toldailytopic: Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi is dead, discuss.

[lightbringer]

Yeah, I did. I figured he would either be killed during capture or he would been executed after a trial. I honestly didn't think I'd see him get captured alive and then be dead within minutes by the hands of his captors.

The man was a brutal dictator over his people for 40+ years and you think that they were going to ply nice with him? You must be in some fairy tale land.

Surrender is sometimes offered. If surrender is accepted, then the prisoner is taken, which may lead to his hands being tied behind his back.[/QUOTE]

You indeed are in fantasy land.

Was someone not going to survive if Qaddafi was taken alive?

That may be possible considering his position.

Were these men doing "what they must to survive" when the killed him?

With gusto! They had just finished a fire fight with their friends dieing next to them and they found the principle target of hatred in their hands...you can figure the rest out!

Lend us your expertise, then. How often, when you were in a combat zone, did living prisoners turn up dead? I'd think the killing of prisoners would be frowned upon.

It is and it happens.

Spare me.

From what? You seem to be doing nicely with blocking out reality.

You're defending acts that US military personal have risen above.

For the most part but it still happens.

Killing prisoners is not a part of the US military code

We all know that as well as we know your not supposed to speed or drink and drive and any number of things, but it still happens.

 

[kmoney]

The man was a brutal dictator over his people for 40+ years and you think that they were going to ply nice with him? You must be in some fairy tale land.

Surrender is sometimes offered. If surrender is accepted, then the prisoner is taken, which may lead to his hands being tied behind his back.

You indeed are in fantasy land.



That may be possible considering his position.



With gusto! They had just finished a fire fight with their friends dieing next to them and they found the principle target of hatred in their hands...you can figure the rest out!



It is and it happens.



From what? You seem to be doing nicely with blocking out reality.



For the most part but it still happens.



We all know that as well as we know your not supposed to speed or drink and drive and any number of things, but it still happens.

Stuff happens. Does that make it justified?

 

[lightbringer]

Young people are trained and then sent off to experience the worst atrocities that can be imagined and yet there are people that think these young service personnel will conduct themselves as if they were strolling down the street in Kansas?

Combat changes people, especially those that see it up close and personal, many can get through it without breaking the law, some can't, that's the reality of it.

If you don't agree with me that's fine but it tells me two things, 1. You've never known any one that was in the trenches and 2. You have never taken the time to visit a V.A. hospital to say thanks to the vets, especially those men that will probably never get out of the hospital.

Yeah I know, the V.A. hospital is 20 miles from your house, what an inconvenience for you.

 

[kmoney]

Young people are trained and then sent off to experience the worst atrocities that can be imagined and yet there are people that think these young service personnel will conduct themselves as if they were strolling down the street in Kansas?

Combat changes people, especially those that see it up close and personal, many can get through it without breaking the law, some can't, that's the reality of it.

If you don't agree with me that's fine but it tells me two things, 1. You've never known any one that was in the trenches and 2. You have never taken the time to visit a V.A. hospital to say thanks to the vets, especially those men that will probably never get out of the hospital.

Yeah I know, the V.A. hospital is 20 miles from your house, what an inconvenience for you.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this. :e4e:

 

[some other dude]

How did he express it?

I posted: Oh no brum - lots of brown people died in this little escapade. The last count I saw, weeks ago, was over fifty thousand.

brum replied: 50 thousand brown people?

barbie jumped in: That's another reason it worked better this time.

 

[MrRadish]

Did the Libyans decide to start this revolution?

Since we know that the answer to the above question is yes, I would indeed prefer to see Libyans dieing than Americans. We rendered them assistance, they can do the fighting and dieing!

Why would you want it any other way?

Some Libyans decided to start a revolution (the vast majority will have had very little influence in recent events) but what's that got to do with it? All I'd want is for as few people to die as possible.

Take a walk down almost any major metropolitan city in the world and you will see barbarians doing barbaric things to other people.
Welcome to civilization 2011.

That's no reason not to try to limit barbarity as much as you possibly can.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see Sot faked another quote by deleting part of what I said. He's really upset with me for kidding him about claiming to be a chemist, but not knowing that saltpeter doesn't actually reduce sexual desire.

Sot, do you honestly think people don't realize what you're doing?

 

[kmoney]

I posted: Oh no brum - lots of brown people died in this little escapade. The last count I saw, weeks ago, was over fifty thousand.

brum replied: 50 thousand brown people?

barbie jumped in: That's another reason it worked better this time.

I think all he did was express the feeling that it is good that no Americans died. It wasn't in comparison with Libyans dying.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think all he did was express the feeling that it is good that no Americans died. It wasn't in comparison with Libyans dying.

Yep.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's no reason not to try to limit barbarity as much as you possibly can.

Excuse me? :madmad:

 

[MrRadish]

:chuckle:

 

[MrRadish]

it is good that [...] Americans died.

You too, K-Mo? :shocked:

 

[WizardofOz]

The man was a brutal dictator over his people for 40+ years and you think that they were going to ply nice with him? You must be in some fairy tale land.

My original comment were

Someone who has laid down arms, surrendered, and begged for their life should not be murdered. I don't care who that someone is or what they've done.

It's really indefensible. Say what you will about Qaddafi. The people who murdered him and cheered when he was murdered are no better.

A brutal dictator is brutally killed by rebel forces. Yes, the people who killed him are no better than he was.

You think they are, why exactly? If I murder a murder, guess what; I'm still a murderer.

You indeed are in fantasy land.

I'm blown away by your valid argument.

That may be possible considering his position.

Who was fighting for their survival when they killed him?

With gusto! They had just finished a fire fight with their friends dieing next to them and they found the principle target of hatred in their hands...you can figure the rest out!

Acts are justified by one's hatred? Might want to rethink that point.

Lend us your expertise, then. How often, when you were in a combat zone, did living prisoners turn up dead? I'd think the killing of prisoners would be frowned upon.

It is and it happens.

Is it wrong to frown upon prisoners being killed? Your criticism seems to be aimed at my frowning.

If a fellow soldier points a gun to a prisoners head and pulls the trigger, your response would be indifference? I'm confused at what you're even defending. :idunno:

We all know that as well as we know your not supposed to speed or drink and drive and any number of things, but it still happens.

It still happens, therefore it's OK? What is your argument?

 

[The Barbarian]

And Del gave you a vacation for it.

Happened to some one else, lately, couple of times. Maybe, you should be kinda quiet when the issue of banning comes up, um? My guess is that Knight isn't likely to apologize to you.

 

[Buzzword]

This isn't Westeros!

Funny that you mention SoIaF (yay impromptu acronyms!) given that a quote from A Game of Thrones brilliantly sums up my entire reason for avoiding political activism of any kind.

"The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace. They never are."
-George R. R. Martin


It remains to be seen if Qaddafi's downfall will signal the ascent of the Libyan people to a new golden age, or their descent into anarchy.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned much in the news, which was all the rage after Saddam's death, is whether or not Libya is a hotbed of religious or ethnic tension between clashing groups.

Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites were smashed together by Western imperialism, and only held together by a series of brutal dictators.
With the last one's removal, the Shiite has hit the fan and the whole country seems on the brink of chaos.

 

[some other dude]

... for kidding him about claiming to be a chemist, but not knowing that saltpeter doesn't actually reduce sexual desire.

:darwinsm: oh barbie, what a kidder!


Del wasn't amused when you tried "kidding" Cattyfan.

 

[some other dude]

My guess is that Knight isn't likely to apologize to you.

Del didn't apologize to you for the practice that he banned you for.

Del apologized for the common-on-this-site first impression that, if barbie's posting, barbie's probably being dishonest.


barbie, you're widely regarded as the most dishonest poster here. Even people who often support you recognize your propensity for dishonesty.

 

[some other dude]

I think all he did was express the feeling that it is good that no Americans died. It wasn't in comparison with Libyans dying.

brum's response, that he quoted, was exactly as I posted kmo. :idunno:


kmo, you're welcome to read his response any way you like. Since I recognize barbie as a dishonest, racist, game playing piece of trash, I read it differently.

 

[some other dude]

The point about Qaddafi is that he was captured alive and then he was killed. If the orders on Qaddafi were shoot on site, so be it. Don't allow him to surrender and then kill him.

From what I've read online and seen in youtube clips, it appears that he died of injuries sustained in his capture exacerbated by rough handling and delayed medical treatment.

The same goes for Loan/Lem. If the man was caught red-handed, shoot him on site; that's war. However, if the "soldier" surrendered and had his hands tied behind his back, he was accepted as a prisoner. Prisoners with their hands tied behind their back should not be shot in the head on the spot. Just don't accept the surrender and shoot him without tying his hands behind his back.

That's our ethic, yes.
To the South Vietnamese, General Loan's actions were unremarkable.
Catch an enemy in the act of killing your soldiers, drag him to the boss and let him decide.

You want American soldiers treated one way but you are OK with American soldiers (or American allies) treating their enemies another way.

OK with it? No. But I understand where it comes from. I think it's remarkable that we were able to keep Saddam Hussein alive for trial. I think it's unsurprising that the Libyan rebels, fresh from battle, tired, sore, hot, sweaty, hungry, dehydrated, emotionally drained from days of watching their comrades fall were happy to see Gaddafi die, regardless of the manner in which it happened.

I don't want to see anyone (regardless of what they are alleged to have done), who has been accepted as a prisoner, shot in the head.

"Accepted as a prisoner". You make it sound as if there has been an orderly transfer of paperwork.

 

[some other dude]

barbie - any chance you could answer post #110 without being dishonest?