombing and distruction has certainly made a lasting impression for all other african nations and warned them what could and will happen when NATO loses patience...
It is not over yet.
Re:Good Riddance? by Reziac · 2011-10-20 07:50 · Score: 1

Compared to what's been going on in say, Sudan or the central Sahara??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

No offense by gellenburg · 2011-10-20 02:32 · Score: -1, Flamebait

but how is this "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."

I already read CNN & Google News.

I already knew this.

I did not need to read this on /. .

Re:No offense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:38 · Score: 0

I guess that depends on if you believe this news falls under "stuff that matters". If you do, then you've already answered why it's here.
Re:No offense by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-10-20 02:38 · Score: 1

but how is this "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."

I already read CNN & Google News.

I already knew this.

I did not need to read this on /. .
I can fix this problem for you!

Go back to the home screen and read through the stories that are posted. When you get to the headline for this one, don't click on it.

There! Much better, right?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:No offense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:08 · Score: 0

but how is this "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."
Admittedly, it isn't but...

I already read CNN & Google News.
...I hardly ever do (though I realise I probably ought to)...

I already knew this.
I didn't.

I did not need to read this on /. .
Evidently, I did.
Yes, this story may not be tech news, but it's still stuff that matters and it's also a step up in quality from some of the unimportant or downright misleading stories we've had recently.
Newsworthiness is a very subjective thing: frankly I couldn't give a toss about the latest version of Ubuntu or what X says about Y or some actress I've likely never heard of trying to keep her age a secret, but instead of complaining to everyone I just skip to the next article in the list.

Damn... by Oswald+McWeany · 2011-10-20 02:38 · Score: 2

Damn, and I was hoping for a Gaddafi reality TV show.

How cool would that have been to see him and some courtesan bad mouthing each other in front of hidden cameras and then acting all smoochy with each other afterwards.

Guess no chance of having an "I'm a dictator, get me out of here" reality show. Can you imagine Gaddafi, Saddam, Kim Jong Il and Amadinejad on a desert island together? Which one would be voted off first... ....ooops silly me, voting is for democracy.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch

Re:Damn... by Oswald+McWeany · 2011-10-20 02:46 · Score: 1

Oooooh... or the Bachelorette- where she has to pick from dictators.

Well... I....errrrm, like, ummm... thing Fidel is kinda hot, like, ummm, yeah, he's kind of old, right... but... ummm that beard tickles me a lot...and like you know... in a good way...
But Gaddafi, like, he soooo dreamy, ummm... like err, that moustache... yeah... um... like I love them both... they so nice to me... they only kill people that like deserve it... give them a break people.... .... I ummmm... like, so not going to give Robert Mugabe a rose, he ummm won't even let me keep my farm.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Damn... by garyebickford · 2011-10-20 03:08 · Score: 1

I'm hoping for something equivalent to this: WWI Game Parody. (Caveat - I don't think this was the original version).

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:Damn... by DigiShaman · 2011-10-20 03:25 · Score: 1

Can you imagine Gaddafi, Saddam, Kim Jong Il and Amadinejad on a desert island together?
Such a gathering would only last a micro-second as they were nuked from space turning the entire desert into a sheet of glass. I can dream, can't I? Ya ya, I know. Fallout and all that stuff. But damn that would be satisfying to watch.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Damn... by NJRoadfan · 2011-10-20 04:27 · Score: 1

The guy even had a mansion in Englewood, NJ. Could have done a Real Housewives of NJ crossover episode. I wonder who gets the mansion now that he's dead? It was owned by the Libyan government.
Re:Damn... by iceaxe · 2011-10-20 05:18 · Score: 1

While I'm certainly no fan of Mr. Amadinejad, and concur that he doesn't seem out of place in that list if you view it as a list of "nut-job repressive political leaders", he is very far from being the sort of autocratic dictator-for-life that the others listed are or were. The elections may have been corrupt (as elections often are) but he was more or less elected, faces new elections in the future, and is definitely answerable to others who arguably wield more power, albeit less publicly. Mr. Amadinejad's rants are evidence of his lack of secure permanency. They are often political propaganda aimed at his domestic electorate, which implies that he cares enough about what they think to attempt to distort their perceptions and pander to their prejudices. Sort of like politicians in western democracies do. Actually, exactly like they do.

--
WALSTIB!
Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 08:20 · Score: 0

Add Bush as the show's pet monkey and Darth Cheney, and I'm in! ^^
(Sadly, Mobutu, Stalin and Hitler aren't available anymore. They would have deserved to stay alive to suffer to this day.)

wrong turns by louisfreeman · 2011-10-20 02:40 · Score: 1

You could say that if this many celebrate your death, that you have taken a few wrong turns in life.

That sux by WindBourne · 2011-10-20 02:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Like OBL, he should have been tried.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:That sux by Millennium · 2011-10-20 02:59 · Score: 0

Like OBL, it wasn't possible. How do you fairly try one of the most infamous and polarizing figures in the world? The only way to scrape together enough people for an impartial jury would be to go way outside any group that could possibly be considered his peers, so you still don't have validity. Any attempt to do so would be at best a pointless illusion, if not actually harmful.
Besides, the purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not someone committed a crime. With witnesses numbering in the millions and evidence as simple public record, there is no reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:24 · Score: 0

He's dead at the hands of his own people. It would have been nice if he had been captured and tried, but all the details suggest he was in a convoy of cars fleeing the last bit of resistance in Sirte when the convoy was attacked by the rebel forces trying to stop them. Accounts of how exactly he died on the ground are varied and contradictory, but getting shot up while on the run isn't unexpected in a battle zone, and if wounded there are just no guarantees about whether you're going to get the immediate treatment you need on a battlefield to survive, even if the intent of the attacker was only to stop you rather than kill you (e.g., shoot the legs to stop them running away). If he had surrendered this morning, when the final assault started and the eventual loss of Sirte was fricking obvious to everyone else, rather than trying to run away, his chances of survival would have been much better. Instead he took his chances and lost.
Yeah, it would have been nice if it played out differently, but good riddance. Unlike OBL, he largely chose his fate by fighting for the last block of territory at the bitter end instead of surrendering. This was no surprise night time raid. The noose was tightening for many days and he picked his likely end when he tried to run away from the center of battle through enemy lines.
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:43 · Score: 0

He's a tyrant who has killed thousands and pissed off his entire nation. By doing so, he fully understands the consequences of his actions. He chose not to turn himself in to face the courts. He chose trial by fire, as many tyrants do. His courtroom was the battlefield, as where many tyrants choose to make a stand.
There isn't a more just reason for war than this. When you've exhausted legal and diplomatic options, calculated violence is your only option...Aside from taking it up the bum
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:47 · Score: 0

Because we subscribe to the idea that every human being has the right to a trial, you can't simply waive that because it's inconvenient or redundant, it's a mechanism to prevent the abuse and creep of power.
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:03 · Score: 0

There's another mechanism to prevent (reverse or stop) the abuse and creep of power...War. When the tyrant controls his courts, and refuses to turn himself to the international courts, what choice do the subjects have? There isn't a better reason for violence than tyranny.
Re:That sux by Millennium · 2011-10-20 04:09 · Score: 2

The point is that a fair trial for this man is not possible. It might be possible to cook up a cheap-looking imitation, but the underpinnings -among them, impartial triers of fact and of law- wouldn't be there: they do not exist for people such as this. Barring major evolutionary changes to the human condition -in particular, overcoming the limitations imposed by individual perspective- they will never exist. Trying to prop up such a sham for cases like this is harmful, because it propagates the destructive meme that the justice system is inescapable and infallible. Better to acknowledge that it can be escaped by people such as these, and deal with that problem rather than pretending it's not there.
Still, the justice system was created for a reason: to fairly determine whether or not a person is guilty before either setting them free or rendering whatever punishment is deemed appropriate. Any attempt at a fallback mechanism for "untriable" figures needs to take this problem into account and resolve it in some way. People do have a right to this, as you say.
Fortunately, however, this particular means of escape also provides such a fallback. The same infamy that strips the world of impartial triers also provides it literally millions of witnesses and hard evidence in the public record: all that would be needed to convict such a person at trial. Between these, there can still be no doubt of the things this man has done: if impartial triers could be found, successfully prosecuting the man would be trivial. And thus, a trial as we know it ceases to be necessary to determine the man's guilt.
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:35 · Score: 0

How do you fairly try one of the most infamous and polarizing figures in the world?
In a courtroom, with a judge and jury.

Any attempt to do so would be at best a pointless illusion, if not actually harmful.
I would say a pointless illusion at worst. At best it could be reasonably fair. I'm not sure why you think a trial would be harmful. I suppose it could be upsetting to the people who wanted him dead if there is not enough evidence. Are you worried that the media attention to a trial would cause more terrorism or something?

With witnesses numbering in the millions and evidence as simple public record, there is no reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
Then the case should be really simple, no? Present some of that bountiful evidence, show the world what he did, and demonstrate the rule of law, instead of mob justice.
Re:That sux by Millennium · 2011-10-20 04:50 · Score: 1

How do you fairly try one of the most infamous and polarizing figures in the world?
In a courtroom, with a judge and jury.
That's not a trial. At best it's a scripted courtroom drama: something that looks similar on the surface, but has a predetermined outcome regardless of what actually happens. It cannot be otherwise, because the opinions of the judge and jury are tainted before the trial ever occurs.

I would say a pointless illusion at worst. At best it could be reasonably fair.
Not without an impartial judge and jury, it can't, and neither of those could ever be found.

I'm not sure why you think a trial would be harmful.
Because it legitimizes sham trials.

Then the case should be really simple, no? Present some of that bountiful evidence, show the world what he did, and demonstrate the rule of law, instead of mob justice.
In the end it's still mob justice, because of the inevitably-tainted judge and jury. To give that sort of thing the same weight as a proper trial, or any weight at all, is far worse than admitting the impossibility of a trial, also admitting the man's clear guilt beyond doubt, and dealing with him accordingly, demonstrating that becoming untriable doesn't mean you escape justice.
Re:That sux by Archangel+Michael · 2011-10-20 05:55 · Score: 1

Why? A trial would have not been for him (the accused) it would have been for us (the Accusers). A show trial is not justice, and pretending it was about justice makes it a show trial. He would have ended up dead anyway, so why bother with the trial other than to ease the collective conscience of the world before killing him.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:48 · Score: 0

Probably, but armed revolt doesn't necessarily follow typical conventions. Count it as a success that this action was determined by the will of the Libyan people, as opposed to other self-interested parties (for the most part). In a way, his capture/death happened in as lawful a manner as can reasonably be expected, given the circumstances and the history of his regime. Tyranny rarely benefits the tyrant in the long term.
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:58 · Score: 0

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this.
Re:That sux by WindBourne · 2011-10-20 07:37 · Score: 1

So, you think that the nuremberg trials were a show trial and nothing more?

Would he have ended up dead? Almost certainly. In fact, I would think that both OBL and Gaddafi would be given the death penality. And rightly from what I know.

HOWEVER, it is preferable that we adhere to some civility. I mean, we HAD OBL. I do not believe that he had to die. I am guessing that the same was true of Khaddafi. Regardless, it is academic to argue it. The one thing that I DO like, is that neither of these men will be to torture or murder other ppl.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 07:39 · Score: 0

Also like Saddam Hussein. Oh wait...
Re:That sux by Solandri · 2011-10-20 08:05 · Score: 1

Saddam Hussein was captured alive, tried, and executed. Did it really change anything compared to if he'd just been killed when they first found him?
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 10:26 · Score: 0

So why bother with a justice system at all?
Re:That sux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 10:31 · Score: 0

Like OBL, he should have been tried.
Sure, like the Guantanamo Bay detainees were?
Re:That sux by Millennium · 2011-10-21 01:22 · Score: 1

I already told you: the reason to have a justice system is to fairly and impartially judge the guilt of people in the ordinary case: namely, when gathering evidence and finding witnesses is not a trivial task. It's a good system, nice and consistent, and for most people, the concept works most of the time. Implementations can and do fall short in their own ways, but that's a topic for another thread; the concepts remain sound.
But every system has its limitations. For example, the validity of justice systems as we currently know them are absolutely predicated on the impartiality of the triers, both of law (the judge) and of fact (the jury in systems that use them, otherwise the judge). For that to be possible, they must be exposed to the facts in a carefully controlled manner, and for that to be possible they have to come into the case without significant prior knowledge of the case or its defendant. Yet in systems that use juries, it is also considered vital that the jury be of the defendant's "peers"; the exact meaning of this is a matter of some debate, but the agreed-upon theme is that the people filling it, despite their lack of knowledge of the case, must be relevant to it in some way.
That's not a problem for most people: in fact, it's not a problem for almost anyone. Even for most famous people, although the search can become rather difficult, you can generally find enough such people to fill out a jury. But there's a degree of infamy -which isn't just fame itself, but a specific type of fame that generates highly-polarized opinions- where this becomes truly impossible: there are not enough people to be found within any remotely relevant groups to fill out a jury pool. You often can't even find an appropriate judge in these cases. This makes a fair trial impossible. Fortunately, as I pointed out earlier, that same infamy also resolves the very same problems that the justice system itself was created to resolve: we are all witnesses, and the evidence is trivial to glean from the public record.
This kind of infamy is almost impossible to achieve in the absence of global media, and even then it's usually reserved for heads of state. Gaddafi is one such case. Osama bin Laden managed it without being a head of state -a remarkable feat- but whole decades pass between such people even with a global media present to speed up the process.
Bottom line: any system has its weaknesses, and so to do justice systems as we currently know it. Rather than trying to nail this square peg into a round hole, we should acknowledge the mismatch and deal with it on its own terms.
Re:That sux by gambino21 · 2011-10-22 02:25 · Score: 1

I agree with your first point that it would be at least difficult, but probably not impossible, to find an impartial judge and jury. There is no reason for this fact alone to prevent a trial because it at least gives the appearance that justice is being served.
Your second point is that having an unfair trial, decreases the value and/or effectiveness of subsequent trials. If this is true, then it is a good reason to avoid a trial in certain cases, however I don't believe this is true. As an example, look at the Nuremberg trials. These trials likely had a biased judge and jury, and it's probably fair to at least call some parts of Nuremberg as show trials. However, overall I believe these trials had a positive overall effect on international justice.
Another more recent example is the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Here is a case which is arguably very similar to Gaddafi. It would have been similarly difficult to find an impartial judge and jury for this trial. Whether or not you believe this was a show trial is irrelevant. The question is do you believe this trial had a negative effect on the international justice system, or the justice system of the US or other country?

ROFL by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:42 · Score: 0

an american supported islamist organization

It's all a conspiracy by our secret Muslim president to implement Sharia law around the world.

Re:ROFL by rgbatduke · 2011-10-20 03:06 · Score: 1

Ah, you mean the part about not loaning money at interest? Yes, he's clearly taken many steps in that direction. Devilish clever, to loan/give huge amounts of money (at interest) to banks so that they can continue to loan massive amounts of that money (at interest) back to believers and unbelievers alike, hoping to cause us to rise up and put an end to usurious lending practices -- it is even working!

Or perhaps you mean the part about homosexual individuals needing to be stoned to death and women kept in de facto bondage as the chattel of the men they belong to. Hillary looks good in a burka, don't you think? Well, better. Oh, wait, that's the Republican party, that appears ready to turn the reins of government over to the Mormon cult, which ultimately will force us all to wear white shirts and ties, drink nothing but lemonade, and sing "Joseph Smith, dumb, da dumb, da dumb" all day until he joins forces with the Shiites that are strangely similar in their ethical philosophy and attitude towards personal freedom. Oh hell, at least we'll get to marry a bunch of wives, and no more back-talk!

No, I'm sure you mean the part about apostasy, executing anybody who turns away from the One True Faith, or perhaps the bit about stoning adulterers to death, at least if they happen to be female. Obama is clearly all about that. Isn't everybody?

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Millennium · 2011-10-20 02:42 · Score: 1

A trial would have been a farce. How can you try a dictator in the heat of battle, especially in a nation where the very same dictator had destroyed civil society?

This. I do still think it would have been better to capture him alive, because a man like him deserves to watch as everything he built crumbles around him, and despair. But there was no possibility of a fair trial; any attempt would have been a pointless illusion at best, and more likely would have been actively harmful.

And really, this outcome isn't so bad. He still gets removed, and the people can better rest assured that there is absolutely no possibility of his return. There's something to be said for that.

BSD IS DYING by xeeno · 2011-10-20 02:45 · Score: 1

According to Al Jazeera.

Re:BSD IS DYING by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:27 · Score: 1

It is official; Netcraft now confirms that Gadaffi is dying.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Gadaffi loyalists when IDC confirmed that Gadaffi support has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all pissed-off Libyans with guns. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Gadaffi has lost more ground support, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Forces loyal to Gadaffi are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by Gadaffi falling dead this morning in the recent Nepotistic Dictator social networking test.
You don't need to be the BBC to predict Gadaffi's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Gadaffi faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Gadaffi's forces because they are dying. Things are looking very bad for them. As many of us are already aware, Gadaffi continues to lose popular support. Rivers of blood flow like red ink.
Gadaffi himself is the most dead of them all, having lost 93% of his body. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Gadaffi supporters only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Gadaffi and his sons are dead.
Fact: *Gadaffi is dead.
Re:BSD IS DYING by Darinbob · 2011-10-20 07:15 · Score: 1

Gadaffi should have gone open source and allowed forks when he had the chance.

Celebratory gunfire... by damn_registrars · 2011-10-20 02:47 · Score: 1

I've often wondered what happens with all the ammo that is shot up in celebration when something like this occurs. I know the mythbusters did something on the matter some time ago, and I don't recall what they found. You would think that when people are shooting off their AK's into the air in a city that something would get hit, even if it was just lead falling onto building rooftops.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:Celebratory gunfire... by orphiuchus · 2011-10-20 02:51 · Score: 2

They found that a bullet fired straight up isn't dangerous to people on the ground. Its just like dropping a bullet from a hot air balloon.
That said, bullets fired at, say, a 45 degree angle would be very dangerous.
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Quila · 2011-10-20 03:06 · Score: 1

Deaths are common during weddings where celebratory gunfire is traditional.
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by orphiuchus · 2011-10-20 03:09 · Score: 1

Do you have a source for that? I've heard it claimed before but the chances of someone actually getting hit by a round fired at a low enough trajectory to kill seems extremely low, and if it were to happen then it wouldn't be anywhere near the actual celebration.
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Marcika · 2011-10-20 03:30 · Score: 1

Lots of good sources are linked in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by drinkypoo · 2011-10-20 03:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a terminal velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s).[8] A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin,[9] and at 200 feet per second (60 m/s) it can penetrate the skull.[10] A bullet that does not penetrate the skull may still result in an intracranial injury.[11]
(go chase citations here)
got three different ~.30 caliber rifles here... amusingly none are a .30 carbine. but all should be able to be used to accidentally kill someone standing next to you with indirect fire.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Sentrion · 2011-10-20 03:59 · Score: 1

And only an idiot with no concept of gravity would shot his weapon 90 degrees straight up into the air. Sure it won't kill, but just dropping a bullet on your head from a third floor window would leave a nasty bump.
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by petermgreen · 2011-10-20 04:01 · Score: 1

I know the mythbusters did something on the matter some time ago, and I don't recall what they found.
They found that straight up wasn't too bad because the bullet would tumble down (with a relatively low terminal velocity) but firing up at an angle was much nastier because it allowed the bullet to form a smooth arc and therefore come down point first (with a much higher terminal velocity).
Most of them aren't going to hit people simply because most places on the ground don't have a person standing in them but there are still a lot of reported deaths and injuries from them.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Kjella · 2011-10-20 04:02 · Score: 2

They found that a bullet fired straight up isn't dangerous to people on the ground. Its just like dropping a bullet from a hot air balloon.
Yes, but only because their terminal velocity speeds were ridiculously wrong based on a flawed experiment in a wind tunnel. They tried blowing air at a bullet until it stopped falling and assumed 150 fps of wind resistance works the same on a bullet travelling 0 fps and one travelling 150 fps. In reality the bullet is extremely aerodynamically stable at 150 fps and will continue to accelerate until it reaches a terminal velocity of 3-500 fps, depending on the type of bullet. Around 200 fps is the border for penetrating the skull, so all their experiments and conclusions after that came to the wrong conclusion.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Chris+Mattern · 2011-10-20 04:10 · Score: 1

Its just like dropping a bullet from a hot air balloon.
And why is that not dangerous?
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:49 · Score: 0

they fall down somewhere else like raindrops and make a 'plick plick'ish sound doing so...
it is very important to aim straight upwards...
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Citizen+of+Earth · 2011-10-20 05:15 · Score: 1

That said, bullets fired at, say, a 45 degree angle would be very dangerous.
... or fired at a 1-degree angle.
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Millennium · 2011-10-20 07:17 · Score: 1

I'm not quite sure how the physics of that works.
Terminal velocity for a bullet is easily lethal (if it weren't, guns would be nonlethal weapons), as are velocities considerably lower than that for something of that size, shape, and mass. A bullet dropped from a great enough height would be quite dangerous to people below.
The bullet is, of course, traveling at a lethal velocity when it comes out of the gun. From that point on, gravity is the main force acting on it, first to slow its ascent and then to accelerate its descent. As a result, just before it hits the ground it should be going about as fast as it was when it was fired: in other words, a lethal velocity. Air resistance has to be taken into account, of course, but even over that much distance, is it really enough to slow the bullet to nonlethal levels?
Or have I got my mechanics wrong?
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 07:31 · Score: 0

A bullet's terminal velocity is its free-fall speed, which is much lower than the speed of a bullet being fired.
Re:Celebratory gunfire... by vux984 · 2011-10-20 10:04 · Score: 1

Terminal velocity for a bullet is easily lethal (if it weren't, guns would be nonlethal weapons), as are velocities considerably lower than that for something of that size, shape, and mass.
A bullet fired straight up leaves the gun at 'muzzle velocity', which is as fast as its ever going to go, from there it slows down to zero at some height due to air resistance and gravity.
At that point, it falls back to earth. Where it will be accelerated by gravity minus air resistance. As it goes increasingly faster, air resistance goes up until its deceleration matches gravity's acceleration, and this is "terminal velocity" because it will fall the rest of the remaining distance at this speed.
Terminal velocity is probably much slower than muzzle velocity, so it will not hit the ground nearly as fast as it was travelling when it left the gun.
It may or may not be travelling at a lethal velocity.

Not "his killing"... by rgbatduke · 2011-10-20 02:51 · Score: 1

His killing, which came swiftly after his capture near Sirte...

s/killing/death/

The actual reports on Al Jazeera and elsewhere suggest that he was badly wounded in the legs and head while being captured and died of his wounds in captivity. The phrase above suggests that he was first captured, then deliberately killed which none of the reports suggests. Just FYI, for those who don't have time to read any of the many articles that are flashing up as AJ has posted what is claimed to be an actual (rather graphic) video of his dead body. Naturally, it is on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DKJQUShElCzE%26feature%3Dyoutu.be

Pretty convincing, actually, although only DNA does not lie...

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.

Re:Not "his killing"... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 09:17 · Score: 0

speaking of lies how long until Americans claim this as another war they won?

Good. by orphiuchus · 2011-10-20 02:52 · Score: 1

Now why didn't we kill the motherfucker with a single missile at the beginning of this whole thing rather than let thousands die in the fighting for what was already a forlorn conclusion?

Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:01 · Score: 1

1. They probably tried.
2. It is always better for inside rebels to do this type of thing, rather than an outside country that can be blamed later.
Re:Good. by couchslug · 2011-10-20 03:11 · Score: 1

Because doing that is much more difficult than it looks in the movies.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Good. by Sabathius · 2011-10-20 03:24 · Score: 1

It's better that he died at the hands of his own people. Personally, I wouldn't want to rob them of that.
Re:Good. by ScentCone · 2011-10-20 03:44 · Score: 1

Because the commander in chief in charge of the missles is also in charge of an extremely muddled foreign policy that is built on mixed premises and contradictions, and which is driven primarily by a which-way-is-the-wind-blowing-today rough take on domestic mood and politics as it relates to re-election. If practical outcomes and saving lives were actually part of the equation, then of course a very different course of action would have been pursued, and much earlier. It's pretty sickening, that's for sure.

But it's a good thing we just send a hundred special forces into combat in Uganda, huh?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Good. by Chris+Mattern · 2011-10-20 04:13 · Score: 1

Now why didn't we kill the motherfucker with a single missile at the beginning of this whole thing rather than let thousands die in the fighting for what was already a forlorn conclusion?
Because the super psychic who could've told us exactly where he was had the week off.
Re:Good. by mr100percent · 2011-10-20 11:33 · Score: 1

The US tried. Many of his compounds were bombed, but after Reagan killed his children he was smart enough to invest in multiple bunkers and safehouses.

Not so sure by JustNiz · 2011-10-20 02:55 · Score: 1

There seems to be conflicts in the story about how & where he got killed.
I wouldn't be so sure its really him until they do DNA testing. He was known to employ body doubles.

Re:Not so sure by xavdeman · 2011-10-20 03:05 · Score: 1

Was he, really?
Re:Not so sure by JustNiz · 2011-10-20 08:20 · Score: 1

yes. Really.
http://www.3-mob.com/?p=2140
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/03/22/libya-colonel-gaddafi-in-hiding-guarded-by-a-40-strong-squad-of-gun-toting-female-virgin-bodyguards-115875-23006825/
http://darklochnagar.blogspot.com/2011/07/gaddafi-should-be-let-out-on.html

Awww by Greyfox · 2011-10-20 03:00 · Score: 1

I was looking forward to a trial and hanging. Those are so much more fun! Oh well. I guess you takes what you can gets...

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Definition of "freedom" by Quila · 2011-10-20 03:02 · Score: 2

Within such organizations that is usually limited to what is acceptable under their interpretation of Islam. True freedom to them is the freedom to practice their religion without being offended.

For example, do you really think they would accept "freedom of criticism" directed at Mohammed?

Re:Definition of "freedom" by LanMan04 · 2011-10-20 03:07 · Score: 1

They didn't say freedom, they said democracy. A theocratic state doesn't necessarily have to be a despotic hellhole.
I'm certainly not claiming that MB is all rainbows and secular sunshine, but they don't seem to be a "we want to conquer the West" organization.

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:Definition of "freedom" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:17 · Score: 1

Except that whoever is elected will necesarily have to be a Muslim (under Shari law) and Muslims will have more legal rights than non Muslims (again eencoded in Sharia)
Re:Definition of "freedom" by Quila · 2011-10-20 03:22 · Score: 1

Your quote spoke of freedoms and rights.
People forget that the American ideal of freedom of speech isn't even shared by other Western nations, much less Islamic ones.

but they don't seem to be a "we want to conquer the West" organization
One of their stated goals is to unite the Muslim world under one caliphate. The definition of that world is all territory Muslims ever held, which includes some of Europe. Evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial showed an MB goal to "settle" the US, destroy the current civilization and its religions, and replace it with Islam.
This is not a nice group of people. Don't forget that one of the early MB leaders was al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who personally met with Hitler and Himmler to arrange the solution to their mutual Jewish Problem.
Re:Definition of "freedom" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:34 · Score: 0

One of their stated goals is to unite the Muslim world under one caliphate. The definition of that world is all territory Muslims ever held, which includes some of Europe. Evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial showed an MB goal to "settle" the US, destroy the current civilization and its religions, and replace it with Islam.
This is not a nice group of people. Don't forget that one of the early MB leaders was al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who personally met with Hitler and Himmler to arrange the solution to their mutual Jewish Problem.
While we're remembering history, let's not forget that the terrorist organization that today calls itself "the Palestinians" is the remnants of the same al-Husseini's personal army who were given command of the Arab refugee camps following the Arab League invasion of Palestine (which survived to rename itself to "Israel") and taught the children a pack of lies to make them hate the Jews enough to continue the war through future generations. The same strategy of militarizing the education of refugees' children was repeated to create the Taliban ("the students") and al-Shabaab ("the youth"). It was not until the 1970s that the Palestinians began pretending to be a "Palestinian people" deserving representation in the United Nations, instead of the Arab racial supremacists that they had claimed to be before.
If the British had not appointed Husseini as the religious ruler of Jerusalem's Muslims in the 1920s in an attempt to appease and moderate him, there would be no Arab-Israeli conflict. Other Arab leaders were receptive to Zionism's message of cooperation and equal rights. Husseini had them all killed in the '30s.
What makes the Palestinians different from other genocidal terrorist organizations is the respect they get from Western officials, media, and other persons of influence, and the backlash that one can receive for knowing about the group's agenda and history. Prepare to be banned from "progressive" associations if you can cite inconvenient historical records, don't expect your letters to your local newspaper to be published, and you had better keep your mouth shut if you have a political career that you want to keep.

"died of wounds suffered" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:02 · Score: 0

So no trial. I suppose it's better than "we killed him and dumped his body in the sea because the rules only apply to losers".

Regicide In Libya, film at 11 by LifesABeach · 2011-10-20 03:04 · Score: 1

(Libya, Tripoli) Sign Painters are busy removing Libya's prior reigning ruler's name off the office door at the main palace. It has been a while since the painters have had to do this job. Quoted from one on the painters, "This paint has been on the door way to long." A concerned paint supervisor admonished the paint team by saying, "hurry up, it is almost lunch time."

"Wake me up when something important happens" - President Ronald Regan, 1986

DNA doesn't lie by samjam · 2011-10-20 03:06 · Score: 2

DNA doesn't lie, but you can't always tell what it's "saying"

And those doing DNS tests might lie, and those collecting it might collect extra DNA (it's too small to see) or tamper with it on purpose.

--
blog.sam.liddicott.com

Re:DNA doesn't lie by rgbatduke · 2011-10-20 03:24 · Score: 1

Sure, but I'm guessing that we (the US and NATO) have access to Gadhafi's DNA, and of course many of his offspring are still living so we have access to his first degree relatives' DNA. I'm also fairly certain that NATO (and probably the US) have people on the ground in Libya who will be given the opportunity to take samples of his tissue to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the dead person is indeed him, just as they have done for many other tyrants or terrorists.

Besides, if they are wrong, how long will it be before Gadhafi himself is on the phone to Al Jazeera taunting his opponents about his premature demise? Hours? Days? If this does not happen by Saturday or Sunday, even without DNA testing I'd say it is pretty evident that he's really dead. It's a Bayesian problem, isn't it? Every new piece of evidence becomes a prior in the computation of the probability that he is really dead until "beyond reasonable doubt" is reached...

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Re:DNA doesn't lie by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:33 · Score: 0

IntoDNS.com doesn't lie.

Reagan tried that by Quila · 2011-10-20 03:09 · Score: 1

He missed.

2011 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:11 · Score: 0

Has been a great year for getting bad guys.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by dotancohen · 2011-10-20 03:12 · Score: 1

A trial would have been a farce. How can you try a dictator in the heat of battle, especially in a nation where the very same dictator had destroyed civil society?

What? Libya was one of the most free countries in the world, have you ever head of direct democracy? I think that only Switzerland and Finland come close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamahiriya#Transition_to_the_Jamahiriya

I don't marginalize Gaddafi's brutality, but Libya was freer six months ago than it will ever be again. Do you have any idea what is becoming of "free" Egypt today?

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

mod parent down by unity100 · 2011-10-20 03:22 · Score: 0

doesnt know anything about regional political history.

mobarek as a peon of the previous u.s. governments. as governments change, their policy may vary. before mobarek was used as a balance against israel government. but, recently the policies has changed, and mobarek was proving a liability.

in addition, all of these previous 'us allies' or supposed us 'haters' like kaddafi were used for various filthy deeds, like having people tortured in their country as clients through deals made with u.s. (kaddafi, esad). they became liability in this era of global internet and information, and need to be removed.

cluelessness is an american thing. especially about things happening in overseas, claiming to know more than what people in the region live and learn.

there are analogies of muslim brotherhood in all 'american ally' countries. even in turkey. in turkey what is used for same purpose is the 'nur' organization of fethullah gulen. and they are currently in power in government.

--
Read radical news here

Re:mod parent down by X0563511 · 2011-10-20 04:02 · Score: 1

So, did you break your shift key or something?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Arab Spring to Western Summer? by MMC+Monster · 2011-10-20 03:25 · Score: 1

I wonder why the protests in New York's financial section didn't get a similar catchy title.

The disenchanted protesting for change. It's not as bad as the oppression in the middle east, but those that lose their life savings after working hard for 40 years should have our sympathy, too.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.

Read the news by Quila · 2011-10-20 03:34 · Score: 1

Or just search "killed by celebratory gunfire." Thousands (or millions) of such events each year, each with thousands of bullets going up in a populated area, odds are someone's going to get hit.

The trajectory does not have to be low, it just has to be enough off 90 degrees for the bullet to keep a ballistic trajectory instead of tumbling.

RIP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:34 · Score: 0

He turned Libya into the second wealthiest country in Africa, but our neo-colonialist leaders decided this stable government needed to be toppled.
So we and our fellow criminal states funded a band of local never-do-wells. I can't see anything good coming from this.

Reuters Photo of Bloody Gaddafi by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:34 · Score: 0

Reuters has a photo of him injured or dead (or appears to be him) here (warning graphic image): http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20111020&t=2&i=519599498&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=700&pl=390&r=BTRE79J132I00

What it actually says is?? [Re:Arab spring my ass] by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:38 · Score: 0

It also says: The Holy Land Foundation trial has led to the release, as evidence, of[82] several documents on the Muslim Brotherhood. One of these documents, dated in 1991, explains that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is "settlement," defined by the author[who?]

Yep, good question. Who says this?

[defined by the author] as a form of jihad aimed at destroying Western civilisation from within and allowing for the victory of Islam over other religions.

Do I understand this right? The document actually says that Muslims should settle in the U.S., and the author [who?] says, well, what they mean by "settle" is "destroy Western civilization from within."

So, essentially, the author [who?] is saying that, regardless of what the documents really say, I can redefine the words to make it say that the Muslim Brotherhood is evil and warlike. So, by this method, any document can be used to prove anything.

Oblig by A10Mechanic · 2011-10-20 03:40 · Score: 1

I'm getting better! No you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment...

So where were his beautiful body guards? by Shivetya · 2011-10-20 03:42 · Score: 1

He always made a big show of his blood and usually very attractive female body guards.

Did he have the decency of getting them out of harms way when it all started going to hell?

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Come on /. editors by Eddie+the+Jedi · 2011-10-20 03:43 · Score: 3, Funny

You should have learned from the Lone Gunmen debacle not to post stories like this. Some of us are Tivo-ing the Arab Spring and don't want to see spoilers in the meantime.

--
The dog ate my .sig quote.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by JackDW · 2011-10-20 03:54 · Score: 1

Ssh! You'll make people feel bad about supporting the war in Libya. Remember, this was a media war. Ordinary people in the West are personally invested in a good outcome from the war because they personally wanted it to happen.

This means they will get terribly upset if you start suggesting that maybe Western-backed regime change wasn't such a great idea in this case, just like it wasn't a great idea in any other case (e.g. Iraq, Egypt). Eventually, they will come up with somebody else to blame for why the revolution turned sour, but in the meantime, please, please don't make them feel guilty for needlessly ruining the lives of so many Libyans.

--
You're an immobile computer, remember?

They can say whatever they want by DesScorp · 2011-10-20 03:56 · Score: 1

In the words of the MB spokesman

Words are one thing. Actions are another. And right now, the rebels are doing lovely things like forcibly removing blacks from Libya.
The truth of it is that NATO just helped a bunch of Islamists take over Libya. They helped kill a guy that made a deal with the West (give up WMD's, turn over intelligence to us, get out of terrorism, and open your markets and play nice with us), and then turned around and started bombing him. Qaddafi, though a horrible man, did everything demanded of him in order to make peace with the West. That was the difference between him and Saddam. Saddam never abided by the sanctions, and never renounced his intention to establish a new empire in the Arab world (however hollow those dreams became after the Gulf War). Qaddafi took the deal instead.

Dictators are going to take two lessons from Libya: never trust the West when they offer you a deal, and nukes=respect, so get some atom bombs, stat.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

good by dogsbreath · 2011-10-20 04:04 · Score: 1

'nuff said

Never thought Obama would be the black W by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2011-10-20 04:05 · Score: 1

When I voted for him in 2008, I never thought Obama would turn out to be the black George W. Bush.

Re:Never thought Obama would be the black W by binary+paladin · 2011-10-20 07:32 · Score: 1

Then you weren't paying attention. Just as my cynicism was starting to fall to all the rhetoric of hope... he made the FISA and my cynicism returned to say, "Told ya so."
Re:Never thought Obama would be the black W by blair1q · 2011-10-20 08:12 · Score: 1

He isn't.
He's actually getting the job done.
He's not just pretending to do it to generate business for his cronies.
Re:Never thought Obama would be the black W by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 14:36 · Score: 0

He isn't.
He's actually getting the job done.
He's not just pretending to do it to generate business for his cronies.
THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

Speaking of cluelessness by DesScorp · 2011-10-20 04:09 · Score: 0

arab spring seems to be a shitty operation by u.s. to topple unfriendly governments to install their own islamist supporters and to oblige the countries to financial system.

Right. Which explains why one of the first governments that was overthrown in the "Arab Spring" was Egypt... a staunch US ally that the US had poured many billions of dollars into. Congratulations. You managed to set a new record for cluelessness.

The cluelessness is on the United States Government for buying into the "Arab Spring" crap in the first place. Had they bothered to actually look at who was driving this stuff, they'd have seen groups like the Muslim Brotherhood all along. Yeah, Mubarek was a staunch US ally, and we encouraged his downfall because our own stupid politcal class bought into the silly and naive narrative that this was all about democracy and freedom and liberty, and that a liberal democratic state was coming to Egypt. Again, the naivete and stupidty here on our part was just mind boggling.

So now they're killing Copts in the streets (with the army's help), burning down churches, and moving to Sharia law. How's that freedom tasting now?

There was never an "Arab Spring". It was always an Islamist insurgency, and yes, the United States government encouraged and supported it, not because it believed Islamism was coming, but because it was thinking like a naive 19 year old from a college campus and bought the hype, especially the State Department. There's your cluelessness.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Re:Speaking of cluelessness by murdocj · 2011-10-20 04:16 · Score: 2

Once it became clear which way the wind was blowing, the US didn't have a whole lot of choice but support "Arab Spring". What was the alternative? Encourage a Syrian-style slaughter?
But the idea that somehow the whole process was fomented by the USA is just the height of idiocy. It doesn't just require a tin-foil hat, it requires hundreds of vacuum tubes, both inside & outside the brain.
Re:Speaking of cluelessness by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-10-20 06:05 · Score: 1

It doesn't just require a tin-foil hat, it requires hundreds of vacuum tubes, both inside & outside the brain.
I... that... huh?
Re:Speaking of cluelessness by murdocj · 2011-10-20 15:09 · Score: 1

Yep. Exactly.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Billly+Gates · 2011-10-20 04:20 · Score: 1

Many Libyans have expressed fear to shout and celebrate even with hundreds of freedom fighters around because of this man and what they lived through in fear and anxiety for 42 years. He is a chill in the sub concious of every Libyan according to people who live there even after Trippoli was liberated. His death will give freedom and a relief of anxiety to help people work with the NTC. At least that is what they say on Al Jazeera as they want to make sure he will never come back.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Millennium · 2011-10-20 04:29 · Score: 1

That's pretty much what I said in the last paragraph. Metaphorically speaking, Ghadaffi while in power could be compared to a dragon: immensely powerful, maliciously whimsical, and given to terrorizing the people below him using that power. But now the dragon has been slain, and the people celebrate in a way they wouldn't dare to do if there were any chance that it could come back.

Re:What it actually says is?? [Re:Arab spring my a by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:59 · Score: 0

No "destroy western civilization from within" is a direct quote of the muslim brotherhood itself. This is not an interpretation made by someone else.

SNL by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:15 · Score: 0

He isn't dead. Expect to see him on SNL this week. :)

Of course there's a choice by DesScorp · 2011-10-20 05:28 · Score: 1, Informative

Once it became clear which way the wind was blowing, the US didn't have a whole lot of choice but support "Arab Spring". What was the alternative? Encourage a Syrian-style slaughter

The alternative was to stay out of it at that point. We also backed the Ayatollah in Iran in 1979 because "that's where the wind was blowing". That turned out well,eh?

Libya was like the Spanish Civil War in many respects. There was no "good side". Just as Spain had Communists vs. Fascists, Libya had Qaddafi vs. Islamists. Best to just stay out of it.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Re:What it actually says is?? [Re:Arab spring my a by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:41 · Score: 0

The author is Mohamed Akram, an operative for the Muslim Brotherhood. Here's the quote:

“The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Nice objective journalism by br00tus · 2011-10-20 05:42 · Score: 1

The Time headline says "Muammar Gaddafi Is Dead, Says Libya PM; Tripoli Celebrates". If you read Pravda headlines from the 1980s, 1970s etc., the commissars publishing it would have been ashamed to put a headline like this. I guess not in the US though. It's kind of like that strange 1990 New York Times headline when the FSLN lost in Nicaragua, "Americans United in Joy, But Divided Over Policy." The Reuters headline about this is "Libya's Gaddafi caught hiding like a 'rat'". Headlines like that make me long for the subtlety of Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer.

If Tripoli was to be so celebratory over this, why did it take so long for the rebels to take Tripoli? Why was the bombing of the US, UK, France and so forth needed?

We always hear in the news about how Muslim fanatics are who we should be scared of, but it seems that it's always those Arabs who came to power on secular, pan-Arab nationalist, sort of leftish rhetoric (Mossadegh, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi) who industrialized western countries intervene in to overthrow their governments. We can see the results - Mossadegh was replaced eventually by Islamicized Iran, Iraq went from a secular government to a much more Islamicized one (in its constitution, ruling political parties etc.) under US domination, and now another secular Arab government has fallen at the hands of western intervention and some local myrmidons. Meanwhile the most Islamicized Arab countries like Saudi Arabia are completely protected and supported by the west - including the US military and intelligence helping to brutally put down Arab Spring protests against the dictatorship there, events which were little reported in the corporate press. Even parties like Hamas were originally encouraged and secretly funded by Israel. And of course, Osama bin Laden was financed and armed by the US in the 1970s. Anyone in the Arab world can see how the western countries see their main enemy as Arab secular nationalists. Yet the corporate media in these western countries tries to create fear of the Islamic fundamentalists that these same western countries have worked to develop. The same mass of people who swallow that would easily swallow that "Muammar Gaddafi Is Dead, Says Libya PM; Tripoli Celebrates" and "Libya's Gaddafi caught hiding like a 'rat'" are headlines coming from objective, equanimous news organizations.

It was easy by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-10-20 05:47 · Score: 1

Someone got their iPhone 4S and asked "Siri, where is Gaddafi, and how do we end him?"

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:52 · Score: 0

Yeah, until in a few years whoever's up top thinks 'man, that guy lived a freakin' awesome life for 40 years. If I just make a few changes to make it just a bit better, I could do the same thing for the rest of my life!

One man, one vote by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-10-20 05:56 · Score: 1

One time. THAT is Islam, period. Again; without religions (ANY of them), we'd be flying amongst the stars by now, instead of killing each other over imaginary horseshit.

Cue the next leader... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:20 · Score: 0

...Islam.

I fail to see by Digital+G · 2011-10-20 06:40 · Score: 1

I fail to see how this affects Nerds. Wheres the technology angle of this story? I mean really i can goto any news site right now and read this...
Sure Student loans affect Slashdot readers.
Acta might affect Slashdot readers.

But i don't see how this affects technology, and im not really happy with the increase in pure political news creeping in here. If its got a tech angle I dont mind it, but common! Was Gaddafi a tech visionary?

--

End Transmission....

Please don't throw rocks at me by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:53 · Score: 0

Hello Slashdot,
I enjoy reading computer / electronics related material on your site and in my opinion this type of "casual" news (significance doesn't matter) doesn't fit your profile well.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by DanielRavenNest · 2011-10-20 06:58 · Score: 1

What I regret is that Ghaddafi could not be interrogated by neutral agencies - say at The Hague. He had close relationships with the IRA, various Palestinian terrorist groups, and very interesting relationships with major oil companies. Now we cannot find out who he worked with, what bribes he paid, and what other crimes he and his government had committed.

He had lots of people working for him, and there is likely paperwork floating around his former government's offices. So there are people to question and document trails to follow, even though he is gone. I expect it will be a few years before the facts come out though, as the new government is starting completely from scratch, and is more concerned with getting basic infrastructure working than criminal justice.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 07:11 · Score: 0

> Now we cannot find out who he worked with, what bribes he paid, and what other crimes he and his government had committed.

It's a shame indeed. It would be really interesting to see if Gaddafi really sponsored Sarkozy's presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, at the State Department by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 07:35 · Score: 0

Ah, we got him, shredded some of his sons and I even found my cat. The relatives of the Lost in Lockerbie will be pleased. Most excellent! (..Purr..)

Obama's Foriegn Policy by maroberts · 2011-10-20 07:58 · Score: 1

Is not to be seen as imposing Pax Americana on the world, with all the problems that attempting it seemed to cause (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine etc etc). Instead he seems to be trying to say that if he can find a suitable group to lead the charge, then he'll pass them the ammunition and provide fire support.

--

Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

Questioning the wrong thing. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 08:05 · Score: 0

The issue many seem to be ignoring in the fledgling, maybe-would-be democracy of NewLibya... is that though he's surely dead, the 'how he died' part is kinda curious. He died (#executed) of his wounds (#without trial). But as they say, live by the sword, die by the multiple GSW to the chest... (or whatever, I've not seen the pictures.)

Good Riddance by RapidEye · 2011-10-20 08:15 · Score: 1

Nothing more really needs to be said.

--
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."

Qaddafi's son Saif also killed, or... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 09:06 · Score: 0

https://rt.com/news/gaddafi-son-saif-dead-331/

Al Arabiya TV has reported that Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, has been killed on the same day as his father. In the meantime, a Libyan minister says Gaddafi’s heir apparent is wounded and in hospital.

According to Al Arabiya, his corpse has already been brought to Misrata airport.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 10:23 · Score: 0

A trial would have been a farce. How can you try a dictator in the heat of battle, especially in a nation where the very same dictator had destroyed civil society?

Well, how could he claim he was denied justice by being tried with the remaining mechanisms of civil society? If it was good enough for the members of the opposition the people in his regime murdered, it would have surely been good enough for him.

I say the NTC ought to set up camps for the people they identify as those who carried out those murders....And start some ovens.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 10:43 · Score: 0

Free? Are you trolling?

The information you yourself linked to shows these statistics:

Political dissent of any kind was illegal.

As many as 1 in 5 people worked as snitches reporting fellow citizens to the govt.

It had more censorship than any other country in the middle east or africa

Uncounted thousands of citizens were murdered for their opinions.

Thousands of foreigners were murdered in acts of terror.

What is the point of having the "freedom" to vote if you can be jailed or killed by your government for having a different opinion??

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 10:44 · Score: 0

The Transitional Government still is in its infancy, and could not organize a legitimate court system for years.

Yet somehow they had a Central Bank up and running within a week or so of the start of the shooting. Interesting, that.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by mr100percent · 2011-10-20 11:32 · Score: 1

Actually, saying Gaddafi ordered the destruction of an airliner is probably a false accusation; he never admitted any kind of guilt. He acknowledged a Libyan terrorist did it, but said he did not order it. As part of the settlement, his government admitted responsibilty (but not guilt) in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on the country. Gaddaffi was an evil man, but I don't think the Lockerbie bombing was due to him.

Gaddafi stood as a lone man to challenge them by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 12:22 · Score: 0

gaddafi's death is a big loss for Africa and Arabics. Few People celebrating for one Day because of the sweets and chocolates but they will cry and remember and even miss him forever. He was a man who didn't steal from any foreigner, a man who never begged and one who always give to others. He died in his own land, not as a refuge He stood as a Lone Man and challenged all of them. There is not going to be peace in their hearts until they see all libyans and the rest of africa back to slavery but God is Almighty, Omonipotant, Omonipresent and The World belongs to Him. The Gold, Diamonds,Petrols and Gas. They kill him because they owe libya money they never pay anything, they think they will get everything for free even to steal or kill and even lie. How may great men we're going to keep losing ? who will judge George Bush for the blood of Iraqian People, Congolese People, Afghanistani People . The only thing is true, there's sovereign in God, He will punish them. Gadaffi deserves to be buried in honor and to be mourned by his own people. They put the bombs saying they're protecting you, Are They coming with the money to rebuild the country as they rebuild iraq ??? And other countries they have destroyed
. It's time to Wake up and say No to These Colonisation and Slavery ! Africa deserves to develop and have peace. No peace in Africa and Arabia No peace Else where You will reap what you have planted, America ! God does not Bless You, You have brought the curse in Innocent People God Bless the innocent !

Sic Semper Tyrannis by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 14:24 · Score: 0

Sic Semper Tyrannis

A shameful moment. by Reservoir+Penguin · 2011-10-20 15:23 · Score: 1

He died a hero. Bit now as a Russian citizen I'm ashamed of my country for abstaining on the UN resolution. At least we learnt a lesson not to trust NATO. Never forget the their true purpose - to spread Western imperialism. A resolotuin to protect Syrian "civilians" will never pass the Security counsel.

--
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil

~He died like a warrior~ by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 23:16 · Score: 0

CLUBORLOV

Muammar is in his home town of Sirte, dead.
He died like a warrior, surrounded by his loyal followers, who fought on against insurmountable odds until the very end.
He is survived by his enemies, who, if they are lucky, will die the death of cowards—in a hospital bed, fussed over by money-grubbing physicians.
And if they are not so lucky—imagination runs wild.
Being the scum of the earth is not illegal, but there is most likely a limit to how long people will be willing to go on believing that.
I raise my glass of tea to Muammar, a unique and colorful dictator who made other bloodthirsty tyrants look like mice.

Video Exists by BSalita · 2011-10-20 23:49 · Score: 1

Looking forward to seeing the gun camera videos filmed during the Mirage's strike on the convoy.

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 00:43 · Score: 0

He would not be tried in Libya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Re:Unfortunately, now his secrets are in the grave by Millennium · 2011-10-21 06:06 · Score: 1

What? Libya was one of the most free countries in the world, have you ever head of direct democracy? I think that only Switzerland and Finland come close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamahiriya#Transition_to_the_Jamahiriya

As implemented by Gaddafi, Libya was about as democratic as the old Soviet Union, which is to say that it had all the trappings of democracy but none of the substance. It was in not a free nation in any meaningful way, as shown by its repeated and brutal crackdowns on dissent.

Freedom, democracy, and human rights have arrived. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-21 06:14 · Score: 0

It's good to know that democracy, freedom, human rights and fair trials are off to a good start in Libya when you're summarily and publically executing disarmed and injured captives, before dragging his corpse around several streets, in several cities, for several hours to cheering mobs and amateur video while heads of states around the world voice their support for this 'improvement'.

Slashdot Mirror

Reuters Reports Death of Gaddafi In Libyan City of Sirte

302 comments