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.
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.
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/
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.
Like OBL, he should have been tried.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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+
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.
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
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.'"
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
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
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
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