So..
Gaddafi was sexually assaulted?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29508.htm
“we came, we saw, he died.”
Well, he'd been fucking Libya for some time, so...
So..
Gaddafi was sexually assaulted?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29508.htm
“we came, we saw, he died.”
No one appreciates subtlety any more. It's all sound bites and punch.
I admit it was a bit cheeky there. But should we really be catering to the level of discourse that is oblivious to such major, well-understood, long grappled-with aspects of the stuff?
Let me respond in this way: do you have any evidence that the major, well-understood, long-grappled with aspects of the discourse really are understood by the parties with whom one tries to start a discourse?
No, as I said: oblivious. So, why start such a discourse? At the very best, it ends up recapitulating elementary-school-level material. Anyone who's halfway serious is necessarily going to speak in recognition of such features in the first place, no?
Hope springs eternal. I mean, outreach at their level surely has a better chance of producing a positive result than dunning them with concepts that while obvious to us, aren't to them. For that matter, it might help a couple of the intermediately-skilled understand a few fine points integral to the structure of the discussion that might otherwise go unnoticed. If you're assuming they're being deliberately facetious, well, I guess I can't prove otherwise, and I've probably already alluded to the possibility.
Will they learn to spell "off"?
a troll
So..
Gaddafi was sexually assaulted?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29508.htm
“we came, we saw, he died.”
How many times do I have to go over this? The U.N Human Rights committee has had access to Libya since 2003, any lying would of been exposed. However as is evident from the draft Libya was praised.Gahdafi would never lie about how well and free Libyans are, would he? I mean his human rights record over the last 42 years was, well, perfect, wasn't it Brian?![]()
According to the authoritative International Crisis Group...I mean it is why the Arab League suspended Libya from taking part in its council meetings in February because of the gross human rights abuses Libyan soldiers serving under Gahdafi were committing, right?
Yep it annoys youWhy is that Brian?
@ Bells
Insightful piece regarding legalities. What think you?
How many times do I have to go over this? The U.N Human Rights committee has had access to Libya since 2003, any lying would of been exposed. However as is evident from the draft Libya was praised.
The protests started out peacefully. But the massacres committed by Gadhafi's forces were also internationally recognised, and the UN has spoken plenty about it.According to the authoritative International Crisis Group...
"much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the government's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge"."
What does?Yep it annoys you
Oh, oh my God, Libya has something in common with America and Australia.The fact that the laws in Libya makes even commenting negatively on Gadhafi illegal and dissent is illegal says something you clearly cannot recognise.
Of course ignoring the links which contradict your claims, I can say you have run ot of a credible argument.The protests started out peacefully. But the massacres committed by Gadhafi's forces were also internationally recognised, and the UN has spoken plenty about it.
ROTFLMFAO, what forum, or havent you noticed what has happened here lately, thats all this forum is now about a dozen members with 50,000 plus posts, Im only here because my usual forum Studentsfordemocracy is down.this forum
Now swim back.an immigrant and having African ancestry
Oh, oh my God, Libya has something in common with America and Australia.
Coming from a guy who seems to believe Gadhafi was God's gift to the world, I will take that as a compliment.Of course ignoring the links which contradict your claims, I can say you have run ot of a credible argument.
Ah yes, where you go on your rants about blacks and about beating up black people..ROTFLMFAO, what forum, or havent you noticed what has happened here lately, thats all this forum is now about a dozen members with 50,000 plus posts, Im only here because my usual forum Studentsfordemocracy is down.
Why?Now swim back.
yet you disingenuously pretend otherwise by ascribing the error to ignorance
you are clearly a troll for doing that
Coming from a guy who seems to believe Gadhafi was God's gift to the world, I will take that as a compliment...
Ah yes, where you go on your rants about blacks and about beating up black people..
Maybe it has been shut down for being a hole full of people such as yourself?
Thanks for that. Its the bigger picture that concerns me, reports indicate his convey was attacked by NATO planes, only IF -It is a bit of a stretch. The NATO led attacks on his convoy were actually legal.
I do think Mr Doebbler is reaching a bit in the accusation that the rebel forces were somehow under the legal control and sanctions of NATO and the US. Very much so. NATO had not stated that he should be tortured and executed. As far as we know, that order was never given. As the leader of the side in that war, he was a valid target for the original attack. International law makes it illegal to have executed him, but unless we know that that order came from up on high, be it from NATO, the US or the commander of the Rebels, then yes, I do think Mr Doebbler is reaching.
Not that NATO were sticking to Resolution 1973 anyway.if as it looks, Gaddafi was fleeing Sirte, it would appear that he was attacked not as a threat to any civilians in Libya, the remit of the use of force provided by the UN Security Council resolution, but either as part of an indiscriminate attack or one aimed at killing people fleeing from an armed conflict.
Thanks for that. Its the bigger picture that concerns me, reports indicate his convey was attacked by NATO planes, only IF -
Not that NATO were sticking to Resolution 1973 anyway.
Sadly, there is so much more to this, the other version that is seldom heard.It is a bit of a stretch. The NATO led attacks on his convoy were actually legal.
I do think Mr Doebbler is reaching a bit in the accusation that the rebel forces were somehow under the legal control and sanctions of NATO and the US. Very much so. NATO had not stated that he should be tortured and executed. As far as we know, that order was never given. As the leader of the side in that war, he was a valid target for the original attack. International law makes it illegal to have executed him, but unless we know that that order came from up on high, be it from NATO, the US or the commander of the Rebels, then yes, I do think Mr Doebbler is reaching.