Col. Gadaffi has been killed....

[grim_tales]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15389550

This seems just like Saddam's and Bin Laden's killings.. in a way I think he should have stood trial but its not like we'd be watching going "I wonder if he did it?" It would have cost a lot of money and wasted time.

[bradavon]

The NTC killed him Grim, not outside forces.

Sadam, Bin Laden, now Gaddafi dead. Who next? Kim jong il, Thein Sein (Burma's so called PM) maybe . Sometimes there's only one option, Gaddafi was never ever going to leave voluntarily and no one's going to mourn his passing.

On this rare occasion I'm happy he's dead, a trial would be pointless and crucially delay the Libyan people's ability to move on.

[Markgway]

Am I sorry he's dead? No... but an official trial may have provided much-needed symbolism of a new democratic order. Do I trust these rebels? Not yet.

[bradavon]

Most of the middle east has little understanding of democracy, it's a Western ideology that the rest of the world has latched on to. Nowt wrong with that but these countries have no real clue what it means.

[Killer Meteor]

I do wonder what's taking so long for them to get rid of Mugabe. Maybe if they planted some oil on him...

[Yi-Long]

I'm sure Chavez will be on their hitlist next.

[bradavon]

I'm sure Chavez will be on their hitlist next.

Only the yanks hate him, not the rest of the world.

I do wonder what's taking so long for them to get rid of Mugabe. Maybe if they planted some oil on him...

I believe, you've answered your own question. The bigger question would seem to be where did the Libyan rebels get their firepower from? Maybe they should now give it to the Zimbabweans.

As far as I'm remember, they came to some agreement whereby Morgan Tsvangirai is now prime minister. I bet it's just in name only though. Can you see Tsvangirai having any real power?

[Yi-Long]

I'm sure Chavez will be on their hitlist next.

Only the yanks hate him, not the rest of the world.

Makes no difference. I guess they were waiting for the cancer to kill him, but so far it didn't. I'm pretty sure within 5 years he'll be targeted. The West will once again support some rebels to overthrow the government, and history will just repeat itself. It always does.

[bradavon]

You're a right cynic . Gadaffi wasn't targeted by the west. Chavez is different, he's democratically elected.

[Yi-Long]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9s5RPEDYYU

Nothing 'cynical' about it. War and killing people is a BUSINESS. 'WE' don't give a flying fuck about who we kill. 'WE' dont care if they're GOOD or BAD.

If they don't meet our interests, we just point at them with all our politicians and cameras and go: "HE's the crazy bad guy!", and that means our own people will say:"well, I guess he is...(!)", and 'WE' use all our possibilities to get THAT guy out of office and another strawpuppet in place, so those strawpuppets DO have OUR interests in mind...

The mainstream media in this day and age isn't our friend anymore. It can't be trusted anymore. It's not a reliable source of information anymore. It doesn't do what it SHOULD do, but what it's told to do and expected to do.

Chavez isn't playing our game so far, so they'll come up with a reason to get rid of him.

[bradavon]

Please that YouTube video is clearly as much propaganda as it is accurate.

You always go on about how bad the West is, why do you still live in it? Don't say because you cannot afford to leave, that's a cop out. You reckon other parts of the world are much better? Because they're not.

Your entire post reads as if the indigenous population of countries the West supposedly dislikes are thick as shit. "Chavez isn't playing our game so far, so they'll come up with a reason to get rid of him.". Er. it's that simple is it? You reckon Venezuelan's would just sit back and let Obama take him out? Besides like I said, the "West" doesn't have a problem with Chavez, America does.

You equally reckon non-Western media is any better? Again it's not. All media has elements of truth and elements of bias. You're ignorant if you think it's all biased or all factual. Watch it and make your own mind up.

I see you've not chosen to answer my point that Gadaffi wasn't targeted by the west. The majority population of Libya themselves decided to get rid of him.

[grim_tales]

There are some kinda double standards though.. convenient that Gaddaffi's "dealings" with the "West" don't have to be revealed now because he's dead
Not saying his death was a conspiracy though.

[Yi-Long]

Please that YouTube video is clearly as much propaganda as it is accurate.

You always go on about how bad the West is, why do you still live in it? Don't say because you cannot afford to leave, that's a cop out. You reckon other parts of the world are much better? Because they're not.

Your entire post reads as if the indigenous population of countries the West supposedly dislikes are thick as shit. "Chavez isn't playing our game so far, so they'll come up with a reason to get rid of him.". Er. it's that simple is it? You reckon Venezuelan's would just sit back and let Obama take him out? Besides like I said, the "West" doesn't have a problem with Chavez, America does.

You equally reckon non-Western media is any better? Again it's not. All media has elements of truth and elements of bias. You're ignorant if you think it's all biased or all factual. Watch it and make your own mind up.

I see you've not chosen to answer my point that Gadaffi wasn't targeted by the west. The majority population of Libya themselves decided to get rid of him.

Gadaffi wasn't targeted by the west? Wait... so NATO didn't bomb them? The west didn't actively support the rebels? The west didn't report one-sidedly on the whole issue, twisting facts and truths?

And I'm not saying other, non-western media is BETTER. Where did you read that? I was ONLY talking about OUR media, and clearly that hasn't been trustworthy. I know that shit happens everywhere else as well, but WE are in the WEST and WE seem to pretend that ours is objective. It isn't.

I don't go on about 'how bad the west is', but obviously there are lots of points which could and thus should be (or should have been done) better, and yet we generally seem to sweep it under the carpet with a big 'oh well...(!)'.

Is the video I posted objective? No, it shows the stuff that WAS right in Libya, and neglects to report the stuff that was wrong (which all country has). But it IS reporting on facts that our mainstream media is neglecting to report.

In the end, you as an objective observer, have to look at all the available information that's handed to you, and in the end you make up your own mind. That's how it works.

My point isn't that Gadaffi was a good man. It wasn't to neglect the bad stuff that was going on.

My point was that we are only getting shown 1 side of the coin, and I don't trust that currency anymore. And that's pretty sad, considering that means that the media has failed in being an objective source of reporting what's actually going on.

Oh, and your assumption that I'm JUST shitting all over the evil west is ridiculous. Whenever China is pulling some shit I also condemn it. Whenever arab countries are opressing their people I also condemn it. Whenever 1 penguin is stealing a pebble from another penguin, I also go 'that evil motherfucker!' and condemn it.

I honestly don't give a flying fuck WHO does what. If I don't agree with it, I'll say so. If my girlfriend fucks up dinner I tell her she fucked up, and if she is wearing a horrible combination or a stupid haircut, I also tell her. And then we see how we can improve on that for next time. That's how it works. And I expect her to be critical of me as well. If I walk around like a colorblind shaven monkey, I'd like a heads up. If I screw up the cooking, I want her to tell me she doesn't like it cause that way I know I'll have to change it for next time.

Many don't really seem to understand this, but criticism isn't the end-all to something. It's a startingpoint for hopefully an improvement. When people says something SUCKS, then those responsible should at least see if there's any truth in that, and if it can be improved. If I and many others are now saying we can't trust our own media to give us both sides of the story anymore, then hopefully SOME journalists will be out there and will think: "They're right, and I don't want to be part of that problem!"

[bradavon]

There are some kinda double standards though.. convenient that Gaddaffi's "dealings" with the "West" don't have to be revealed now because he's dead

True. Except for Lockerbie was there any public outcry for details though?

Gadaffi wasn't targeted by the west? Wait... so NATO didn't bomb them? The west didn't actively support the rebels?

You're so biased against anything to do with the West it's untrue. Yes to all of the above but you seem to think he and his regime were saints. Like the Middle East doesn't do the same, they're always sticking their noses into other Middle Eastern conflicts.

I don't go on about 'how bad the west is'

You do a lot but we're used to it.

Is the video I posted objective? No, it shows the stuff that WAS right in Libya, and neglects to report the stuff that was wrong (which all country has). But it IS reporting on facts that our mainstream media is neglecting to report.

So what you're basically saying is, if they do it, it's acceptable/collateral damage but if we do the same, it's wrong. You'll disagree but that's how you come across. What makes you so sure they're reporting "the facts"?

My point isn't that Gadaffi was a good man.

. Most dictators start out being good to their people, that's how they become trusted. Then they almost all after a few years show their true colours.

My point was that we are only getting shown 1 side of the coin, and I don't trust that currency anymore.

And you used to trust it? It's always been this way. Media is a business, it's there to report facts how it wants them to be shown. A silly example but it kinda makes my point, remember Microsoft Encarta? It routinely reported the "facts" differently from region to region. What are facts? People see things in different ways.

Besides there are plenty of entirely honest and truthful journos.

Whenever China is pulling some shit I also condemn it.

You're never as vocal about the media or news as when it comes to the West.

If my girlfriend fucks up dinner I tell her she fucked up

That's harsh. I bet she loves you swearing at her but generally I agree, honesty is (almost) always best.