Gaddafi Was Sexually Assaulted Before Death

Next on the list:

Assad

Ahmenidijad

Erdogan

and then... the UN

Next on the list:

Assad

Ahmenidijad

Erdogan

and then... the UN

Next on the list:

Assad

Ahmenidijad

Erdogan

and then... the UN

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

I would be more angry at 20%+ unemployment, large amounts of poverty, and economic neglect, as well as people reposting blatant lies on the Internet.

Frame_Dragger

Sounds like US in a few years.

And we get blatant lies on the Internet every time CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. publish anything on their websites.

People here in OT are too steeped in MSM propaganda to be able to recognize the truth.

I recommend Information Clearing House as a more reliable source. Any essay on the Libyan conflict that you read there will contain more truth than anything you'd read on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I never stated that the "media and the internet" represent a grand conspiracy of lies.

My contention is that the mainstream media (as epitomized by Rupert Murdoch's vile outlets, for example) cannot be trusted to tell THE TRUTH.

Here, on C-SPAN, Murdoch himself admits trying to influence public opinion in support of the invasion of Iraq: VIDEO

Perhaps you can explain why, in the wake of the New York Times' false stories about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, you would attach more credibility to the mainstream media than to the essays referenced by a site like ICH?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

Sounds like US in a few years.

And we get blatant lies on the Internet every time CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. publish anything on their websites.

People here in OT are too steeped in MSM propaganda to be able to recognize the truth.

I recommend Information Clearing House as a more reliable source. Any essay on the Libyan conflict that you read there will contain more truth than anything you'd read on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I never stated that the "media and the internet" represent a grand conspiracy of lies.

My contention is that the mainstream media (as epitomized by Rupert Murdoch's vile outlets, for example) cannot be trusted to tell THE TRUTH.

Here, on C-SPAN, Murdoch himself admits trying to influence public opinion in support of the invasion of Iraq: VIDEO

Perhaps you can explain why, in the wake of the New York Times' false stories about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, you would attach more credibility to the mainstream media than to the essays referenced by a site like ICH?

I'm still trying to figure out why ANYONE tries to reason with Harisemo. On3ShotOneKill

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]I'm still trying to figure out why ANYONE tries to reason with Harisemo. Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]I'm still trying to figure out why ANYONE tries to reason with Harisemo. On3ShotOneKill

they don't call him a dicktator for nothinglonewolf604

:P

Next on the list:

Assad

Ahmenidijad

Erdogan

and then... the UN

I wonder if this could enter popular slang.

i.e. I got 'Gaddafi ducked' last night.

Next on the list:

Assad

Ahmenidijad

Erdogan

and then... the UN

I wonder if this could enter popular slang.

i.e. I got 'Gaddafi ducked' last night.

i hope he suffered before his death,i don't care how.

The true measure of an individual is not based on how he treats his friends, but his enemies. The Libyans have dishonored themselves and their movement with this kind of behavior.

I dont need to know this.

I dont need to know this.

sonicare

i hope he suffered before his death,i don't care how.

VaguelyTagged

What did he ever do to you? :|

I wonder why it is that you're such a cheerleader for US/NATO intervention aimed at installing puppet regimes in oil rich countries when even a superficial knowledge of your own country's history should reveal the extent to which YOU'RE suffering on account of the practice.

Iran had a secular, popularly-elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh until the British and Americans toppled him in favour of the Shah, for no reason other than that Mosaddegh threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry and export the country's most valuable resource on Iranian terms.

Resentment of the Shah paved the way for the Ayatollahs, who probably wouldn't have had their theocracy if the CIA and MI5 hadn't meddled in Iranian affairs.

Now pretty much the same thing is happening in Libya:

Gaddafi too led a secular regime.

Gaddafi too made the mistake of threatening to nationalize his own country's oil industry.

Gaddafi too was toppled by the British and the Americans, this time with the French and other NATO countries joining the gang rape.

And now Libya faces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with Sharia to form the basis of law and influential Islamists already insisting that they're not answerable to the Western puppets in the Libyan NTC.

All of which begs the question of why somebody who purportedly hates the Ayatollahs and craves a secular government is so happy to see NATO greed crushing secular governments and sowing the seeds of future theocracies.

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

i hope he suffered before his death,i don't care how.

Stesilaus

What did he ever do to you? :|

I wonder why it is that you're such a cheerleader for US/NATO intervention aimed at installing puppet regimes in oil rich countries when even a superficial knowledge of your own country's history should reveal the extent to which YOU'RE suffering on account of the practice.

Iran had a secular, popularly-elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh until the British and Americans toppled him in favour of the Shah, for no reason other than that Mosaddegh threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry and export the country's most valuable resource on Iranian terms.

Resentment of the Shah paved the way for the Ayatollahs, who probably wouldn't have had their theocracy if the CIA and MI5 hadn't meddled in Iranian affairs.

Now pretty much the same thing is happening in Libya:

Gaddafi too led a secular regime.

Gaddafi too made the mistake of threatening to nationalize his own country's oil industry.

Gaddafi too was toppled by the British and the Americans, this time with the French and other NATO countries joining the gang rape.

And now Libya faces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with Sharia to form the basis of law and influential Islamists already insisting that they're not answerable to the Western puppets in the Libyan NTC.

All of which begs the question of why somebody who purportedly hates the Ayatollahs and craves a secular government is so happy to see NATO greed crushing secular governments and sowing the seeds of future theocracies.

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

i hope he suffered before his death,i don't care how.

VaguelyTagged

What did he ever do to you? :|

I wonder why it is that you're such a cheerleader for US/NATO intervention aimed at installing puppet regimes in oil rich countries when even a superficial knowledge of your own country's history should reveal the extent to which YOU'RE suffering on account of the practice.

Iran had a secular, popularly-elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh until the British and Americans toppled him in favour of the Shah, for no reason other than that Mosaddegh threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry and export the country's most valuable resource on Iranian terms.

Resentment of the Shah paved the way for the Ayatollahs, who probably wouldn't have had their theocracy if the CIA and MI5 hadn't meddled in Iranian affairs.

Now pretty much the same thing is happening in Libya:

Gaddafi too led a secular regime.

Gaddafi too made the mistake of threatening to nationalize his own country's oil industry.

Gaddafi too was toppled by the British and the Americans, this time with the French and other NATO countries joining the gang rape.

And now Libya faces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with Sharia to form the basis of law and influential Islamists already insisting that they're not answerable to the Western puppets in the Libyan NTC.

All of which begs the question of why somebody who purportedly hates the Ayatollahs and craves a secular government is so happy to see NATO greed crushing secular governments and sowing the seeds of future theocracies.

I'm not trying to antagonize you (or anybody else for that matter).

I really do wonder why you seem so willing to cheer the CIA's handiwork, even though you claim to hate dictatorships and even though the CIA has installed so many dictators, purely for economic gain.

You seem to think Muhammad Reza Shah was a more benign sort of dictator than Gaddafi. Fine. Was he more benign than Mosaddegh?

Are you aware that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator who waged war against your country, was also installed by the CIA?

And what about General Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza and Pol Pot? Were those dictators also more benign than Gaddafi because they were supported in one measure or another by the CIA?

The true measure of an individual is not based on how he treats his friends, but his enemies. The Libyans have dishonored themselves and their movement with this kind of behavior.

EntropyWins

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

i hope he suffered before his death,i don't care how.

VaguelyTagged

What did he ever do to you? :|

I wonder why it is that you're such a cheerleader for US/NATO intervention aimed at installing puppet regimes in oil rich countries when even a superficial knowledge of your own country's history should reveal the extent to which YOU'RE suffering on account of the practice.

Iran had a secular, popularly-elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh until the British and Americans toppled him in favour of the Shah, for no reason other than that Mosaddegh threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry and export the country's most valuable resource on Iranian terms.

Resentment of the Shah paved the way for the Ayatollahs, who probably wouldn't have had their theocracy if the CIA and MI5 hadn't meddled in Iranian affairs.

Now pretty much the same thing is happening in Libya:

Gaddafi too led a secular regime.

Gaddafi too made the mistake of threatening to nationalize his own country's oil industry.

Gaddafi too was toppled by the British and the Americans, this time with the French and other NATO countries joining the gang rape.

And now Libya faces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with Sharia to form the basis of law and influential Islamists already insisting that they're not answerable to the Western puppets in the Libyan NTC.

All of which begs the question of why somebody who purportedly hates the Ayatollahs and craves a secular government is so happy to see NATO greed crushing secular governments and sowing the seeds of future theocracies.

Uh the Shah was quite brutal himself as well as corrupt.. He not only tortured and killed numerous people with his secret police but he literally sent the country back 100 years at his removal..

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

What did he ever do to you? :|

I wonder why it is that you're such a cheerleader for US/NATO intervention aimed at installing puppet regimes in oil rich countries when even a superficial knowledge of your own country's history should reveal the extent to which YOU'RE suffering on account of the practice.

Iran had a secular, popularly-elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh until the British and Americans toppled him in favour of the Shah, for no reason other than that Mosaddegh threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry and export the country's most valuable resource on Iranian terms.

Resentment of the Shah paved the way for the Ayatollahs, who probably wouldn't have had their theocracy if the CIA and MI5 hadn't meddled in Iranian affairs.

Now pretty much the same thing is happening in Libya:

Gaddafi too led a secular regime.

Gaddafi too made the mistake of threatening to nationalize his own country's oil industry.

Gaddafi too was toppled by the British and the Americans, this time with the French and other NATO countries joining the gang rape.

And now Libya faces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with Sharia to form the basis of law and influential Islamists already insisting that they're not answerable to the Western puppets in the Libyan NTC.

All of which begs the question of why somebody who purportedly hates the Ayatollahs and craves a secular government is so happy to see NATO greed crushing secular governments and sowing the seeds of future theocracies.

Stesilaus

I'm not trying to antagonize you (or anybody else for that matter).

I really do wonder why you seem so willing to cheer the CIA's handiwork, even though you claim to hate dictatorships and even though the CIA has installed so many dictators, purely for economic gain.

You seem to think Muhammad Reza Shah was a more benign sort of dictator than Gaddafi. Fine. Was he more benign than Mosaddegh?

Are you aware that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator who waged war against your country, was also installed by the CIA?

And what about General Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza and Pol Pot? Were those dictators also more benign than Gaddafi because they were supported in one measure or another by the CIA?

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

What did he ever do to you? :|

I wonder why it is that you're such a cheerleader for US/NATO intervention aimed at installing puppet regimes in oil rich countries when even a superficial knowledge of your own country's history should reveal the extent to which YOU'RE suffering on account of the practice.

Iran had a secular, popularly-elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh until the British and Americans toppled him in favour of the Shah, for no reason other than that Mosaddegh threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry and export the country's most valuable resource on Iranian terms.

Resentment of the Shah paved the way for the Ayatollahs, who probably wouldn't have had their theocracy if the CIA and MI5 hadn't meddled in Iranian affairs.

Now pretty much the same thing is happening in Libya:

Gaddafi too led a secular regime.

Gaddafi too made the mistake of threatening to nationalize his own country's oil industry.

Gaddafi too was toppled by the British and the Americans, this time with the French and other NATO countries joining the gang rape.

And now Libya faces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with Sharia to form the basis of law and influential Islamists already insisting that they're not answerable to the Western puppets in the Libyan NTC.

All of which begs the question of why somebody who purportedly hates the Ayatollahs and craves a secular government is so happy to see NATO greed crushing secular governments and sowing the seeds of future theocracies.

sSubZerOo

Uh the Shah was quite brutal himself as well as corrupt.. He not only tortured and killed numerous people with his secret police but he literally sent the country back 100 years at his removal..

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"] i know my history lessons so please cut it.also i hate all forms dictatorship can shape itself to,hence i don't necessarily support any secular regime just for the sake of being secular,also stop comparing a savage lunatic piece of turd like qaddafi to muhammad reza shah,jus because they were both dictators doesn't mean they are anything similar.VaguelyTagged

I'm not trying to antagonize you (or anybody else for that matter).

I really do wonder why you seem so willing to cheer the CIA's handiwork, even though you claim to hate dictatorships and even though the CIA has installed so many dictators, purely for economic gain.

You seem to think Muhammad Reza Shah was a more benign sort of dictator than Gaddafi. Fine. Was he more benign than Mosaddegh?

Are you aware that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator who waged war against your country, was also installed by the CIA?

And what about General Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza and Pol Pot? Were those dictators also more benign than Gaddafi because they were supported in one measure or another by the CIA?

Well the sort of regime that NATO has in mind for Iran won't be handing out any big slices of cake to Iranians either---except to themselves, of course.

Sad as it is to say, Iran is unlikely to see any sort of leader who DOES share his country's oil wealth with his people. That's just not the sort of leader that the West wants, so no such leader would last very long.

You should consider emigrating. Norway would be a good choice: Plenty of North Sea oil and a government that does spend its oil wealth on the betterment of its people.

Of course, if the EU economic crisis becomes too severe and Norway is seen to be hoarding its oil wealth instead of using it to bail out the EU, then regime change will be necessary in Norway too. But that's fairly unlikely ... for now.

At least Ghadafi had some balls and stayed to the end (almost)

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

What did he ever do to you? :|

I wonder why it is that you're such a cheerleader for US/NATO intervention aimed at installing puppet regimes in oil rich countries when even a superficial knowledge of your own country's history should reveal the extent to which YOU'RE suffering on account of the practice.

Iran had a secular, popularly-elected government under Mohammad Mosaddegh until the British and Americans toppled him in favour of the Shah, for no reason other than that Mosaddegh threatened to nationalize Iran's oil industry and export the country's most valuable resource on Iranian terms.

Resentment of the Shah paved the way for the Ayatollahs, who probably wouldn't have had their theocracy if the CIA and MI5 hadn't meddled in Iranian affairs.

Now pretty much the same thing is happening in Libya:

Gaddafi too led a secular regime.

Gaddafi too made the mistake of threatening to nationalize his own country's oil industry.

Gaddafi too was toppled by the British and the Americans, this time with the French and other NATO countries joining the gang rape.

And now Libya faces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with Sharia to form the basis of law and influential Islamists already insisting that they're not answerable to the Western puppets in the Libyan NTC.

All of which begs the question of why somebody who purportedly hates the Ayatollahs and craves a secular government is so happy to see NATO greed crushing secular governments and sowing the seeds of future theocracies.

I'm not trying to antagonize you (or anybody else for that matter).

I really do wonder why you seem so willing to cheer the CIA's handiwork, even though you claim to hate dictatorships and even though the CIA has installed so many dictators, purely for economic gain.

You seem to think Muhammad Reza Shah was a more benign sort of dictator than Gaddafi. Fine. Was he more benign than Mosaddegh?

Are you aware that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator who waged war against your country, was also installed by the CIA?

And what about General Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza and Pol Pot? Were those dictators also more benign than Gaddafi because they were supported in one measure or another by the CIA?

i know my history lessons so please cut it.also i hate all forms dictatorship can shape itself to,hence i don't necessarily support any secular regime just for the sake of being secular,also stop comparing a savage lunatic piece of turd like qaddafi to muhammad reza shah,jus because they were both dictators doesn't mean they are anything similar.VaguelyTagged

I'm not trying to antagonize you (or anybody else for that matter).

I really do wonder why you seem so willing to cheer the CIA's handiwork, even though you claim to hate dictatorships and even though the CIA has installed so many dictators, purely for economic gain.

You seem to think Muhammad Reza Shah was a more benign sort of dictator than Gaddafi. Fine. Was he more benign than Mosaddegh?

Are you aware that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator who waged war against your country, was also installed by the CIA?

And what about General Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza and Pol Pot? Were those dictators also more benign than Gaddafi because they were supported in one measure or another by the CIA?

damn man, he was dead...why stick that up his butt?:?

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

I would be more angry at 20%+ unemployment, large amounts of poverty, and economic neglect, as well as people reposting blatant lies on the Internet.

Frame_Dragger

Sounds like US in a few years.

And we get blatant lies on the Internet every time CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. publish anything on their websites.

People here in OT are too steeped in MSM propaganda to be able to recognize the truth.

I recommend Information Clearing House as a more reliable source. Any essay on the Libyan conflict that you read there will contain more truth than anything you'd read on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Some people it seems pride themselves in taking a contrarian stance, even when the facts are quite clear and well established and there is little reason to.Stesilaus can't seem to comprehend that Gaddafi's regime lost, even though the tactical situation was clearly in its favor and few analysts ever expected the rebels to prevail in a decisive military victory as quickly as they did, even with air / proxy backup (which was relatively light compared to other conflicts to begin with). He can't accept that Gaddafi's popular support and hold on power were clearly not that strong, and that there was little will to fight, despite having control of at least 60% of the population for most of the conflict, most heavy military hardware, having distributed at least 1 million weapons to what were claimed as supporters, and essentially squaring off against militias made up of men that had mostly never held a gun in their lives. Surely, a man loved so much for his generosity could rally a better power base in the face of clearly malevolent foreign aggression.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

Sounds like US in a few years.

And we get blatant lies on the Internet every time CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. publish anything on their websites.

People here in OT are too steeped in MSM propaganda to be able to recognize the truth.

I recommend Information Clearing House as a more reliable source. Any essay on the Libyan conflict that you read there will contain more truth than anything you'd read on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

jetpower3

Some people it seems pride themselves in taking a contrarian stance, even when the facts are quite clear and well established and there is little reason to.Stesilaus can't seem to comprehend that Gaddafi's regime lost, even though the tactical situation was clearly in its favor and few analysts ever expected the rebels to prevail in a decisive military victory as quickly as they did, even with air / proxy backup (which was relatively light compared to other conflicts to begin with). He can't accept that Gaddafi's popular support and hold on power were clearly not that strong, and that there was little will to fight, despite having control of at least 60% of the population for most of the conflict, most heavy military hardware, having distributed at least 1 million weapons to what were claimed as supporters, and essentially squaring off against militias made up of men that had mostly never held a gun in their lives. Surely, a man loved so much for his generosity could rally a better power base in the face of clearly malevolent foreign aggression.

Lest I once again be accused of citing sources on the lunatic fringe, I'll quote well-established history this time.

I see NATO's overthrow of Gaddafi's regime as somewhat comparable to Hernán Cortés' conquest of the Aztecs.

Then too, the odds seemed unlikely: A couple of hundred Spanish conquistadors against the entire Aztec empire. Cortés' strategem was to ally with tribes that were already at war with the Aztecs (most notably the Tlaxcala) and use the superior technology of firearms, crossbows, steel blades and steel armour to give his allies a crucial edge in the ensuing battles.

Libya too is a country of many tribes, some of which deemed themselves Gaddafi's enemies. Substitute Gaddafi for Montezuma, the Benghazi traitors for the Tlaxcala and NATO air power for Spanish steel and the parallels seem quite obvious.

Parallels are also evident in the real motives for the overthrows and in the grandiose lies that were told to justify them. For the conquistadors, a desire to "spread Christianity" masked a banal greed for gold. For NATO, the "responsibility to protect" masked a banal greed for oil.

As for the apparent absurdity of my stance on the Libyan conflict: If it were as daft as Frame_Dragger suggests, then he wouldn't care. He'd just chuckle, shake his head and move on. But the very alacrity with which he attacks my postings suggests to me that he secretly finds them credible enough to discomfit him. :P

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

That is one of the sorriest sources of ANYTHING except lulz I've ever seen, and I wish GS offered us the freedom to express just how incredible it is that someone would even ADMIT to using it. You might as well cite David Icke's (not the mod) site... I mean **** man. You're perliously close to being "that guy" who puts "the truth" in caps every time the words are used. Still, I'm fascinated as to why you think that media and the internet represents a grand conspiracy of lies on one hand, but this pissant website you link to is allowed to exist. Doesn't the inherently contradictory nature of your beliefs EVER grab you, even for a moment, or did that ship sail years ago?Frame_Dragger

Some people it seems pride themselves in taking a contrarian stance, even when the facts are quite clear and well established and there is little reason to.Stesilaus can't seem to comprehend that Gaddafi's regime lost, even though the tactical situation was clearly in its favor and few analysts ever expected the rebels to prevail in a decisive military victory as quickly as they did, even with air / proxy backup (which was relatively light compared to other conflicts to begin with). He can't accept that Gaddafi's popular support and hold on power were clearly not that strong, and that there was little will to fight, despite having control of at least 60% of the population for most of the conflict, most heavy military hardware, having distributed at least 1 million weapons to what were claimed as supporters, and essentially squaring off against militias made up of men that had mostly never held a gun in their lives. Surely, a man loved so much for his generosity could rally a better power base in the face of clearly malevolent foreign aggression.

Lest I once again be accused of citing sources on the lunatic fringe, I'll quote well-established history this time.

I see NATO's overthrow of Gaddafi's regime as somewhat comparable to Hernán Cortés' conquest of the Aztecs.

Then too, the odds seemed unlikely: A couple of hundred Spanish conquistadors against the entire Aztec empire. Cortés' strategem was to ally with tribes that were already at war with the Aztecs (most notably the Tlaxcala) and use the superior technology of firearms, crossbows, steel blades and steel armour to give his allies a crucial edge in the ensuing battles.

Libya too is a country of many tribes, some of which deemed themselves Gaddafi's enemies. Substitute Gaddafi for Montezuma, the Benghazi traitors for the Tlaxcala and NATO air power for Spanish steel and the parallels seem quite obvious.

Parallels are also evident in the real motives for the overthrows and in the grandiose lies that were told to justify them. For the conquistadors, a desire to "spread Christianity" masked a banal greed for gold. For NATO, the "responsibility to protect" masked a banal greed for oil.

As for the apparent absurdity of my stance on the Libyan conflict: If it were as daft as Frame_Dragger suggests, then he wouldn't care. He'd just chuckle, shake his head and move on. But the very alacrity with which he attacks my postings suggests to me that he secretly finds them credible enough to discomfit him. :P

that is quite disturbing

that is quite disturbing

killerband55

Exactly who the f*** would tap that?

Exactly who the f*** would tap that?

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

Checking on news of this, it's on... 2 sites... and Gamespot is the sixth google search result. I'm highly skeptical.

Bane_09

Yeah I just tried looking this up and it doesn't seem very reliable.... I managed to find a video but I'm kind of scared to watch it

Just a question to all those b******* about Western/Nato involvement in removing Quadaffi

Do you think the West would need to get involved if you were actually capable of selecting someone to run your country who wasn't corrupt, or had policies that were diversive among sectarian/political/religious lines.

The fact is the middle east is screwed up because of all the back biting and in fighting between different sections of your society, you blame us, well we blame you for not getting your own house in order and asking us to help but them blaming us when we do.

Saw the video and I'm not sure if it's "kinda funny."

It is a bit disturbing. Rusteater

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You're talking to someone who has made it clear he thinks this whole thing was a western plot, Qaddafi was a fine leader, and the Libyans involved were... well... he already said that. I wouldn't waste your time with anything like reason.

Checking on news of this, it's on... 2 sites... and Gamespot is the sixth google search result. I'm highly skeptical.

jetpower3

It would be astoundingly naive to believe that the toppling of Gaddafi was anything OTHER than the outcome of a Western plot.

I'm sorry if it seems incredibly far fetched to think that this was not a natural extension of the Arab Spring and the culmination of years of chronic political and economic problems all over the region, unless you are implying that is all a western plot as well.

Of course it was a Western plot. The CIA is everywhere, Oswald was a patsy, and the economic crash was propagated by the US Government.

Duh, Gaddafi was totally a good guy, what with ruining his country and making people hate him and all.

Let's not forget that Gaddafi pretty much assured freedom for the guy who blew up Flight Pan Am 103. This guy got to live his last days free living in a mega mansion filled with marble while most Libyans scraped by. No matter what anybody says, Libya should be one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, but Gadaffi lined his pockets and ruled a classic dictatorship regime. I would have liked him to stand trial but can't really blame the people who witnessed him deploy the army on protesters.

Let's not forget that Gaddafi pretty much assured freedom for the guy who blew up Flight Pan Am 103. This guy got to live his last days free living in a mega mansion filled with marble while most Libyans scraped by. No matter what anybody says, Libya should be one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, but Gadaffi lined his pockets and ruled a classic dictatorship regime. I would have liked him to stand trial but can't really blame the people who witnessed him deploy the army on protesters.

ZombieJesus007

[QUOTE="ZombieJesus007"]

Let's not forget that Gaddafi pretty much assured freedom for the guy who blew up Flight Pan Am 103. This guy got to live his last days free living in a mega mansion filled with marble while most Libyans scraped by. No matter what anybody says, Libya should be one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, but Gadaffi lined his pockets and ruled a classic dictatorship regime. I would have liked him to stand trial but can't really blame the people who witnessed him deploy the army on protesters.

weezyfb

Correlation vs. causation is an important distinction to make. Did Libya do better because of Gaddafi (who was no stranger to nepotism and grandiosity), or because of the full bloom in oil production and prices that just happened to coincide with him seizing control?

Either way however, there are no excuses for the massive problems that existed under his rule, even if it did do "much better" than before. Uprisings and wars like this may seem surprising at times, but not much so when you look at how resentment/strife builds and eventually boils over (maybe with the help of a catalyst like the larger Arab Spring).

I thought it said "Gandhi".