Gadhafi is dead.

StrawDog said:
Sadly, there is so much more to this, the other version that is seldom heard.

Testimony of Libya - Lizzy Phelan
Click to expand...

"NATO's ground troops"? You know, if NATO had not been involved and the rebels had managed to do this on their own with their rag tag army of volunteers, we would not be having this discussion.

I guess she forgot who actually started the uprising and why. Her wording leans towards NATO starting the revolution and somehow employing or recruiting "the rebels" to do their bidding. The reality was far different than that. She states herself that he armed civilians and it was widely reported at the time that he had been doing so. To then blame NATO for bombing instillations where he had those civilians placed, because they killed civilians. They became his combatants. The people who were leading the charge to remove him from power were Libyans.

I guess the question I would like someone to answer is, when is he going to be held responsible for his actions leading up to his death? To prevent civilians from fleeing, to have his soldiers murder civilians for no reason, his own soldiers were attacking clinics where the wounded civilians were being treated, civilians wounded by his soldiers, soldiers who refused to kill civilians were being executed. I'm sorry, but when is he going to be deemed responsible for this? He armed his supporters and made them kill.

When is he going to be held responsible for this?

The reports of what his soldiers did under his command were not from NATO, but from independent human rights organisations.
 
Bells said:
"NATO's ground troops"? You know, if NATO had not been involved and the rebels had managed to do this on their own with their rag tag army of volunteers, we would not be having this discussion.

I guess she forgot who actually started the uprising and why. Her wording leans towards NATO starting the revolution and somehow employing or recruiting "the rebels" to do their bidding. The reality was far different than that. She states herself that he armed civilians and it was widely reported at the time that he had been doing so. To then blame NATO for bombing instillations where he had those civilians placed, because they killed civilians. They became his combatants. The people who were leading the charge to remove him from power were Libyans.

I guess the question I would like someone to answer is, when is he going to be held responsible for his actions leading up to his death? To prevent civilians from fleeing, to have his soldiers murder civilians for no reason, his own soldiers were attacking clinics where the wounded civilians were being treated, civilians wounded by his soldiers, soldiers who refused to kill civilians were being executed. I'm sorry, but when is he going to be deemed responsible for this? He armed his supporters and made them kill.

When is he going to be held responsible for this?

The reports of what his soldiers did under his command were not from NATO, but from independent human rights organisations.
Click to expand...

My antivirus said that the last link tries to install a root kit.
 
Bells said:
Funny that..
Click to expand...
Nothing funny about it, you cant back your mouth up over Gaddaffi.

Bells said:
Why?

I like it here.:D
Click to expand...
I know you do, beats the hell out of Africa where you originally came from.
Bells said:
I am an Australian now, have been for over 30 years. This is my home and country.:D
Click to expand...
So why did turn on James with the other Non Australians? Very Un-Australian behaviour.
 
Bells said:
"NATO's ground troops"? You know, if NATO had not been involved and the rebels had managed to do this on their own with their rag tag army of volunteers, we would not be having this discussion.

I guess she forgot who actually started the uprising and why. Her wording leans towards NATO starting the revolution and somehow employing or recruiting "the rebels" to do their bidding. The reality was far different than that. She states herself that he armed civilians and it was widely reported at the time that he had been doing so. To then blame NATO for bombing instillations where he had those civilians placed, because they killed civilians. They became his combatants. The people who were leading the charge to remove him from power were Libyans.

I guess the question I would like someone to answer is, when is he going to be held responsible for his actions leading up to his death? To prevent civilians from fleeing, to have his soldiers murder civilians for no reason, his own soldiers were attacking clinics where the wounded civilians were being treated, civilians wounded by his soldiers, soldiers who refused to kill civilians were being executed. I'm sorry, but when is he going to be deemed responsible for this? He armed his supporters and made them kill.

When is he going to be held responsible for this?

The reports of what his soldiers did under his command were not from NATO, but from independent human rights organisations.
Click to expand...
No innocent parties here, but clearly there are two sides to the story.
“Any humane and reasonable person must conclude that if the ends, however desireable, are uncertain and the means are horrible and certain, these means must not be employed.”
― Howard Zinn, Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice
Click to expand...
 
This forum needs better controls on virus etc. I'd never actually heard of a root kit until now.
 
My root kit is so big you couldn't stuff it into a root cellar. It would need mother nature her self to try and take my root kit .

I was wondering about Johnuy Depp floating around like he own the place ?
Forced trailers
 
Bells said:
Neither side is clean. But people are carrying on as if he was a sad victim who had done nothing wrong in the years and even months leading up to his death. When nothing can be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Bells aren't you an anti death penalty advocate?

I'm sure I have seen innumerable posts where you have stated nothing is worth killing someone over. If this is true then its irrelivent if its Hitler or mother Teresa who was killed, the killing was objectively wrong. As for torture how many international treaties forbid torture under ANY circumstance, are you saying its ok to use?
 
Asguard said:
Bells aren't you an anti death penalty advocate?

I'm sure I have seen innumerable posts where you have stated nothing is worth killing someone over. If this is true then its irrelivent if its Hitler or mother Teresa who was killed, the killing was objectively wrong. As for torture how many international treaties forbid torture under ANY circumstance, are you saying its ok to use?
Click to expand...

Can you show me where exactly in this thread where I said his rape, torture and execution was good and desired?

Link them please. Thank you.

I'll even give you a hint. I did say that I understood the rage of the people who did it, but it does not make his treatment acceptable and that their actions mirrored his too much.
 
Bells said:
Can you show me where exactly in this thread where I said his rape, torture and execution was good and desired?

Link them please. Thank you.

I'll even give you a hint. I did say that I understood the rage of the people who did it, but it does not make his treatment acceptable and that their actions mirrored his too much.
Click to expand...

No, you didnt say you surport torture but you said

people are carrying on as if he was a sad victim who had done nothing wrong in the years and even months leading up to his death. When nothing can be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

That's very close to what people were saying about David Hicks, especially Howard. "Oh he's a terrorist so who cares if he was tortured". His crimes are one thing and surly irrelevant now he's dead. However the crimes that were commited against him are just as horrific and deserve just as great a penalty as if they were commited against anyone else. The very basis of our society is that it no matter what you don't get to inflict your own penalty. Just like you cant run your ex over with a car and a parent who's child was abducted and murdered by a paedophile doesn't get to kill the perpetrator and they certainly don't get to torture them, why is this any different?
 
Asguard said:
The very basis of our society is that it no matter what you don't get to inflict your own penalty. Just like you cant run your ex over with a car and a parent who's child was abducted and murdered by a paedophile doesn't get to kill the perpetrator and they certainly don't get to torture them, why is this any different?
Click to expand...

Because when you are in the middle of a revolution it means society has broken down.

There is no government anymore and there is no set of laws that everyone agrees to.

Ultimately what it means is there is usually no way to try these people for crimes as there is no government in power at the time it was done and no one is there to gather evidence and eyewitness testimony that would be required for a trial.
 
that's one of the functions of the ICC, to try crimes against humanity and war crimes and murder of an unarmed prisoner (no matter who he is) and torture both fall under the definition of war crimes
 
Asguard said:
No, you didnt say you surport torture but you said



That's very close to what people were saying about David Hicks, especially Howard. "Oh he's a terrorist so who cares if he was tortured". His crimes are one thing and surly irrelevant now he's dead.
Click to expand...

Euhh...hardly. The detriment of his crimes doesn't just go away because someone sodomized him and then shot him: we might well applaud all that, but it isn't a reset.

However the crimes that were commited against him are just as horrific
Click to expand...

Comparatively?

and deserve just as great a penalty as if they were commited against anyone else.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but that doesn't make them "just as horrific".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top