Gadhafi is dead.

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.


now now boys
best wipe that cum of your faces before mummy gets home
 
Always makes me laugh when a troll starts bitching about an amicable discussion. Do they want to be included? Is it jealousy? Resentment? Ego? Will they learn to spell "off"?
 
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?:rolleyes:
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.
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?
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"."
POPULAR PROTEST IN NORTH AFRICA AND THE
MIDDLE EAST (V): MAKING SENSE OF LIBYA
Middle East/North Africa Report N°107 – 6 June 2011

Thats on page 4.
Why is that Brian?
Yep it annoys you:)
 
Last edited:
@ Bells

Insightful piece regarding legalities. What think you?

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.
 
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.

And even more evident that there was remaining concern that the party State, Libya, still had a fair way to go.

The fact that the laws in Libya makes even commenting negatively on Gadhafi illegal and dissent is illegal says something you clearly cannot recognise.

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"."
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.

Yep it annoys you
What does?

That you are a white supremacist bigot? No. It is who you are.

You wish to carry on as if there is something bad and shameful being an immigrant and having African ancestry? Knock yourself out. You have already exposed yourself for what you are on this forum and in this thread. No skin off my nose Brian. Your desire to matter to me is precious, but really, you have less value to me than the earthworms in my compost bin.:)
 
The fact that the laws in Libya makes even commenting negatively on Gadhafi illegal and dissent is illegal says something you clearly cannot recognise.
Oh, oh my God, Libya has something in common with America and Australia.
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.
Of course ignoring the links which contradict your claims, I can say you have run ot of a credible argument.
this forum
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.
an immigrant and having African ancestry
Now swim back.
 
Oh, oh my God, Libya has something in common with America and Australia.

Funny that..

Of course ignoring the links which contradict your claims, I can say you have run ot of a credible argument.
Coming from a guy who seems to believe Gadhafi was God's gift to the world, I will take that as a compliment.

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.
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?

Now swim back.
Why?

I like it here.:D I am an Australian now, have been for over 30 years. This is my home and country.:D
 
yet you disingenuously pretend otherwise by ascribing the error to ignorance
you are clearly a troll for doing that

Well, it's a good thing I didn't focus on the smaller points of your post to the exclusion of all else, I guess.
 
*Originally in reply to Brian Foley*
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?

Hi Bells, glad to see you chose to stick around, hope things are looking a little better for you. So based on my own personal experience and what you've been writing about Senor Foley here for your own part, he sounds like one of them old-school racists where the real problem isn't about the various racial conflicts or poverty or exploitation or any of that, just that false ubermenschen are taking the spoils, and the untermenschen are dying in the wrong order according to their levels of actual worth to breathe oxygen. Maybe he should just stick to making motivational speeches about how much better Irish pub culture is than everyone else's culture, and his loonier inner thoughts wouldn't be quite as obvious.
 
Last edited:
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.
Thanks for that. Its the bigger picture that concerns me, reports indicate his convey was attacked by NATO planes, only IF -
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.
Not that NATO were sticking to Resolution 1973 anyway.
 
Gaddafi fleeing in a convoy so he could lead his troops from another place is not a threat to civilians?
 
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.

He was the commander of the troops.

Do you actually think he was fleeing for good and posed absolutely zero risks to any civilians?

Do you think he posed no risk to any civilians after being holed up there for how many weeks and after his soldiers had been accused of how many atrocities of innocent civilians up to that point?

His convoy was a legitimate target. The fact that he was heading to Misrata would mean, if that article were to be taken seriously, the civilian population of Misrata would then be in danger.

The only thing that is questionable and illegal at this point is his being sodomised, tortured and executed by the rebels who then captured him.
 
i think i have been conned to some extent by the benghazis

/embarrassed

i think it is time for a maghreb spring where the imperialist arabs are driven back in to the peninsular
yeah
sounds about right
 
Well, Think that N.A.T.O and United Nations should be required to pick up the dead bodies of people in countries that they sponsor for acts of war and violence predetermined to cause death of humans within those regions,and locations. They should simply be required to recover the bodies and store them for reanimation, meaning the bodies should be collected and restored to life and eventually returned to their familes love ones and countries.
For example N.A.T.O. acting to cause death in that region of the world should be billed for the proccess of collecting the dead and restoration work required. If they can provdie the infastructure to cause the death they can provide the finace and structure or materials to restore the dead bodies of Lybians.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
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.
Sadly, there is so much more to this, the other version that is seldom heard.

Testimony of Libya - Lizzy Phelan
 
Back
Top