Gaddafi dead

They showed a VERY graphic video of his body being stripped and beaten by the Libyan people. Hard to watch, even when it's someone so evil.

I am a bit on the fence about this,yes evil man but what are people displaying by doing this to him,killing him is one thing but the savage beating? I am not sure what to think,I do however think though that for killing him there will be some kind of revenge probably from his people like.It kind of puzzles me.x

That's crazy. That's not human behavior. Shame on anyone who was a part of that IMHO. Just amazes me what hatred can do to a human soul.

While I do agree with you, I'm sure we cannot begin to imagine the atrocities that he committed against his own people. I think he was shot to death before the beatings, but in one video he's clearly alive.

I am glad he's gone, but it wasn't done the right way. Even shooting a person is not that bad, IMO, if he's the criminal that we know Gaddafi was, but the beating was truly disturbing.

I admire the Libyan people for standing up for themselves and trying to free their country from dictatorship. I believe that's how it should be; not having other countries come in and wage wars and drop bombs.

However, I can't support or condone the mob mentality displayed by those in the end. It wasn't enough to kill the man, but they had to savagely beat him, take pictures/videos of it, and celebrate having done so. That makes them no better than he was.

Yes, he was a very evil man, but he was also a human being, and despite what he's done, I'm saddened by how he died in the end.

I saw some of the footage as I was at the gym this morning. The picture of him in the morgue was just gross IMHO. The pictures of him being beaten on the Today show made me just shut the thing off (I was waiting for Coldplay )

So my question is this. Do you think this makes the people who did this to him just as bad as he was?

I was in college when the airplane to Lockerbie was shot down. In fact- I went on a plane to Europe about a week later. My parents were nervous to say the least, but I'd paid for this trip out of my OWN money, and it was an experience of a lifetime.

He was a horrible man. Who did horrible things to many people over the years. But IMHO I think justice would have better been served if they had captured him alive and put him on trial. Just like they should have done to Bin Ladin.

Cheryl

That is a nice fantasy, but unfortunately last I checked, France is not part of Libya, and Mirage jets are the ones that destroyed all the tanks by dropping bombs and blocked Qaddafi's escape all but handing him over to the rebels. The rebel forces never would have stood a chance and would have been in a very extended conflict without Western intervention and arms trafficking. The idea that they "liberated" themselves was merely for show; he was deposed by the West for no longer being able to effectively subjugate his people and keep the oilfields running at reasonable prices and like Iraq he threatened to nationalize the oil reserves and no longer trade in the USD.

After all, prior to that he had already admitted to being a terrorist, cruelty was nothing new in his 40yr rule, and Germany, France, and the UK were continuing to sell him millions in weaponry.

The only thing holding Libya together was Qaddafi, by way of being a common foe. Now that shared enemy is gone, there is nothing holding the different religious and ethnic groups together, and in-fighting is in store for the country, as the Muslim brotherhood spearheaded by confirmed ex-Al Queda operatives that have fought and killed US soldiers and other extremists fill the vacuum left behind.

All of this really wouldn't bother me, if the Western nations were at least honest and stopped pretending the intervention was for humanitarian reasons rather than the obvious issue of just controlling the oilfields and ensuring "the spice continues to flow". At least when the Roman Empire sent their legions and made you a vassal state to gain access to your land's resources, they weren't pretentious about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...82L_story.html

I saw the beating on the Today show too. They also showed the moment he was shot. A lot of blood suddenly appeared, and he put his hand up to his head and touched it.

I agree. NATO played a critical support role but it was the Libyan people who did the heavy lifting, and dying. They deserve full credit for freeing themselves from a brutal dictator.

I wouldn't be too harsh with regards to the people who killed him. Anger is a powerful emotion and he gave them *plenty* of reason for anger.

BTW, something else I just found.

Just prior to the NATO bombing campaign, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...-HRC-16-15.pdf

And videos of the Libyan people protesting the rebels and NATO, making it clear that not 100% of the population welcomed change as Western media outlets imply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqaQ8...eature=related

Which is not surprising, as these guys were terrorists rampaging with rocket launchers in the street. Would you want them toppling your government, even if you knew about atrocities against the dictator's enemies, if you feared the alternative was worse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html

Its also said that the rebels have already setup a new central bank to replace the government's state-run system, which is highly unlikely simple rebels would have the expertise to accomplish, meaning its Western influence setting this up "on their behalf".

This provides a more balanced view of the man IMO:
http://www.time.com/time/photogaller...920998,00.html

A violent and brutal dictator from an impoverished tribal childhood without a doubt, but also someone that used oil revenues to heavily subsidize food, nearly free water with large projects to provide for even the poorest remote tribes, very cheap gas around 15cents, and essentially free electricity, healthcare, and education for all, and during his rule life expectancy lept from 51yrs to over 74yrs and from a mostly illiterate society to literacy rates of nearly 90% with close to a quarter of the population college educated. Women were given equal rights, and in the 2007-2008 school year, women enrolled in universities outnumbered men significantly. Under the highly conservative rebels forces, many of whom are Al Qaeda, it is unlikely that women will have any more rights than they do in Afghanistan.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...qaddafi/43966/

All i'll say is "You reap what you sow". Yes it was awful to watch but l just reminded myself of what he did

After the life he lead, it was the only possible ending for him.

Thank you. That's what I meant. They didn't sit there like some other countries in recent years and let other countries come in and wage the war for them. The Libyan people did it almost entirely by themselves. What started out as protests resulted in them freeing themselves 8 months later. Other opressed countries need to look at Libya as a role model on what can be accomplished when people come together and work toward a common goal.

Yes, it might have been easier to sit back and let the US, Canada, UK, France and whomever else would send in the troups, to have their freedom won by other people, but the fact that they pretty much did it on their own, gives them something to be very proud of, even if many died in the battle. They made it better for future generations.

Have you seen the "Libyan" forces "tank"?

It was a motorized dumpster reinforced with concrete.

This war was won by the forces that took out Gaddafis heavy weapons, airforce, tanks, bases, and supplied the rebels with intel and weaponry, and cut off his retreat. And it was a war for oil. Don't get me wrong, I know that Europe is dependent on that oil, and my quality of life would not be possible if the oil flow were to stop. But lets at least be honest about it.

And regarding the "Libyan people" rising up, since when are Libyan people Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and the like as many of the rebels were? What about all the youtube videos showing Libyan royalist civilians protesting the NATO and rebel invasion?

To say that all Libyans wanted a regime change is to say that all Americans are against Barack Obama. The majority of America is, yes, but there are still plenty of supporters. Even Adolph Hitler had PLENTY of loyalists in Germany (including some of my relatives that proudly wore the Swastika and joined the army), and he was throwing people like my grandfather in a work camp and worse jews, homosexuals, and others in concentration death camps which makes Gaddafi seem like a softy by comparison.

Here are some of the loyalists, executed without trial btw:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...-new-dawn.html

And btw the leader of the rebel forces, he was killed by, yup, rebel forces. Libya is in the short term going to be much worse, and I see women losing all rights now that religious extremists are in power and will enact Sharia Law. Gaddafi was the only one really keeping them in check, and the European forces really don't care about that as long as the oilfields are safe.

I don't imagine it is easy to organize a revolt and keep it going for long enough to overthrow a government. I think what happened in Libya is a bit of a fluke and wouldn't expect it to happen elsewhere. No doubt it is alot more satisfying for the people though. They still have a struggle ahead of them in building a new government. Let's hope they can do it.

Since you seem to be missing my point entirely. Let's just agree to disagree, k?

I thought your point was that the Libyan people took out Gaddafi, so I was responding that there are clear mass demonstrations by Libyan civilians against the rebel forces and their religious extremist leadership and the airforce and tank regiments and other forces were taken out by NATO bombs not by rebels. There are warlords in Pakistan that could take over the government as well if the USA cut aid and used the airforce to take out the Pakistani government's military... doesn't mean Pakistan as a whole wanted it or achieved that feat, it would as an example have simply been a US led initiative to take out a foreign government by directed attack and support of anti-government forces.

If you had a different point, then I read it wrong.