Slashdot Mirror
Reuters Reports Death of Gaddafi In Libyan City of Sirte
syngularyx writes with a snippet from Reuters' report that "Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi died of wounds suffered on Thursday as fighters battling to complete an eight-month-old uprising against his rule overran his hometown Sirte, Libya's interim rulers said. His killing, which came swiftly after his capture near Sirte, is the most dramatic single development in the Arab Spring revolts that have unseated rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened the grip on power of the leaders of Syria and Yemen." An anonymous reader links to the news as reported by Al Jazeera (citing confirmation from the military spokesman of the National Transition Council). Time reports that many Libyans were celebrating even preliminary reports of Gaddafi's death.
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.
Actually, it was Tito Jackson.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
or it didn't happen.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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!
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. */
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/
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.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" I guess they think this is the only site we visit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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
You could say that if this many celebrate your death, that you have taken a few wrong turns in life.
Like OBL, he should have been tried.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to Al Jazeera.
I was just about to post the same thing. Seriously, If I want world political news, I can go to CNN.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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+
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
Because the USA is TOTALLY the only reason he is dead.
Down with tyrants, that's what I always say.
Now if the CIA would stop putting them in power, we could call this progress.
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?
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."
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.
(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
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.
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.
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
but isn't "Stuff that matters" a clarifying explication of "News for nerds"? /.'s motto rather banal and lifeless.
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
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
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)
He missed.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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]
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
Tell that to Mubarak, he might have a different opinion.
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
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.
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)
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!
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.
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.
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.
He wasn't very entrenched in 2007 when he visited France or in 2009 when he visited Italy.
I'm getting better! No you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment...
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.
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
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
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...
He had a golden gun. I reckon that alone makes the story worthy of Slashdot
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?
Slashdotters like having a reliable source of information ;] why should we look elsewhere?
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
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...
Maybe he was a nerd, and the media just hasn't been mentioning that.
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...
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
'nuff said
When I voted for him in 2008, I never thought Obama would turn out to be the black George W. Bush.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
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?
Until we force you to.
Learn about Photography Basics.
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.
1$ for bullets... Why don't you just send him in with a knife you cheapskate.
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.
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
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
He had a golden gun. I reckon that alone makes the story worthy of Slashdot
But did he have a dwarf man-servant?
#DeleteChrome
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.
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!
What a cheapass. A sniper should be using a .50-cal sniper rifle, and those rounds cost at least $5 each.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Someone got their iPhone 4S and asked "Siri, where is Gaddafi, and how do we end him?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn't just require a tin-foil hat, it requires hundreds of vacuum tubes, both inside & outside the brain.
I... that... huh?
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)
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)
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.
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....
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?
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. ~
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
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
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.
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).
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
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
Nothing more really needs to be said.
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
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
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.
Exactly. I've seen this complaint twice in two days now.
The Slashdot FAQ actually calls this "The Omelette".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
Yep. Exactly.
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
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.
"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.
Looking forward to seeing the gun camera videos filmed during the Mirage's strike on the convoy.
"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?
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.
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.