Libyan Revolution Helmet Cam

[PELHAM 10]

Did you hear about the giant convoy that left lybia towards Nigeria? They think that Ghadaffi might be with this convoy

Ghadaffi isn't on it apparently, it's his mercenaries, family and truckloads of gold and cash to keep him in fancy dress in exile. He probably will not get time to spend though lol.

@ joogrr - any chance of a response to post #96?

[*LK1* 10]

I see you tolerate no dissent too? :D

There have been so many off topic posts, including many of yours, I don't think it matters any more. I think it's correct to challenge inconsistency don't you? I probably should have quoted it - quote added.

dude i was just pointing out that these considerations bring us to far. simply.:D

[PELHAM 10]

WTF ... nobody is expecting you to understand it buddy, least the Libyan people. It's obvious you didn't read the discussion prior to posting :j: All I see is a lot of speculations on your behalf and no references or sources to back it up. Don't even think about addressing me without properly reading the discussion first.

I don't see why I need sources for well established history but have added them below e.g Idi Amin and Gadaffi were such good friends Amin married Gads daughter! I read the discussion and you don't explain yourself and the 9/11 conspiracy rant wasn't really relevant so again.......

You said Jamahiriya was a democratic system?

Definition: Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.

As Jamahiriya works completely contradictory to this, I am a little confused and hoped you could explain why you think it's democratic.

Libya has been a 1 party state since the 70's, has never held elections and has 10-20% of the population employed in internal security 'monitoring' the general population and preventing dissent. People who formed a political party were executed, and talking about politics with foreigners was punishable by up to 3 years in jail.

Could you also explain why the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on 27 June 2011 for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah al-Senussi, concerning crimes against humanity. To issue an arrest warrant there must be convincing evidence of wrong doing. The ICC cites acts of "indiscriminate killings of civilians" and "trial for the murder and persecution of demonstrators by Libyan security forces since the uprising based in the country’s east that began in February."

Source for Gaddafi Elimination of dissent and campaign against Berber people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Elimination_of_dissent

Source for Gaddafi and international terrorism. It's a very long list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_under_Gaddafi#Gaddafi_and_international_terrorism

Source for Gaddafi's support of dictators, corrupt regimes, war criminals etc in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_under_Gaddafi#Africa

Edited September 8, 2011 by PELHAM

[b101_uk 10]

Could you also explain why the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on 27 June 2011 for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah al-Senussi, concerning crimes against humanity. To issue an arrest warrant there must be convincing evidence of wrong doing. The ICC cites acts of "indiscriminate killings of civilians" and "trial for the murder and persecution of demonstrators by Libyan security forces since the uprising based in the country’s east that began in February.

like any Criminal Court, if someone brings forward "evidence" no mater how floored or if it is uncontested etc etc they have to "be seen" to act, the request for appearance in its self is NO basis for assumed guilt or the voracity of ANY charge OR “evidenceâ€, just like ANY arrest warrant issued to compel court appearance in its self is worth NOTHING with respect to guilt or innocence.

If you were a jury member expressing the above like you have would be enough for you to be rightly removed from the jury, if you have ever served on a jury then one would have NO option but to question the end result.

Myself I have NO problem with a sovereign or country’s leader issuing an order to put down an illegal armed uprising, if the rebels have big weapons like WE ALL KNOW THEY HAD and IF THEY WISH TO HIDE IN TOWNS LIKE THEY DID then it is only natural that some innocent civilians WILL get in crossfire and the rebels are the ones who started this so ARE the ones to ultimately blame for deaths, if the rebels were extremely well dug in and using the civilian population in that town as a human shields then the most precision ordinance should be used and if non are available then that is just hard luck for innocent civilians who were being put in danger by the rebels in taking the positions they have.

The root cause of ALL the deaths in Libya are the rebels who ARE acting illegally and outside of that country’s laws, this is why they are referred to as rebels or if you want another name for them terrorists if you don’t gloss over the truth with spin your spoon feed.

I don’t have a problem with rebels being tortured, it was and is good enough for the US, UK and others to torture in the past 10 years in the seedy underhand ways they have especially the US or how they turned a blind eye to torcher by others who would then give the information to them.

You know in some country’s it falls to the sovereign or country’s leader to carry out execution, some allow summary execution for the highest capital offences like treason or other crimes against the state, some military law allows deserters to be shot by a commanding officer in a summary manner on the spot, so if you cut threw all the guff a rebel, a terrorist, a serving solder who has gone to the other side, people who have passed state or military information including whereabouts, force strength, weaponry, etc etc can all end up dead if captured as they will have ALL committed high state and military crimes so will be well beyond the scope of the ICC.

[st_dux 26]

The root cause of ALL the deaths in Libya are the rebels who ARE acting illegally and outside of that country’s laws, this is why they are referred to as rebels or if you want another name for them terrorists if you don’t gloss over the truth with spin your spoon feed.

A rebel is not the same thing as a terrorist. Look up both terms.

Where does all this support for Gaddafi come from anyway? I thought it was clear enough that he was an asshole dictator? It's only natural, particularly in this worldwide climate of revolution and change, that his people rose against him. I'm glad we picked to support the winning side (although I wish we hadn't been involved militarily).

[Daniel 0]

Illegal rebels. lol. That's what rebellions are for, dragging down the system and starting again. Internal laws don't apply when you're baying for your leader's blood. If only the poor souls on Syria were having as much luck.

[PELHAM 10]

like any Criminal Court, if someone brings forward "evidence" no mater how floored or if it is uncontested etc etc they have to "be seen" to act, the request for appearance in its self is NO basis for assumed guilt or the voracity of ANY charge OR “evidenceâ€, just like ANY arrest warrant issued to compel court appearance in its self is worth NOTHING with respect to guilt or innocence.

I didn't say he was guilty did I? To get an arrest warrant you need to provide substantial evidence of wrong doing. In the UK an arrest warrant can be issued if information (in writing) is laid before a judge or justice of the peace that a person has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence. Such arrest warrants can only be issued for someone over 18 if:

1-the offence to which the warrant relates is an indictable offence or is punishable with imprisonment, or

2-the person's address is not sufficiently established for a summons to be served on him. (e.g. you are on the run like Gaddafi)

You never know, when Gaddafi gets to trial we may find he is completely innocent, all these people may have shot, burned and buried themselves in mass graves.

Myself I have NO problem with a sovereign or country’s leader issuing an order to put down an illegal armed uprising,

Gaddafi isn't the sovereign leader, he claims he has no role in government and only offers "spiritual guidance to the people". What choice did they have apart from an uprising, it's not like they could vote for a change in government is it? Even saying you didn't like Gaddafi got you 3 years in prison which many did not survive.

if the rebels were extremely well dug in and using the civilian population in that town as a human shields then the most precision ordinance should be used and if non are available then that is just hard luck for innocent civilians who were being put in danger by the rebels in taking the positions they have.

The rebels are the population of the towns? They simply started fighting where they lived and defended their own property and families. Human shields? Utter nonsense.

The root cause of ALL the deaths in Libya are the rebels who ARE acting illegally and outside of that country’s laws, this is why they are referred to as rebels or if you want another name for them terrorists if you don’t gloss over the truth with spin your spoon feed.

Libyan laws were set up by 1 self appointed dictator who killed whoever he pleased both within his borders and across the entire world. There would be some legitimacy to what you say if Libya had a democratically elected government that passed laws in a democratic way, it never has. A law decreed by a dictator for his own benefit has no logical basis or moral standing.

You know in some country’s it falls to the sovereign or country’s leader to carry out execution, some allow summary execution for the highest capital offences like treason or other crimes against the state,

As far as I can tell anything Gaddafi didn't like was treasonous.

e.g. Joining a political party = execution

Talking to a foreigner about politics = 3 years imprisonment

Many of these executions were public, people were hung and shot in town squares or had their arms and legs chopped off. Pictures of this were transmitted on state television. Does this sound normal to you?

some military law allows deserters to be shot by a commanding officer in a summary manner on the spot, so if you cut threw all the guff a rebel, a terrorist, a serving solder who has gone to the other side, people who have passed state or military information including whereabouts, force strength, weaponry, etc etc can all end up dead if captured as they will have ALL committed high state and military crimes so will be well beyond the scope of the ICC.

Lol you have a very warped sense of justice. Do these people get a trial first or is it simply left at the discretion of the commanding officer to shoot anyone he pleases? Would you be happy to live in a country with a dictator that summarily executes anyone who shows the slightest disagreement?

Edited September 8, 2011 by PELHAM

[*LK1* 10]

A rebel is not the same thing as a terrorist. Look up both terms. Where does all this support for Gaddafi come from anyway?

we don't support gaddafi even if we don't want to demonize him. we don't to support bullshit neither, as a justification tool for any invasion.

I thought it was clear enough that he was an asshole dictator? It's only natural, particularly in this worldwide climate of revolution and change, that his people rose against him.

the point is not to clarify if he was a dictator. the point is "did he massacred his own people as some(not all of them) western media told us?"

amnesty int., human right watch and other no western media said there are no evidences of these massacres.

if you go back on this thread you'll find from where this "support" come from.

is probably the the fourth or fifth time we expose these facts :j:

smell like another dirty war which has nothing to do with the human rights.

NATO should collects credible evidences before starting a military campaign.

they act like a police officier who bring you in jail before you made anything just because you could be a sospicious guy.

[-Snafu- 78]

we don't support gaddafi even if we don't want to demonize him. we don't to support bullshit neither, as a justification tool for any invasion.

What invasion?

the point is not to clarify if he was a dictator. the point is "did he massacred his own people as some(not all of them) western media told us?"

amnesty int., human right watch and other no western media said there are no evidences of these massacres.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+libya&submitted=-1

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/31/libya-contact-group-put-rights-top-agenda

[st_dux 26]

smell like another dirty war which has nothing to do with the human rights.

NATO should collects credible evidences before starting a military campaign.

they act like a police officier who bring you in jail before you made anything just because you could be a sospicious guy.

NATO didn't start a war in Libya. An armed rebellion took place first. Armed rebellions don't occur in countries where the populace is content with its leadership.

And really, the police analogy doesn't work here. Gaddafi's own people turned against him. Whether or not he is a criminal in the eyes of some unaffiliated third party is immaterial. He was rejected by those he was meant to serve, and that alone makes his authority illegitimate.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+libya&submitted=-1

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/31/libya-contact-group-put-rights-top-agenda

Owned.

[PELHAM 10]

Care to explain these?

Omar A. Dabboub, 7 April 1977, Benghazi. Teacher. Executed by public hanging, for participating in Jan. '76 student demonstrations. Gaddafi presided over the execution personally.

Mohammed bin Saud, 7 April 1977, Benghazi, same day as Dabboub. Teacher. Executed by public hanging, for participating in Jan. '76 student demonstrations. Gaddafi presided over the execution personally.

Mahmoud A. Nafi', 21 April 1980, London. Attorney, business man. Assassinated in his office in London. Two Libyans tried for the crime and sentenced to life in prison.

Abdul Jalil al-'Arif, April 1980, Rome. Business man, victim of Gaddafi's campaign of "physical liquidation" of opponents abroad.

Mohammed M. Ramadan, 11 April, 1980, London. Journalist and announcer at BBC, Arabic section. Assassinated by Gaddafi operatives outside Regent Park mosque. Libyan regime refused him burial in Libya and returned the body to be buried in London. Two Libyans were tried for the crime and in Sep. '80, sentenced to life in prison.

Abdul Aziz al-Gharably, April, 1983, arrested. Student, Tripoli. Suspected of membership in political party. Died in Jan. '84 as a result of torture and lack of medical care.

Rasheed M. Ka'bar, 16 April 1984, Tripoli. Student. Arrested in Nov. '80, following unrest at the College of Engineering. Accused of being follower of Sheikh Bishti (Mosque leader, tortured and killed by A. Zadma and Revolutionary Committees.)

Sentenced to death by Revolutionary Committees, and executed at the College of Pharmacy, Tripoli. University students forcefully gathered to view execution.

Hafed. al-Madani, 16 April 1984, Tripoli. Student. Arrested following unrest at Engineering College, Nov. '80. Executed by public hanging at the College of Agriculture, Tripoli.

Mustafa R. an-Nuwairy, April, 1984. Student. Elected President of Student Union, academic year 1975-76. Elected Secretary of Benghazi chapter of Student Union. Expelled from Benghazi University and arrested in 1976. Arrested again in 1980 and sentenced to death and executed by the Revolutionary Committees in front of university students and staff.

Jibril A. ad-Dinali, 6 April 1985, Former police officer. Member of NFSL, shot by Gaddafi agents in Bonn, Germany.

The best known account of a public execution is that of Sadek Shwehdi. It is well known because it was broadcast repeatedly on national television. Thousands of pupils, the youngest just 6 years old, were herded into Benghazi's basketball stadium to watch in 1984. Pulling on the hanging man's legs later made Huda Ben Amer one of Colonel Gaddafi's most trusted elite.

Story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8363587/Huda-the-executioner-Libyas-devil-in-female-form.html

Video here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/jul/18/libya-muammar-gaddafi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486

[*LK1* 10]

What invasion?

was talking in general, and i was thinking at the iraqi war. in the libyan case we should speak about "military campaign" consisting in air strikes guided from the ground by special forces operators.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+libya&submitted=-1

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/31/libya-contact-group-put-rights-top-agenda

???

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

NATO didn't start a war in Libya.

no true. NATO started a war.

An armed rebellion took place first. Armed rebellions don't occur in countries where the populace is content with its leadership.

depends on the weapon disponiblity, culture, aging of the population,external influences ad plus, i wouldn't say such general and uncorrect things as you: a lot of people were supporting gaddafi.

Whether or not he is a criminal in the eyes of some unaffiliated third party is immaterial.

even the police could be a criminal to my eyes, doesn't mean i can start a war

cuz i feel legittimated by my thoughts.

He was rejected by those he was meant to serve, and that alone makes his authority illegitimate.

there is always someone that reject the authority. that doesn't give you the right to start a RIOT.

unlike you said the police analogy works good. because you must take evidences before supporting the people or any insurrection, instead of spreading bullshit through complacent media. in case you dont do that you are just proving that you are waiting an excuse to support these rebels.

all you are saying is based on news. but what you dont want to understand is there are controversial news about the brutality of te gaddafi regime ;)

Owned.

lol. you are not in a counter stryke server. but on the BIS forum. good for you since if there is an anology between your post and your game skill...i would suggest you to try with texas hold em. seriusly, just post your ideas... you dont win a candie if you flam.

j02uvYMKbh4

Edited September 8, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[-Snafu- 78]

???

The links go to the official sites of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which have articles outlining and discussing crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime.

One report from the first link (there are others):

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19664

Pro al-Gaddafi left 29 detainees to suffocate while locked inside metal containers in the sweltering June heat in north-western Libya, Amnesty International has discovered. Nineteen of the detainees died as a result of the ordeal.

Amnesty‘s team have examined the two metal containers used to hold the detainees in al-Khums. Once the doors were locked shut, the containers had no windows and the only ventilation came from dozens of bullet holes along the metal walls.

And from the HRW site, the second link:

Protection of civilians, accountability for grave human rights violations during Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, and building the foundation of a rights-respecting Libyan state should be prominently on the agenda of the Libya Contact Group on September 1, 2011, Human Rights Watch said today.

[PELHAM 10]

no true. NATO started a war.

-Signs of mass dissent first began in late January

-On 15 February 2011 a series of peaceful protests which were met with military force by the Gaddafi regime.

-The full-scale revolt began on 17 February 2011.

-On 17 March 2011 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973.

-On 19 March 2011, the first Allied act to secure the no-fly zone began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission.

I guess that clears up the timeline for you? No?

even the police could be a criminal to my eyes, doesn't mean i can start a war

cuz i feel legittimated by my thoughts.

In my above post you will see a list of names of people who demonstrated peacefully and were brutally killed for it. It's a short list, there are certainly many, many others. Yes it does mean they can start a war because they have exhausted every other possible means. Gadaffi has been killing people at home and abroad for 35 years. Just what else do you expect, put up with a Gaddafi dynasty for the next 100 years hoping they will get tired of killing and stealing money?

there is always someone that reject the authority. that doesn't give you the right to start a RIOT.

What authority does Gaddafi have exactly? Declaring yourself king of kings is meaningless.

all you are saying is based on news. but what you dont want to understand is there are controversial news about the brutality of te gaddafi regime ;)

In my post above there is a video of a public execution where children were forced to watch. 1 is enough to declare brutality isn't it?

Edited September 8, 2011 by PELHAM

[b101_uk 10]

I didn't say he was guilty did I? To get an arrest warrant you need to provide substantial evidence of wrong doing. In the UK an arrest warrant can be issued if information (in writing) is laid before a judge or justice of the peace that a person has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence. Such arrest warrants can only be issued for someone over 18 if:

1-the offence to which the warrant relates is an indictable offence or is punishable with imprisonment, or

2-the person's address is not sufficiently established for a summons to be served on him. (e.g. you are on the run like Gaddafi)

I don’t where you have been and while that may be an ideal however the truth with respect to the UK is somewhat different as the burden of “evidence†needed is considerably lower than the CPS would require to even entertain perusing a conviction.

You never know, when Gaddafi gets to trial we may find he is completely innocent, all these people may have shot, burned and buried themselves in mass graves.

mass graves, people being burned, buried, shot, blown apart, etc etc etc are not really proof of anything are they, people can be lawfully put in mass graves or have any of the aforementioned things done to them as a result of many different things or as a result of war, tell me where do you think the mass graves will be from soldiers killed in NATO attacks etc, I am sure more than a few graves of loyal soldiers will be claimed as being something other.

Gaddafi isn't the sovereign leader, he claims he has no role in government and only offers "spiritual guidance to the people". What choice did they have apart from an uprising, it's not like they could vote for a change in government is it? Even saying you didn't like Gaddafi got you 3 years in prison which many did not survive.

There is a little thing call peaceful protest, as a protester as soon as you take up arms you lose rights just as you or I would forfeit our lives if we went to the centre of London armed with assault rifle and started firing at police or military personal even if EVERYONE knew we were civilians.

The rebels are the population of the towns? They simply started fighting where they lived and defended their own property and families. Human shields? Utter nonsense.

NO the rebels are NOT the population of the towns though some will be, NO town will have 100% of its population as anti Gadhafi, when you have armed rebels and vocal anti Gadhafi inhabitants roaming the streets this terrorises people who are pro Gadhafi and are you really that naïve to believe that the rebels are “such a lovely bunch of people†that you could express pro Gadhafi sentiment in a rebel held town without fear of retribution to a news reporter with rebels stood around you or acting as a guide for that news reporter.

Libyan laws were set up by 1 self appointed dictator who killed whoever he pleased both within his borders and across the entire world. There would be some legitimacy to what you say if Libya had a democratically elected government that passed laws in a democratic way, it never has. A law decreed by a dictator for his own benefit has no logical basis or moral standing.

You seam to be of the misguided indoctrinated state of mind that that somehow the only laws in Libya were for the sole benefit of Gaddafi.

As far as I can tell anything Gaddafi didn't like was treasonous.

e.g. Joining a political party = execution

Talking to a foreigner about politics = 3 years imprisonment

Many of these executions were public, people were hung and shot in town squares or had their arms and legs chopped off. Pictures of this were transmitted on state television. Does this sound normal to you?

I take it you are not that well travelled and have never worked in some oil producing states sometime over the past 25 years? Do you not think town squares are the best place for public execution or that somehow hanging, being shot or having bits chopped off, floggings etc etc are somehow limited to Libya or are you of the mind that its just ok to execute behind closed doors like in the USA.

Lol you have a very warped sense of justice. Do these people get a trial first or is it simply left at the discretion of the commanding officer to shoot anyone he pleases? Would you be happy to live in a country with a dictator that summarily executes anyone who shows the slightest disagreement?

Me a warped sense of justice, no, I just realise sometime some things are really quite clear cut and “war†sometimes precludes the normal methods that would be applied in peace time which means decisive action must be taken, trying to go AWAL or deserting ones post or failing to follow a legal order, etc etc are fround upon at the best of times and in many military’s the world over at times of war will result in significantly shortened lifespan even if you make it to courts martial.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------

no true. NATO started a war.

i think you will find thay didn’t, BUT a few country’s just within a couple of days of it first starting had people there to cause problems and to help the rebels which is when their interfering started and the rest of the UN's and then NATO's actions after have turned something small into something much bigger like a civil war when if they had keped their noses out of where they didn’t belong the armed rebels would have been put down and many thousands of people would have still been alive! ;)

Edited September 8, 2011 by b101_uk

[PELHAM 10]

I don’t where you have been and while that may be an ideal however the truth with respect to the UK is somewhat different as the burden of “evidence†needed is considerably lower than the CPS would require to even entertain perusing a conviction.

Yes that's what I said. There is evidence of mass killings of civilians by Gaddafi forces so an arrest warrant has been issued. They will have to prove that evidence when he is captured. (if)

mass graves, people being burned, buried, shot, blown apart, etc etc etc are not really proof of anything are they, people can be lawfully put in mass

Yes that does happen occasionally but usually it is well known why it was done. People have no idea why there are hundreds buried in mass graves at the rear of industrial units in Tripoli. Secret mass graves need some explaining do they not?

There is a little thing call peaceful protest, as a protester as soon as you take up arms you lose rights

If you look at post #111 you will see people have been peacefully protesting for 35 years. Most of them were killed for it. Libyan people have never had any rights to lose? That's just laughable.

In 1984 in London, without warning, Libyan diplomats discharged automatic gunfire into a crowd of anti-Gaddafi protesters. Eleven people were hit, including a Police woman, Yvonne Fletcher who was fatally wounded in the stomach. None were convicted, Gadaffi didn't even condemn the act. The two most likely suspects were senior members of the Libyan regime in 2011.

NO the rebels are NOT the population of the towns though some will be,

Well they either are or they aren't lol.

You seam to be of the misguided indoctrinated state of mind that that somehow the only laws in Libya were for the sole benefit of Gaddafi.

Who else benefited? Laws that prevent freedom of expression and political association benefit who exactly? Why was it that membership of any unauthorised political party was punishable by death? That just does not make sense.

I take it you are not that well travelled and have never worked in some oil producing states sometime over the past 25 years? Do you not think town squares are the best place for public execution or that somehow hanging, being shot or having bits chopped off, floggings etc etc are somehow limited to Libya or are you of the mind that its just ok to execute behind closed doors like in the USA.

Public executions are wrong and serve only 1 purpose. To create a state of terror that eliminates opposition of any kind. It's wrong wherever it happens. In Libya children were forced to watch. If you have to execute at all, and I am not in favour of it, the sentence should be carried out in private with legal representatives as witnesses.

FYI I have travelled on every continent apart from Antartica and I lived for several years under Bob Mugabe. I am well aware of just how things work around the world and I don't like it at all.

Me a warped sense of justice, no, I just realise sometime some things are really quite clear cut and “war†sometimes precludes the normal methods that would be applied in peace time which means decisive action must be taken, trying to go AWAL or deserting ones post or failing to follow a legal order, etc etc are fround upon at the best of times and in many military’s the world over at times of war will result in significantly shortened lifespan even if you make it to courts martial.

Yes there are many Libyan soldiers lying in morgues who were shot in the back of the head for refusing 'legal' orders to shoot unarmed civilians. I guess you have no problem with that?

Edited September 8, 2011 by PELHAM

[*LK1* 10]

you guys are moving the point on discussion from 1 point to another 1.

gaddafi was an asshole? yes. it was brutal and totally negative for it's country? nope at all. libyans had a standard of life more similar to the chile than to the poorest nations in africa.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_di_stati_per_PIL_(PPA)_pro_capite

62th... less than 1000 dollars of difference from chile for example.

did he committed any crime while he was in power? i dont have problem to believe it. but again, this is not the point, the point is if he committed these

crimes during the revolution. because that was the reason that brings some of nato countries in war. and i guess these countries really dont care of the crimes committed by gaddafi before the arab spring since he was an economical/political(yep even political) partner for most of the nations in europe.

your link proof thata amnesty accused gaddafi before the arab spring, bu it's the same association that said there are no evidences of civilian massacres at the moment, during the insurrection.

that's why i think A.I. is credible for what he said. they already accused the regime but they dont want to accuse him again, without evidences.

this war became due the fact that most of the libyan oil was deserved for china, russia and italy. now the new government said that the 35%

of the oil will belong to the french companies(like TOTAL...is a company), and at the same time they are reconsidering the russian and chinese contracts. stopping these 2 giants from pumping the oil in large quantity is a way to slow down their economies. which means to slow down the relocation process of the world wide economic power.

so please let's stop to speak about human rights when they never were a priority for the western world. gaddafi was well known, especially his modus operandi, even before the revolution. by everyone.

moreover i have many doubts that this revolution, full of al qaeda fighters, will brings something good to the libyan people.

Edited September 8, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[joogrr 10]

I don't see why I need sources for well established history but have added them below e.g Idi Amin and Gadaffi were such good friends Amin married Gads daughter! I read the discussion and you don't explain yourself and the 9/11 conspiracy rant wasn't really relevant so again.......

You said Jamahiriya was a democratic system?

Definition: Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.

As Jamahiriya works completely contradictory to this, I am a little confused and hoped you could explain why you think it's democratic.

Libya has been a 1 party state since the 70's, has never held elections and has 10-20% of the population employed in internal security 'monitoring' the general population and preventing dissent. People who formed a political party were executed, and talking about politics with foreigners was punishable by up to 3 years in jail.

Could you also explain why the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on 27 June 2011 for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah al-Senussi, concerning crimes against humanity. To issue an arrest warrant there must be convincing evidence of wrong doing. The ICC cites acts of "indiscriminate killings of civilians" and "trial for the murder and persecution of demonstrators by Libyan security forces since the uprising based in the country’s east that began in February."

Source for Gaddafi Elimination of dissent and campaign against Berber people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi#Elimination_of_dissent

Source for Gaddafi and international terrorism. It's a very long list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_under_Gaddafi#Gaddafi_and_international_terrorism

Source for Gaddafi's support of dictators, corrupt regimes, war criminals etc in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_under_Gaddafi#Africa

Holy crap dude :eek: I take it you never bothered to click the link. I'm not the one saying that the Jamahiriya is a democratic system. Those are the claims of Ghadaffi himself and the Libyan people. Why don't you ask them about how the system works? :rolleyes:

I understand your approach. You are simply not informed. What I am about to say here is not my personal views or claims. Just so we are clear on this. In reality the political system in the US is a one party system. You hear a lot of talk about "change" and especially during election campaigns, but in reality only administrations change but the policies don't. To better understand why I suggest you first look at this interview with congressman Ron Paul from 1988 where he explains how the political system in the US really is a one party system and why the real policy makers are beyond the reach of the democratic system.

Ron Paul - The American Power Structure, 1988.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4245169480003136735#

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDEgBWO54dA

I take it you have watched the full interview before reading on eh? So what is this power structure that Ron Paul is talking about you may ask. Well it's not so hidden actually. The real policy makers are a mixed bag of corporate leaders, super wealthy individuals and descendants of certain bloodlines such as the Rothschilds. The latter is a prime example of the European banking dynasties that have been around for a long time and whom are often shareholders in big banks including the Federal Reserve system, the US central bank. The feds is not a government institution but a privately own corporation of which many are not even American citizens. These people tend to meet on a regular basis, in secret, and they often invite political leaders from all over the world. They are most commonly known as the Bilderbergers. You may have heard about them? If not well that's because there is no media coverage of these meetings even though there are some very high profile and news worthy figures attending those meetings, some of which are Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Fu Ying (Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs), Paul-Henri Spaak (former Prime Minister and Secretary General of NATO) and many others including from my country; Carl Bildt, Anders Borg, Maud Olofsson, Mona Sahlin and Fredrik Reinfeldt (Prime Minister).

How many in Sweden know about these meetings? Hardly a soul :j:

"You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions."

- Bill Clinton

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings ... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed ... For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations ... And so it is to the printing press, to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news, that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

- John F. Kennedy, April 27 1961

(The President and the Press: American Newspaper Publishers Association Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York.)

What JFK was talking about is something too monstrous for the common man to comprehend. It's simply unthinkable that a conspiracy of such scale can exist, and that is why it is so successful. Pretty much like how former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover elegantly put it himself "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." Hoover was also in the Warren Commission that investigated the JFK assassination. Go figure :rolleyes:

So if there is a "conspiracy" at work among this "elite" then why hasn't someone on the inside exposed it? The answer is, someone has. Quote "Dr. Carrol Quigley a professor of history at Georgetown University, is by his own boast, an insider with a front row view of the worlds money power structure. In his book "Tragedy and Hope" he cautiously exposed one of the best kept secrets of all time."

The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside view of International Banking by G Edward Griffin, 1969.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6260646431723948415#

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H99C4JEq80

Just watch it. It's not a perfect presentation but Edward Griffin is on the right track and he use very credible sources. Remember he did it over 40 years ago.

The bottom line is this; Nothing is black or white and it's not a little naive to think of the US / NATO to be some kind of charitable organization bent on helping the world without something being gained in the process. It doesn't work that way. What we are witnessing in Libya is but a tiny part of a massive plot that is unfolding from behind the scenes. A "conspiracy" if you wish, but that is matter of definition. It's just business really.

So am I opposed to all this? Yes and no. I simply don't know enough about it to form an opinion, but that is part the problem really. The fact that all this happens from behind the scenes is threatening the credibility of the democratic system. These are elected politicians and the people have a right to know what their representatives are up to, and especially when they are dealing with leaders from other countries. Don't you think? If no then I wonder what your definition of a democracy is.

Edited September 8, 2011 by joogrr

[st_dux 26]

all you are saying is based on news. but what you dont want to understand is there are controversial news about the brutality of te gaddafi regime ;)

What you don't understand is that it doesn't matter how controversial the news is. The fact is that Gaddafi's people rose against him. Their will is reason enough to judge him unfit to lead, subjective ideas of right and wrong notwithstanding.

[PELHAM 10]

your link proof thata amnesty accused gaddafi before the arab spring, bu it's the same association that said there are no evidences of civilian massacres at the moment, during the insurrection.

that's why i think A.I. is credible for what he said. he already accused the regime but he dont want to accuse him again, without evidences.

Okey dokey then......

ICC: Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi ordered the rape of hundreds of women as a weapon against rebel forces. Issued viagra to soldiers to aid carrying out this order.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13705854

Excerpts from the International Criminal Court document:

SITUATION IN THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

PUBLIC REDACTED Version

Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 as to Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar GADDAFI, Saif Alâ€Islam GADDAFI and Abdullah ALâ€SENUSSI

http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1073503.pdf

GADDAFI started organising the crackdown immediately: he appeared on television on 15 January 2011, a day after the thenâ€president of Tunisia stepped down, to warn those who wanted to follow the model of the Tunisian uprising. GADDAFI also gathered tribal leaders, professionals and journalists and threatened them with reprisals should they join the protests.

16 February 2011, one day before the escalation of the crimes against civilians, the Stateâ€owned telecommunication networks under the control of Muhammad, GADDAFI’s eldest son, sent SMS messages to all phones in the Libyan system containing threats against “anybody who tries to touch the four red lines,†one of which requires absolute respect for GADDAFI’s power.

ALâ€SENUSSI, GADDAFI’s brotherâ€inâ€law and the head of the Military Intelligence. upon GADDAFI’s instructions, directed and coordinated the operation of the Security Forces in Benghazi and expressly ordered the shooting at civilians. Demonstrators were attacked by members of the Security Forces who opened machine gun fire on them in different areas of the city, such as the Juliyana bridge and Jamal Abdun Naser Street.

These initial killings led to larger demonstrations throughout the country, growing demands by the people of Libya to end the dictatorship and, in response, a systematic and even more violent response from GADDAFI’s Security Forces.

On 18 February in Benghazi the Security Forces carried out further attacks against civilians: they shot with heavy weaponry at a funeral procession when it passed by the barracks of the Alâ€Fadail Bou Oumar brigade (or Katiba), and at unarmed civilians who demonstrated against the regime.

The same attacks were replicated throughout the country: for example in Misrata, Security Forces opened fire against a peaceful demonstration on 19 February and shot at a funeral procession on 20 February. In both incidents unarmed civilians were killed.

On 20 February, SAIF ALâ€ISLAM spoke on Libyan state television, refusing to recognize the Libyans’ demands, blaming the unrest on “foreign agents†During that night, massive demonstrations against GADDAFI took place in different areas of Tripoli after the sunset prayers. GADDAFIʹs Security Forces opened fire as soon as they met groups of peaceful demonstrators that were walking towards the Green Square. Similar incidents were replicated throughout the day mainly in the areas of the Green Square and city center, Mojam’a Alâ€Mahakem Court compound and Alâ€Dribi.

In the following weeks, GADDAFI and his sons SAIF ALâ€ISLAM and Saadi gave a number of public speeches and media interviews reiterating their awareness of events, their command over the military and Security Forces, and their willingness to continue using violence against the protesters.

It goes on and on.........

D.

CRIMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHICH MUAMMAR MOHAMMED ABU MINYAR GADDAFI, SAIF ALâ€ISLAM GADDAFI AND ABDULLAH ALâ€SENUSSI HAVE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 58(2)(B) OF THE ROME STATUTE

Count 1

Murder constituting a crime against humanity

(Article 7(1)(a) and Article 25(3)(a)of the Rome Statute)

From 15 February 2011 onwards, GADDAFI, as indirect perpetrator, and SAIF ALâ€

ISLAM and ALâ€SENUSSI, as indirect coâ€perpetrators, committed crimes against

humanity in the form of murder across Libya in, inter alia, Tripoli, Benghazi, and

Misrata, through the Libyan State apparatus and Security Forces in violation of

Articles 7(1)(a) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

Count 2

Persecution

(Article 7(1)(h) and Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute)

From 15 February 2011 onwards, GADDAFI, as indirect perpetrator, and SAIF ALâ€

ISLAM and ALâ€SENUSSI, as indirect coâ€perpetrators, committed crimes against

humanity in the form of persecution across Libya in, inter alia, Tripoli, Benghazi,

Misrata and other Libyan localities through the Libyan State apparatus and Security

Forces in violation of Articles 7(1)(h) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.27

Edited September 8, 2011 by PELHAM

[joogrr 10]

Care to explain these?

Omar A. Dabboub, 7 April 1977, Benghazi. Teacher. Executed by public hanging, for participating in Jan. '76 student demonstrations. Gaddafi presided over the execution personally.

Mohammed bin Saud, 7 April 1977, Benghazi, same day as Dabboub. Teacher. Executed by public hanging, for participating in Jan. '76 student demonstrations. Gaddafi presided over the execution personally.

Mahmoud A. Nafi', 21 April 1980, London. Attorney, business man. Assassinated in his office in London. Two Libyans tried for the crime and sentenced to life in prison.

Abdul Jalil al-'Arif, April 1980, Rome. Business man, victim of Gaddafi's campaign of "physical liquidation" of opponents abroad.

Mohammed M. Ramadan, 11 April, 1980, London. Journalist and announcer at BBC, Arabic section. Assassinated by Gaddafi operatives outside Regent Park mosque. Libyan regime refused him burial in Libya and returned the body to be buried in London. Two Libyans were tried for the crime and in Sep. '80, sentenced to life in prison.

Abdul Aziz al-Gharably, April, 1983, arrested. Student, Tripoli. Suspected of membership in political party. Died in Jan. '84 as a result of torture and lack of medical care.

Rasheed M. Ka'bar, 16 April 1984, Tripoli. Student. Arrested in Nov. '80, following unrest at the College of Engineering. Accused of being follower of Sheikh Bishti (Mosque leader, tortured and killed by A. Zadma and Revolutionary Committees.)

Sentenced to death by Revolutionary Committees, and executed at the College of Pharmacy, Tripoli. University students forcefully gathered to view execution.

Hafed. al-Madani, 16 April 1984, Tripoli. Student. Arrested following unrest at Engineering College, Nov. '80. Executed by public hanging at the College of Agriculture, Tripoli.

Mustafa R. an-Nuwairy, April, 1984. Student. Elected President of Student Union, academic year 1975-76. Elected Secretary of Benghazi chapter of Student Union. Expelled from Benghazi University and arrested in 1976. Arrested again in 1980 and sentenced to death and executed by the Revolutionary Committees in front of university students and staff.

Jibril A. ad-Dinali, 6 April 1985, Former police officer. Member of NFSL, shot by Gaddafi agents in Bonn, Germany.

The best known account of a public execution is that of Sadek Shwehdi. It is well known because it was broadcast repeatedly on national television. Thousands of pupils, the youngest just 6 years old, were herded into Benghazi's basketball stadium to watch in 1984. Pulling on the hanging man's legs later made Huda Ben Amer one of Colonel Gaddafi's most trusted elite.

Story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8363587/Huda-the-executioner-Libyas-devil-in-female-form.html

Video here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/jul/18/libya-muammar-gaddafi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486

You just don't get it. Nobody here is supporting Ghadaffi. He threatened to attack Europe as a revenge for the NATO bombings for crying out loud. I don't blame him but, I wouldn't exactly support him either :p

The point being, US / NATO forces have no right to take sides in this conflict and to overthrow the regime. Did Libya attack the US? Did Ghadaffi even threaten to do so? I think not.

So if this is the role of the UN, then why not liberate the Chinese from Hu Jintao? Why don't we demonize Kim Jong II and bomb North Korea? I bet these guys are a lot worse then Ghadaffi :D

[*LK1* 10]

What you don't understand is that it doesn't matter how controversial the news is.

really? not really. how controversial the news are IS THE ONLY THINKS THAT MATTER. since these news are the reason why some western countries declared war to the libyan regime. i guess is simple enough, to understand.

however i'm off. have fun to demonize that puppet which was an economical/political partner for most of the europeans. until he dont reserved his oil to the wrong guys. wrongs for the westerns of course.

Edited September 8, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[PELHAM 10]

really? not really. how controversial the news are IS THE ONLY THINKS THAT MATTER. since these news are the reason why some western countries declared war to the libyan regime. i guess is simple enough, to understand.

however i'm off. have fun to demonize that puppet which was an economical/political partner for most of the europeans. until he dont reserved his oil to the wrong guys. wrongs for the westerns of course.

Western countries / NATO did not declare war on Libya, they are implementing UN Resolution 1973:

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanityâ€, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

Recognizing the important role of the League of Arab States in the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind the United Nations Charter’s Chapter VIII, the Council asked the League’s member States to cooperate with other Member States in implementing the no-fly zone.

Edited September 8, 2011 by PELHAM

[st_dux 26]

The point being, US / NATO forces have no right to take sides in this conflict and to overthrow the regime. Did Libya attack the US? Did Ghadaffi even threaten to do so? I think not.

On this point I agree, as long as you are referring to taking sides in a strictly militaristic sense. I have no issue with NATO officially condoning the actions of the rebels, but I don't think we should have gotten ourselves involved in any military capacity. It's not our fight, and quite frankly (at least in the U.S.), we can't afford it.

Much of this thread really has been in support of Gaddafi, though, with people denying the existence of reports indicating that Gaddafi committed crimes against his people and ignoring them when they're linked.

[joogrr 10]

On this point I agree, as long as you are referring to taking sides in a strictly militaristic sense. I have no issue with NATO officially condoning the actions of the rebels, but I don't think we should have gotten ourselves involved in any military capacity. It's not our fight, and quite frankly (at least in the U.S.), we can't afford it.

Much of this thread really has been in support of Gaddafi, though, with people denying the existence of reports indicating that Gaddafi committed crimes against his people and ignoring them when they're linked.

Precisely, but then there are also powerful business interests in play that actually "benefits" from this war and especially if it is prolonged, and who also benefits from post war with reconstruction contracts and such. Maybe that is why NATO is bombing Libyan infrastructure? :rolleyes:

"This is clearly not a war on part of the Libyan people against their government, but a war on the part of NATO to exploit the resources of Libya ... They had a meeting to discuss the future of Libya in Paris. This meeting did not take place in Africa. It did not take place in Libya. It took place in Europe and this is nothing but an attempt to neo-colonize North Africa and they are beginning with Libya which have the most lucrative resources in Africa and the highest living standard in Africa. So this is clearly an act of force removal and regime change."

- Political analyst and expert in Africa, Abayomi Azikiwe, RT.

I have a question for you. I wonder who you are willing to bet is the most credible during times such as this. Is it the pro western main stream media or alternative media with nothing to loose that is actually going forward with reports from investigative reporters on the ground and who are confronting eyewitnesses and the Libyan people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuxI_iW222k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=NKgMeHq8VGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYEo21gVJFc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P08CVqrhuAU