UPDATE: Gaddafi killed, died of wounds - NTC

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
We didn't execute Gaddafi. His own people did.

The NTC wouldn't have executed him without NATO's blessing, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

It was U.S. intelligence and credible sources that provided the coordinates of Gaddafi's convoy to NATO, and a NATO airstrike that made him available to the rebels.

Letting the people of Lybia do the actual killing was a preferable end.

I was just watching Fox for sh*ts and gigs. The commentator bitches about how Obama promised the Libyan war will only last a few days. Really? Where were you when Bush promised pretty much the same deal with Iraq?

Also, before he attempted to make these lame ass remarks, he went on to complain about the cost of the Libyan conflict and how it costed us 1.1 billion dollars.

Hey Fox, how much did the Iraq war cost under Bush's rule? Oh yeah, over $700 billion.

How about Afghanistan? Oh yeah, over $400 billion.

I love hypocrisy from the right wingers.

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by villunder

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by villunder

 

I agree that it started as an internal issue, the citizens vs Gadaffi's regime, but once the world found out about how the citizens were being killed and treated while protesting it became an international matter... I will not deny the fact that the US has certain interests that fall in the Libya region so it makes sense that they would be concerned with what's going on over there...

Life is strange.......If nobody would of stepped in and say Gaddafi would of just killed off, or imprisoned all the protesters would that of been okay?

"THE CARNAGE in Syria grinds on: More than two dozen protesters were reported shot and killed by security forces on Thursday and at least 11 more on Friday; a United Nations human rights official said that the total death toll has passed 3,000." 20 oct.
>>>>> NO INTERVENTION AT ALL

"On the evening of 15 February, between 500 and 600 demonstrators protested in front of Benghazi's police headquarters after the arrest of human rights lawyer Fathi Terbil. The protest was broken up violently by police, resulting in clashes in which 38 people were injured, among them ten security personnel.[99][100] " International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo estimated that 500–700 people were killed by security forces in February 2011, before the rebels took up arms.
>>> " On 19 March 2011 a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the 2011 Libyan civil war."

But that is OK ? Just look at numbers ...

It's never ok...But you can only be involved in so many conflicts...USA cant fight every battle out there, even though it looks like they are....

It's never OK ... you got that right .

Of course can't fight every battle out there , because not every ground battle have oil reserves

reply to post by SeventhSeal


Now they will try to make this a partisan issue.

So that you won't look at what is happening in Africa.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


It is either you support the USA or you hate it.

But dear God - don't look at the Islamist take over in Africa.

I just have to point out that he did NOT DIE OF HIS WOUNDS, he was executed, please read carefully before its retracted, i am not commenting on him or his rule, just the story being put out.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Gaddafi's last moments alive: Dictator begs for his life after being dragged from a drain. Seconds later he was summarily executedGaddafi tried to flee in a convoy hit by American drone

Vehicles were also shelled by Nato fighter jets...
... before being driven back to his compound in Sirte
Gaddafi in final attempt to flee before final push by rebels
'Found in a hole' wearing military-style clothing, shouting 'Don't shoot'
Rebel forces executed him in front of a baying mob
His body was paraded through the streets of the city
Gaddafi's eldest son Saif shot in leg - with some reports saying he is dead

Reports say Gaddafi will be given secret burial

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 8:31 PM on 20th October 2011


Comments (1115) Add to My Stories Share
Wounded, weakened and covered in blood and dirt, the bedraggled fallen dictator was hauled from a truck to meet his unceremonious end.
In front of a baying mob and amid gun-waving chaotic scenes, Muammar Gaddafi, the former Libyan leader, begged the revolutionary soldiers for his life.

Becoming increasingly desperate, he asked one rebel fighter: 'What did I ever do to you?'
But his pleas fell on deaf ears.
The deposed despot was thrown onto another truck and taken away - to be mercilessly shot to death.
His spilt blood heralded the end of a terrible 42-year epoch in Libyan history.



Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by villunder


Its all about Oil.

But don't look at what is happening in Africa.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
We didn't execute Gaddafi. His own people did.

The NTC wouldn't have executed him without NATO's blessing, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

It was U.S. intelligence and credible sources that provided the coordinates of Gaddafi's convoy to NATO, and a NATO airstrike that made him available to the rebels.

Letting the people of Lybia do the actual killing was a preferable end.

,Libya have a few spy satellites on orbit operated by LIA Libyan Intelligence Agency...That's how they get him

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Letting the people of Lybia do the actual killing was a preferable end.

Right, if NATO had ordered them to hold him, they would have. The "preferable end" would have been for him to receive a trial, with evidence presented and him convicted of a crime, then the people of Libya could have carried out his punishment. That's what civilized people do, that's what used to separate us from the Taliban. But, all these boogey men have so many ties to our leaders and agencies, that they simply cannot allow these bad guys the chance to spill the beans about who they've been in cahoots with.

Aint that something you get to see this but nope you don't get to see the death of bin laden.

That is seriously disturbing and i have no respect for anyone cheering for that.

I'd like to address some of the concerns about extreme Islamic take over in Libya: It probably won't happen.

The Obama Administration can lie and lie and lie about how it's "up to the Libyan people now" but in reality, it's up to us. We'll make sure someone who's on OUR side and someone who serves OUR interests (friend of Israel and knows how to give us gifts: Oil). You think we invested so much into this war just to let someone we don't like take over?

Now does this mean the next leader won't be perhaps more ruthless than Gaddafi? Of course not, they'll probably be on the same level as Stalin. Just as long they give us oil and don't threaten Israel, we'll all be on good terms.

Too bad the Libyan people could be f'd in the A.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Letting the people of Lybia do the actual killing was a preferable end.

Right, if NATO had ordered them to hold him, they would have. The "preferable end" would have been for him to receive a trial, with evidence presented and him convicted of a crime, then the people of Libya could have carried out his punishment. That's what civilized people do, that's what used to separate us from the Taliban. But, all these boogey men have so many ties to our leaders and agencies, that they simply cannot allow these bad guys the chance to spill the beans about who they've been in cahoots with.

Let's say someone is responsible for killing your family or any loved ones. You have a gun. The guy is in front of you. You're full of rage.

Anger decreases your IQ.

The trigger is going to be pulled. I couldn't give a damn about Gaddafi. I'm just pissed that we had to spend a dime on the whole thing and now we're bragging about it. Also really annoyed at the Republicans who are going to complain about the $$$ wasted and blah blah blah.

Annoying Obama supporters and haters are on their way.

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
Friends today, gone tomorrow.

Why does Obama's shadow look like Dick Cheney? lol

Well,Irak is a Paradise after war everything was reconstructed and there are happy people all over the streets every day smiling,Afghanistan is like a garden tall buildings everywhere the economic heart of the region,I'm sure that Libya will be the same paradise very soon in 300 years.

reply to post by Aeons

don't look at the Islamist take over in Africa

and you dont believe that Islamists will take over? they will

Originally posted by hapablab

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
Friends today, gone tomorrow.

Why does Obama's shadow look like Dick Cheney? lol

Could be the shadow of the dude in background:

reply to post by hapablab


That isn't Obama's shadow, look at the angles and light source.

Who is it would be a better question.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I'd like to address some of the concerns about extreme Islamic take over in Libya: It probably won't happen.

Are you ignorant of history?

US funds, trains and supports Islamic extremists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. They end up forming into the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Northern Alliance, etc.

US distablizes Iraq. It creates civil war among Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. It is only surpressed because there was over a 100,000 US soldiers and another 100,000 military "contractors" to maintain control (plus other forces).

US has completely backed Islamic extremists in Libya who represent many regional factions. There has already been infighting between them for territorial control. Hell, the war was backed by Al-Qaeda because weapons delivered to "rebels" were moved around the region to bolster their power.

No, you know what will happen? The true objective of Arab Spring? The west has backed its "terrorist" enemy so it can gain more territory. When the fruit is ripe for picking, NATO will say that we now need to bring the fight to these dangerous terrorists. They are directly linked to our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in controlling more national territory will be deemed as "legitimate" targets for reform.

It is all about the strategic picture; always has been. All this discussion about rebels, dictators, revolution, insurgency, etc is all overshadowed by the bigger picture. It's not going to stop, the propaganda will continue to spew predictable lies and the West will continue to divide and conquer the East. That is the goal which many supporting these pathetic Western "liberation" wars fail to accept as reality.

Welcome to the 21st century where the world needs centralized leadership and Western forces are achieving it by force.

reply to post by SeventhSeal
,What is a black man with a white man shadow?A dark angel?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I'd like to address some of the concerns about extreme Islamic take over in Libya: It probably won't happen.

Are you ignorant of history?

US funds, trains and supports Islamic extremists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. They end up forming into the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Northern Alliance, etc.

US distablizes Iraq. It creates civil war among Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. It is only surpressed because there was over a 100,000 US soldiers and another 100,000 military "contractors" to maintain control (plus other forces).

US has completely backed Islamic extremists in Libya who represent many regional factions. There has already been infighting between them for territorial control. Hell, the war was backed by Al-Qaeda because weapons delivered to "rebels" were moved around the region to bolster their power.

No, you know what will happen? The true objective of Arab Spring? The west has backed its "terrorist" enemy so it can gain more territory. When the fruit is ripe for picking, NATO will say that we now need to bring the fight to these dangerous terrorists. They are directly linked to our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in controlling more national territory will be deemed as "legitimate" targets for reform.

It is all about the strategic picture; always has been. All this discussion about rebels, dictators, revolution, insurgency, etc is all overshadowed by the bigger picture. It's not going to stop, the propaganda will continue to spew predictable lies and the West will continue to divide and conquer the East. That is the goal which many supporting these pathetic Western "liberation" wars fail to accept as reality.

Welcome to the 21st century where the world needs centralized leadership and Western forces are achieving it by force.

You bring up historic points but this is actually a completely different situation, like it or not. The rebels executed their dictator and I'm glad. However, it is a bit unpredictable to see where the country may end up but most likely we'll install someone for them. And then history will repeat itself.