Gaddafi

Gaddafi would be better to receive a nobel prize than Obama. Gaddafi never wanted war. Obama just continues it, and sends more troops everywhere. Theyr'e just hired guns, not America's army exactly.

>>160
I really hope they don't kill him. He needs to stand trial for what he's done, or his supporters are just going to deny these things and pretend he was a saint. Even Hitler needed to live out the rest of his life in jail, so that he doesn't leave unanswered questions.

>>161
The rebels have already said that they won't send him to Hague - they will judge him and then execute him and his sons. Sure, sounds like fair trial.

>>161
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IRqYJhTDWU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgKDGzK10Fw

Victory or martyr.

>It's not about getting revenge on Gaddafi, it's about the liberty and welfare of Libya.

Since when?

>>162
Why go after his whole family? Is being related to the guy a crime?

>>165
Based on some of the things he's done, probably.  For instance, pretty much his entire extended family has knowingly received and spent embezzled oil money.  Then we have the sons outside the military that got to use them as a private army - Saif in particular was notorious for this.

>>166
If the ruler of a country hands you money from government seized oil wells, then it's legal money. Gaddafi has been pouring "embezzled oil money" into running the entire country, yet do we hang every Lybian for not refusing to "handle stolen money"?
I hear one of his sons were even fighting for human rights in Lybia. Will he be executed as well?

>>166
>Why go after his whole family? Is being related to the guy a crime?

Also normal in Muslim nations.

>>167
>Gaddafi has been pouring "embezzled oil money" into running the entire country
Well, no.  By definition, if the money is reaching its proper destination (i.e. the government budget), then it's not been embezzled, has it?  Spending the public finances on schools and hospitals is fine.  Spending it on swish homes and cars and private jets for your family, not so much.  The son "fighting for human rights" was Saif, and it's fairly well-established that he was using it as a front for his inheriting the reins on the pretense of reform.

>>169
Saif was a diplomat, most likely enjoying diplomatic privilieges and pay, on top of gifts from his father. I can find nothing incriminating this man in any way, and he has declared that he had no intention of inheriting his fathers regime. At most Gaddafi made him hold a speech in support of Libyan troops at the beginning of the conflict, but this is part of military duty - not doing that would probably end up with him getting shot.

>>170
So basically your argument is "gaddafi never broke the law, gaddafi was the law".

>>170
>but this is part of military duty
But Saif had always insisted that he was not in the military and had no command over them.  That was the entire premise of his supposed "reformist" stance.

>>171
I'm not even talking about Gaddafi.

>>172
Still, if your father comes and says "Help them not kill me.", then that's hard to refuse, especially since Gaddafi has executed lots of people for less than that. It's also not a crime, so if Saif has done nothing worse, then why hunt him for "torture" among other things? Who has he tortured?

>>173
Presumably, they're hunting him down for torture because he has engaged in torture.  The ICC aren't your local police - they don't harass you for nothing.  If they were persuaded to issue an indictment, then they've got some solid evidence already.

>>174
It's "solid evidence" that nobody else has heard about. What makes you think that the ICC is above framing all descendants of every leader of every nation ever waged war with? I find that extremely weird.

>>175
>nobody else has heard about
ITYM "I haven't heard about".

>“They are liars,” he said of Amnesty International. “They said, in Libya they are still conducting torture and executions and so on. Therefore this is my response: Human rights in Libya are very well protected and maintained, and I think Libya is a good example for the Middle East. And I say this very proudly.”

This was at a time when it was known that Libya was torturing and executing dissidents.  Hell, they were forcibly repatriating exiles so they could be punished for their infidelity.

In Muslim nations, you kill the children of your enemies or make them slaves.

>>173
You are talking about one of Gaddafi's thugs, so you are talking about Gaddafi.

This is a plain absurd statement by you, logically you have lost this argument but something tells me you're too arrogant to admit you are wrong and apologise.

Gaddafi is cool.

>>179
Gaddafi is fighting against the entire world. Yet, he continues to troll us. He is a true hero.

Cut him some slack.

If you were military dictator of a country for over 40 years and still didn't manage to get promoted above colonel, then you would be pretty pissy too.

I think Gaddafi is a pretty cool guy, eh kills rebels and doesn't afraid of nothing.

A number of “external” and internal motives turned out to be sufficient for Gaddafi, who ten months ago was received with great honor in the leading countries of the world, to “suddenly” become a terrible dictator who must be overthrown immediately. Despite the fact that Gaddafi has repeatedly urged the UN to send an international commission to Libya capable of investigating the situation on the spot and determining the validity of government actions against the insurgency that began in Cyrenaica, instead of a UN Commission, there followed the UN Security Council resolution 1970 and then 1973, which in fact paved the way for the U.S. and NATO war against Tripoli and unconditional direct and indirect support to the rebels, including land-based activities as well as the supply of arms. This became possible due to the fact that Resolution 1973 contained a formulation (again, unprecedentedly vague) of the UN’s given mandate on the admissibility of the use of ANY MEASURE to “protect civilians», with the exception of military occupation; that is, it made possible the widest field of “interpretations” within the framework of the mandate (which was unprecedented for UN documents). Soon after the start of the war against Gaddafi, Pentagon Chief Robert Gates and Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen recognized at a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee that after Gaddafi’s departure, a power struggle will certainly unfold in Libya; moreover, Gates cautioned “not to exaggerate the ability of the Americans to influence the political outcome of the events in Libya” after the overthrow of Gaddafi. CNN. 02.24.2011
Nonetheless, the coalition aircraft and cruise missiles quickly destroyed Gaddafi’s aircraft, and then, insofar as there was nothing more to do where its mandate to “ensure a no-fly zone” was concerned, they began the destruction of Gaddafi’s armored vehicles and troops on the ground, as well as attempted to kill him by bombing the places where he might be located at that moment. Moreover, they used, among other things, attack aircraft AC-130, which are intended solely for the extermination of enemy personnel in the complete absence of air defense resources. 
Moreover, it quickly became clear that the only battle-capable troops available among the rebels were about a thousand Islamic militants, who had schooled in war in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and other hotspots; and that the others simply do not know even how to fight in an organized fashion, let alone how to use the weapons obtained from looted armories. (Die Welt 04.03.2011/Asia Times online 03.30.2011)
As a result, Gaddafi’s troops consistently and quickly attacked at moments when there are no NATO airplanes and rolled back when the air force carried out strikes against the troops of Tripoli. Moreover, NATO aircraft have repeatedly “by mistake” carried out missile and bomb strikes on tank columns and rebel communications. However, when the troops of Tripoli were moved from tanks to jeeps with machine guns indistinguishable from the jeeps of the Benghazi rebels, the military situation in Libya reached a deadlock, which in late March or early April was frankly acknowledged by the coalition commanders. (on April 7th, the chief of the U.S. African Command General Carter Ham admitted to the U. S. Congress that the military situation in Libya was a “dead-lock” – ITAR-TASS 04.08.2011).
After this, the basic mechanisms of the “world community’s” action against Gaddafi have changed substantially. Qatar – in violation of the commercial and military embargo imposed against Libya by UN Security Council resolution 1970 – began to sell Libyan oil on the world market on behalf of the rebels, as well as supply Benghazi with the most modern (including French) weapons. AFP 04.12.2011/ Le Monde 04.18.2011
The U.S.A., Great Britain, and France increased the contingents of their intelligence services among the rebel military. Now “special forces” from these countries not only aim missiles and coalition aircraft at Gaddafi, but also supply Benghazi with communications equipment and direct battles, as well as hastily train rebel soldiers in modern methods of warfare. But most importantly, the disinformation war against the government in Tripoli and Gadhafi personally has sharply increased. These lies started even before the war by stating that the League of Arab States in full force strongly demanded that the UN intervene in the situation in Libya. In fact, only 11 out of 22 countries attended the Arab League meeting, and at first the proposal to appeal to the UN was supported by only 7 members of the Arab League (the 6 Gulf monarchies and Egypt in the person of the current head of the Arab League Amr Moussa). After debates, there were 9 supporters of the resolution, but two countries – Algeria and Syria –still voted against an appeal to the UN. (Asia Times online 03.30.2011). Then the “international media” reported that the main “strike force” of Gaddafi’s troops carrying out genocide against the Libyan people are foreign mercenaries from the so-called “Islamic Legion”. However, Human Rights Watch, which has never sympathized with Gaddafi, has acknowledged that its activists in Libya have no data on the participation of fighters from the Legion in the repression and suppression of mass demonstrations in Libyan cities. Then the international media began vying with each other to quote Al-Jazeera’s falsifications about the tens of thousands of civilians killed by Gaddafi’s troops, as well as the willingness of almost all of Gaddafi’s associates to betray him and cross over to the side of rebels. (dailymail.co.uk 04.01.2011) At a summit, a “contact group on Libya” was hastily created, where Qatar again sets the tone, announcing that an indispensable and essential condition for peace in Libya was the immediate and unconditional removal from power of Gaddafi himself, his family members, and close associates. (La Republica 04.14.2011)
The apotheosis of this campaign was two events. On April 15th, the head of the French Defense Ministry Gérard Longuet said that his country, the U.S.A., and Britain intended to go beyond the mandate of the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1973.  (AFP 04.15.2011)

On the same day, all the world’s leading media released a joint statement by Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron, in which, as a justification for the need to escalate the coalition war in Libya, they repeat the myth that Gaddafi is a killer who started and is waging war against his own civilians and that the haste of the coalition was called for due to “humanitarian purposes” – the need to immediately stop the dictator. (The Times 04.15.2011) It is true that shortly before this appeal, Abdel Fattah Younes, Gaddafi’s former Interior Minister and now commander of the armed forces of the rebels, tarnished the noble reputation of the “insurgents”. Younes was indignant about the refusal of NATO forces to bomb Misurata because there are civilians there and said that “where there are Gaddafi’s troops, there are no civilians”. (BBCnews 04.05.2011)
Then the above-mentioned statement of the three leaders who started the war against Gaddafi was disavowed by the publication of a report by the Human Rights Watch mission to investigate the situation of the victims of Gaddafi’s troops at Misurata (the world’s media has repeated every day that there are many thousands of such victims among civilians in the words of “representatives of the rebels”). (Boston Globe 04.14.2011)
It turned out that the Human Rights Watch mission counted that in two months of war, 257 were killed and 949 were wounded in Misurata, and among the wounded there were only 22 women. This would have been completely impossible in the event of bombing civilians – in this case among the wounded there would have been many children and roughly an equal number of women and men. However, what is again remarkable and proves the existence of a coordinated disinformation campaign against the Libyan government is that neither the Human Rights Watch report nor the Boston Globe article appeared in the mainstream press and television. The world’s media in the days that followed just as assiduously repeated the “messages of the Libyan opposition” about the hundreds and thousands of Gaddafi victims among the civilian population. On April 18th, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton said that the EU countries had agreed to send ground troops to Libya for the protection of humanitarian convoys, “if so requested by the UN”. She stressed that these troops would not participate in hostilities and thus do not violate the UN Security Council resolution. (ITAR-TASS  04.18.2011). On April 19th, coalition aircraft began to carry out missile and bomb strikes on the central areas of Tripoli and other towns under the control of Gaddafi “with the aim to protect civilians”.  (ITAR-TASS 04.20-22.2011)
On April 21st, Barack Obama sanctioned the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with missile weapons in operations against Gaddafi. (The Washington Post 04.21.2011) On April 22nd, U.S. Senator John McCain arrived in Benghazi and urged the U.S.A. and other countries around the world to immediately recognize the “Transitional National Council” of the rebels as the only legitimate authority in Libya, to provide it with all the frozen assets of the Libyan Government, to increase air strikes on Gaddafi, and to intensify training of insurgents and the supply of weapons to them. (The Associated Press 04.22.2011).
On the same day, the Sarkozy administration announced its intention to unfreeze “Gaddafi’s assets” and to begin funding the Libyan opposition with them. (Reuters 04.22.2011).
Also on the same day, Gaddafi’s troops left Misurata; moreover Gaddafi invited representatives of the local tribes to negotiate themselves with the rebels for surrender, or to fight them themselves. (AFP 04.22.2011) 
On April 23rd, fighting in Misurata resumed and NATO aircraft bombed the central districts and suburbs of Tripoli. On April 24th, NATO undertook missile and bomb strikes on the Libyan government administrative complex, Bab al-Azizia, in the heart of Tripoli, which were the most powerful since the war began. According to reports by journalists in Tripoli, one of the buildings in the complex was destroyed and the others were badly damaged. More than 45 people were injured, 15 of them seriously, and all three state TV channels stopped broadcasting for an hour. (Reuters 04.25.2011; RBCdaily 04.25.2011)
Also on the same day, the Italian La Stampa reported that Rome had sent groups of Special Forces to Libya to help the Benghazi rebels as early as a few weeks ago. On April 30th, both the “the interim government in Benghazi” and NATO leaders rejected another offer by Gaddafi to negotiate a truce without preliminary conditions (Reuters 04.30.2011), after which the firing on Misurata and rebel positions in Western Libya by Gaddafi’s military forces and the NATO bombing of Gaddafi’s forces continued. On the night of April 30th to May 1st, as a result of NATO bombing of one of the residences of Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli, his 29-year-old son, Saif al-Arab and Gaddafi’s three young grandchildren were killed: two year-old Carthage, the daughter of Hannibal Gaddafi; five-year Macura, daughter of Colonel Gaddafi’s daughter Aisha; and 15-month-old Saif Muhammad, Muhammad Gaddafi’s son, as well as several friends and neighbors. It is reported that Maummar Gaddafi himself and his wife were in the same residence, but were not affected (The WSJ 05.03.2011). Moreover, NATO officials stated that the target in their attack was not the Libyan leader or his family, but “military targets”. Mass demonstrations calling for revenge for the death of the Libyan leader’s son and grandchildren of Libyan leader have taken place on the Libyan territory controlled by Gaddafi. In Tripoli, the (long-closed) Embassies of the U.S.A., Britain and Italy were destroyed. Moreover, the Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister, Khaled Kaim, immediately apologized for the violation of diplomatic rules, saying that the police could not cope with the crowd, outraged by the NATO bombing and the deaths of the relatives of Libyan leader, and announced that the Libyan leadership will assess the damage inflicted on diplomatic missions and carry out repair restoration work (Reuters 05.02.2011).Against the backdrop of this “war”, a scandal between EU countries is unfolding over the reception of refugees from Libya, which are coming to Italy in a rising tide (mostly to Lampedusa). The matter has gone so far that in connection with the problem, France has initiated a review within the EU to suspend the Schengen agreements,  (Euronews 04.22.2011) which has been met with understanding and support not only by Italy, but also by Germany and a number of other countries. While the talk is of a “temporary” suspension of the Schengen open borders, some experts are already saying that this “temporary” measure may end up being indefinitely prolonged.

On the one hand, Qaddafi sponsored terrorism against the US for decades.  Recall Lockerbie?  Recall the Achille Lauro?  If any tinpot Turd World dictator had it coming, it was him.  If there was any living head of state the US owed this to, it was him.  He was a few decades overdue for a late-night visit from the Navy SEALS, for sure.

But.

That's not what Obama & Co. appear to have any interest in doing here.  Five Presidents have had a thousand opportunities to mount Qaddafi's head on one of the decorative iron spikes of the White House fence.  I can't tell, in fact, what the fuck their plan is, or what their objective is, or what they're trying to do.

Is this about the oil?  When Obama opened his big moronic mouth and blabbered about "the Arab spring" and stabbed long-time US ally Hosni Mubarak in the back, gasoline went up a dollar a gallon in the US in a week, and in case you dumbfucks missed anything, it is still up there.

Is this about terrorism?  The "rebels" we're arming and renting the US Navy out to, who want "democracy" in Libya are, in fact, the local franchise of the Moslem Brotherhood terrorist organization, of which Al-Qaeda is a splinter group.  This has been known for years.  This isn't the first time Al-Qaeda has tried to overthrow governments in North Africa for not being anti-Western enough.

Is this about a long-delayed revenge on Qaddafi?  Why'd Obama dither and blither and bluster and stand around with his dick in his hand and his thumb up his ass for weeks, and let him go into hiding, then, instead of sending DEVGRU to whack him when all this started this spring?

Maybe Obama was just bored.  He looks like he's not having fun as President, don't you think?  He looks like a spoiled kid who cried and cried and whined and whined for an expensive toy, then got it, only to learn it wasn't as much fun as the TV commercials made it look.  Jesus fucking Christ.  Remember when we had adults in the White House?

Gaddafi is a better leader than Obama. That is the scary truth.

I wonder if Gaddafi will outlast Obama?

>>184
Go back to bed, Lizzie.

>>185
>He was a few decades overdue for a late-night visit from the Navy SEALS, for sure.
They have tried.  The current resolution prevented them from trying again when the revolution kicked off.

>>188
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvpfkUyBqE&NR=1

>>185 On the one hand, USA sponsored terrorism against the USSR for decades.  Recall Afghanistan (1979-1989)? Yugoslavia (radical groups in bosnian war)? Chechnya?

>USA sponsored terrorism

Your moral equivalence is hypocritically delicious.

>>191
Oh, yeah right, they were supporting free spirited souls (mujahidin) in the fight against “blood thirsty” communism. And that’s not hypocritical at all!!!!!

>>192
You do understand that the Russians were invading Afghanistan to conquer it? You  do realize that was in fact an actual war? You DO know that, right.

That's a bit different from murdering and targeting civilians for political reasons and you SHOULD know that. Nothing obviously fucking retarded about missing those minor points.

Hypocrite...

>>193
You do realise that Afghanistan under communism could have been a much better place than nowadays fundamental islamistic shithole, selling drugs and producing terrorists?

Not if the Northern Alliance guys took power from the beginning instead of the Taliban.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1313949781/7

Read this!
http://pastebin.com/JMX9NvYH