The Death Of Qaddafi
I wanted to start a discussion; I thought this would be a good subject.
I know I’m a few days late and all…
Anyone who is interested, please insert vids or pics as you like.
Personally, I’ve been waiting for that nutball (Qaddafi) to go since the hostility began. I get self-satisfaction out of him perishing; I shouldn’t, though. I’m glad he’s gone.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Why do you say that you shouldn’t? Celebrating the loss of life may not be justified but celebrating the loss of an oppressive dictator and the new found freedom of an entire people certainly is. The concept that no one life is more valuable then another is idealistic and illogical. Rejoice that he’s gone and don’t have remorse for it.
So a malign nutjob in another part of the world died. Great. Doesn’t affect us, but it’s still great.
What more? It’s done, let’s move on and not dwell in the past. He’s gone, focus on what can be done instead of what already has, if you’re going to concern yourself at all that is.
Like you said he was a nutball and a dictator who brought so much suffering to so many people, how could you sympathise with him? I tell you how. The man was insane and what he needed was fucking medication, psychiatric treatment and even hospitalisation for mental illness.
Crazy people shouldn’t be beaten to death but treated for their disorders. I do not know what made him insane, maybe power and ego or maybe a cocain habit but he was a pitiable person.
I can not empathise with Bin Laden this way but although I agree Gaddafi had to be stopped, how could you see the guy as more than a cat-lady or a vagrant who talks to himself and smells of stale urine except he happened to be rich and powerful?
When Qaddafi was 2 years old, he was just as innocent and pure as you and me when we were 2. The environment made him who he is and as long as we chase and victimize people, instead of finding ways to solve the root problems, people like him will appear. He is just a symptom of what power does to a person.
No sense in rejoicing for the man’s death.
@Ka He made himself who he was. And killing the symptom is better than doing nothing at all, something bad was removed from humanity. Power isn’t a bad thing, it doesn’t do anything to a person. A corrupt person is a corrupt person, with or without power. A sane person is a sane person with or without power. Don’t blame power for what a person did.
Of course there’s no sense in rejoicing in his death, but there’s no sense in not doing it either. Death is just a part of life, whether you mourn it or rejoice in it or don’t give a rat’s ass doesn’t make any difference for anyone but yourself.
@Ray… Yeah, Qaddafi kinda did seem like a cat-lady; one that had found a powerful perch that most cat-ladies do not. Good analogy.
@Alex… While I agree with you that what someone like you or I know about Qaddafi is filtered through layers of media and word of mouth, I could still find credence in some of those “first-hand interview” stories. Qaddafi was a man who controlled enough resources to deceptively change someone’s mind about what he was like, if he cared about public image. But actually, maybe I’m still wrong on this account.
I did not intend for this discussion to be a celebratory post about his death, so I’m sorry if it has appeared that way. I was just trying for open dialogue.
What do you guys make of this: http://youtu.be/7nNwGrVpFC8 ? This was sent to me by an acquaintance in egypt saying that the west has been lied to in order to stop Gaddafi from changing the currency of his oil. I don’t know what to believe having not been there myself.
Also I have read articles that al qaeda was a big influence in the rebels. So this raises the question: “Have al qaeda just gained control of one of the biggest oil reserves in the world?”
@Matt, I’ve heard about that for a while now. Qaddafi had a lot of gold, and he wanted to change his currency to have gold within each piece of currency (ideally, that’s how it should be. Why do we trade pieces of paper around and give anything worth a damn to the govt?)
If he did that, and demanded only gold-based currency for his oil, I think many third world countries would get a chance in the world, some leverage finally.
If this is the case, then I think we are the enemies.
@Matt and @Alex, very insightful perspectives – at least very wise approaches. It’s always worth considering what may could be being sold when certain information or opinions are being widely fed to the populace. But remember. As Voltaire notes, it’s dangerous to be right in issues where the government is wrong. I think this may be why people like Qadaffi are killed – and to be killed is why they’re villainized in the first place.
Here’s my main thought, one to end the hubris that starts threads like this:
“There may be something I do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.”
@Nightowl I see what you are saying.
Having said that, can anyone find any articles about Gaddafi killing his own people? I ask because I cannot.
Do you guys think we will ever know if al qaeda are in control of the oil, before it is too late? Do you think NATO would ever admit they supported al qaeda, even if by mistake? I don’t mean to be a fear mongerer, i think that is a valid question.
Very interesting Matt :)
I’m with Ren, Ka, & Alex on this one.
Killing is killing. Saying he’s horrible for murdering, then going ahead & celebrating his own murder, is a bit hypocritical (IMO). The act of murder is the same, no matter what the motive. He was a human being…the concepts in his head led him to do terrible things (so I’ve “heard”)…but he was still a human being, just like you & me.
NIghtowl; “There may be something I do not know, the knowing of which may change everything” This is how I try to approach everything, even as Ellie said about Bin Laden (but I avoided that for the strenghth of emotion around the issue). I love catchy little one-liners of philosophy like that, thanks.
I go on a similar concept that every sense of principle, be it warped or not, is motivated by factors that may at first be invisible. A benefit of the doubt approach. Or an innocent until proven guilty approach (I do not know where I got a crazy idea like that from?).
If someone just goes on T.V and constantly says “he’s guilty, he’s guilty….” despite the lack of evidence eventually enough people will believe it.
I’m confused as to why you guys think this is bad. What world do you live in where you can criticize how an oppresive dictator was killed? The notion that person is a person and that all life is equal is bullshit in my opinion. No, I don’t like the idea of having to kill people but if that’s what’s necessary then I will not feel sorry when it happens. Qaddafi instituted “purification laws” to keep society clean; sound familiar (Hint: that whole aryan race thing). He was a proponent of terrorism and openly promoted it. He commited indiscriminate killings of unarmed and innocent civilians. With all of this (just the tip of the iceberg) he is still just as human as you or me? The notion that he’s just the victim of insanity doesn’t change my opinion either. You can’t be that manipulative and intelligent and then use the argument that mental instability caused him to order the killing of so many people. Was he batshit crazy? Yes. Is that an excuse? Absolutely not.
@Daniel I am going to list some thinks i found form wikipedia, it is surface research however it does make it seem like we the truth has been exaggerated.
“The roles and status of women had then become the subject of a great deal of discussion and legal action in Libya after the change of rule, as they have in many countries of the Middle East. Some observers suggested that the regime made efforts on behalf of female emancipation because it viewed women as an essential source of labour in an economy chronically starved for workers. They also postulated that the government was interested in expanding its political base, hoping to curry favour by championing female rights. Since independence, Libyan leaders have been committed to improving the condition of women but within the framework of Arabic and Islamic values. Central to the revolution of 1969 was the empowerment of women and removal of inferior status.”
“Libya’s society became increasingly Islamic during Gaddafi’s rule. His “purification laws” were put into effect in 1994, punishing theft by the amputation of limbs, and fornication and adultery by flogging. Under the Libyan constitution, homosexual relations are punishable by up to 5 years in jail.”
Of course they are unfair punishments, and I am not here to dispute that. However I do not see any resemblance to nazi germany here. I am merely implying that maybe NATO jumped the gun by helping these rebels. They could have now possibly placed a terror into power way worse than Gaddafi. I guess only time will tell.
The fact that Gaddafi received praise from Nelson Mandela, and that Libya had the highest standards of living in Africa forces me to question what really went on here.
@Matt‘s and Daniel’s most recent posts…
I completely respect both of your points of view presented. I can see why you both feel strongly for your cases. Daniel, we’re seeking the most honest information we can obtain to understand who and what Qaddafi really was, because it certainly isn’t outside the realm of possibility that we, as fellow Earthlings, were not privy to primary sources of information.
If Qaddafi was truly violent warmonger as he has been played out to be, I wouldn’t begrudge you your impressions at all.
Politics has, does and probably will continue to skew, influence and even over-ride the common good, or at least the common perception of the common good. This could well be the case with Bin Laden. Murdoch media has often played the fear campaign card to promote the Republican cause.
Republicans are the tough, hard-line, political party and the Democrats have a softer approach. (If you think; Bush is famous for the war in Iraq, Obama is famous for health-care reform) If people are afraid they are more likely to vote Republican.
I ask how much fear an at-large Bin Laden arroused in people and if it was politically opportune for the Republicans to play on that fear? It took Obama all of 5 minutes to destroy this fear people were experiencing. It poses questions to say the least.
Perhaps I was wrong to parallel some of his actions to nazi germany but you get the point. Maybe a better comparison would be to an extreme version of Hammurabi’s Code, the concept of an eye for an eye; except in this case the first eye is homosexuality and the second one is jailtime.
@Ray, You have a great point. Almost all of our public media outlets have politic agendas and thus, put a spin on the news we hear.
@Matt, Cudos for the research but you may want to read up on Gaddafi’s entire reign and style of rule. Needless to say, it was effective (comparatively to other arab countries) for the economy and certainly profitable for him and his constituents. The real question though, is at what cost to the average citizen these came at. Authoritarian governments only work when the people are willing to submit to the will of the leader and when they decide they would rather be free, the Arab Spring happens.
Qadhafi was a dictator that was put in place and maintained there by our own governemnts, much like many dictators throughout the developing world. In his attempt to change his currency to be gold based -as pointed out something that makes a lot of sense for a developing nation that wants to pull away from the US dollar based exchange currently in place- combined with the energy contracts Libya held with China and his refusal to have Amercian forces bases on his soil, it was decided to remove him from power and establish a friendlier regime that would toe the line much more to our liking.
Any bit of BS propoganda that has been filtered down to the masses by our north american media regarding this being a “homegrown, organic movement” are completely fabricated.
He had out lived his usefulness and needed to be removed, just like everyones favorite leader for life over in Iraq, Saddam. He was put in place to be a puppet of the first world countries so we could continue to be supplied by his oil. Once he made plans to alter the oil deal in order to actually benefit African nations over US, France, UK, he was doomed to be pulled down.
So who is really the “evil” ones here? The puppet or the puppetter? Our wonderful, democratic, advanced nations use strong armed men like Qadhafi -and have for decades- in order to keep the populations under an iron-rule and no one begins to ask questions like, “Why is Libyan oil (or Iraqi) not being used to help Libyan people?”
(actually, on a world wide look at dictators, Qadhafi did actually help his people considerably more than say Kim Jong Il in North Korea does)
Our governments have come to the conclusion that propping up dictators to do our dirty work in developing nations will no longer work thanks to such advances like the internet which makes it increasingly more difficult to pull the wool over their citizens eyes regarding such blatent support for dictatorships.
So now, we just “liberate” countries, assist them in forming VERY pro- western “democracies”, use western companies to rebuild/own/operate all major strategic resources in the country, and continue to keep them under our thumb, all under the guise of democracy. Oh, and why not add a lovely American military base while we are at it….
Please research all this yourselves before celebrating the murder of another human being. US presidents over the past 10 years are responsible for the deaths of WAY more innocent civilians on the world scale than Ghadafi killed throughout his entire 40 year regime, but we call it “collateral damage” when we do it, and murder when the big bad dictator does it.
Well you posted a big reply there – and another big one on your link. Are you Paul Craig Roberts?
All joking aside, thanks for the input. I read both your post and that link. That link contains a lot of information to process, but I hope it helps HE readers.