Bluegrassrivals

Quote:SIRTE, Libya — Ousted dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been captured or killed after the apparent fall of his hometown of Sirte, according to reports out of Libya.
The AFP news agency provided a photograph that appeared to show a wounded or dead Gadhafi.
National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid initially told Reuters that Gadhafi has been wounded in both legs in Sirte.
Reuters later reported that Gadhafi had died of his wounds, citing a senior NTC military official.
"He was also hit in his head," the official said. "There was a lot of firing against his group and he died." There was no independent confirmation of Gadhafi's death.
NBC News' Adrienne Mong spoke with an English-speaking friend of an ambulance driver who said he saw Gadhafi after his capture.
"They are going to (the city of) Misrata. I think he is dead. In the head, in the body lots of blood. So many people guys with him. When we touch that man ... believe me I am so happy," he said.
Majid, the NTC official, said Gadhafi was trying to flee in a convoy when NATO warplanes attacked.
Majid said NATO warplanes struck the convoy and hit four cars as it headed west.
The head of Gadhafi's armed forces, Abu Bakr Younus Jabr, was killed during the capture of the Libyan ex-leader, he added, and Ahmed Ibrahim, a cousin and adviser of Gadhafi, was captured.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44971257/ns/..._n_africa/

I will choose my words carefully, "this is a good strategic victory for the United States and many around the world."

I can support this. This is a murderer and just plain bad person. I know that I am supposed to put retribution into Gods hands, and just maybe this was done by the hand of God????

Wow. He got jacked up good. I just hope his people aren't as dumb as him, and they are able to create a self-sustaining government without the need for U.S. help.

And, I was hoping it was NTC rebels that killed him, but it was apparently a NATO air strike while he was trying to get out of the city, and when the rebels tried to capture his group, they resisted and got lit up. That's how it went down from what I can tell.

It's good that they at least had a hand in his death.

^ So in essence it was a US airstrike?

Stardust Wrote:^ So in essence it was a US airstrike?

The US isn't supposed to be involved in the airstrikes anymore.

Only from what I've heard, Muammar Gaddafi was in a vehicle and traveling down a road when a U.S. missile hit his vehicle and caused his vehicle to flip over. Muammar Gaddafi got out of the vehicle and hid in a ditch (or something like a ditch). Libyan rebels came, pulled him out of the ditch, and shot him once in the head.

Again, I'm not sure if I correctly told that story or not. And I'm really not sure if that's what happened. If the Libyan rebels did kill Muammar Gaddafi like that, that would be bad in my opinion. If that's really what happened, this rebellion in Libya is like the French revolution, which ended very badly. If this was like the American revolution, they would've spared his life and put him on trial.

^I know that some of you might not like this response, but Muammar Gaddafi wouldn't have any chance to escape from the rebels if he was in a trench. Therefore, it would be humane and perfectly reasonable to keep him alive and put him on trial. If there was a chance for him to escape, then I would personally agree it would be smart to kill Muammar Gaddafi before he did escape. But since there seemed to be very little chance of escape for him, he should've been kept alive.

Stardust Wrote:^ So in essence it was a US airstrike?

That's what I thought I heard, but I'm not sure. If TheRealVille is right, then I'm not sure what happened.

Stardust Wrote:^ So in essence it was a US airstrike?

NATO*, not US.

I'm not sure about U.S. aircraft not taking part in airstrikes anymore, but I know that we are still using drones.

Like I said, I have no idea what specific country those aircraft were from, but there's plenty of countries who's aircraft are a part of this mission, so I kind of doubt it to be U.S. aircraft. Probably British or French, if I had to guess. Could've been U.S., just don't know...

From what I'm finding, NATO won't confirm or deny that the specific convoy they hit had Gadhafi or not...

Everything I've found has said that he was shot in both legs, and hit in the head...that tells me that all of those wounds were not shrapnel, but actual rounds, which wouldn't come from aircraft. I'd bet that the rebels killed him themselves..

That's the way I think it should be.

An air strike hit his convoy, apparently French jets and a Predator, he survived and then was captured and killed by NTC rebels.

Just seen that on CNN.

vundy33 Wrote:NATO*, not US.

I'm not sure about U.S. aircraft not taking part in airstrikes anymore, but I know that we are still using drones.

Like I said, I have no idea what specific country those aircraft were from, but there's plenty of countries who's aircraft are a part of this mission, so I kind of doubt it to be U.S. aircraft. Probably British or French, if I had to guess. Could've been U.S., just don't know...

News reports say they aren't.

TheRealVille Wrote:News reports say they aren't.

Ahh...I wouldn't doubt it. It's been confirmed that the Predator was U.S. and the planes were French. Sounds about right.

vundy33 Wrote:Ahh...I wouldn't doubt it. It's been confirmed that the Predator was U.S. and the planes were French. Sounds about right.

Yes, the news is now saying that a Predator Drone fired a missile into his convey as they tried to run, with a French aircraft joining in. He survived that, and was captured by NTC soldiers. They shot him in the legs, and then a shot to the head took him out. Good riddance.

Sounds like hostilities to me. At least Obama's violation of the War Powers Act will soon come to an end. I am happy to see justice finally obtained for the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and their survivors but I have my doubts that American national interests will be served by Gaddafi's demise.

There is no indication that the rebels who we have enabled to depose the Gaddafi regime are any less inclined to engage in terrorism than the previous government and it is clear that the thugs who have filled the power vacuum left in Egypt are much less supportive of American interests than Hosni Mubarak was.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Sounds like hostilities to me. At least Obama's violation of the War Powers Act will soon come to an end. I am happy to see justice finally obtained for the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and their survivors but I have my doubts that American national interests will be served by Gaddafi's demise.

There is no indication that the rebels who we have enabled to depose the Gaddafi regime are any less inclined to engage in terrorism than the previous government and it is clear that the thugs who have filled the power vacuum left in Egypt are much less supportive of American interests than Hosni Mubarak was.

From what I've seen, the leaders of the NTC seem very, very pro-U.S.


The main thing I don't want is another shit hole that will let terrorists chill within their borders, and that we will either have to intervene militarily or give money to. I suggest that our government help them out as little as possible unless we are getting something in return. This is NOT the time to give billions to one more country that will use it against us...

Just to let everyone know, the following link does involve graphic material. Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/gadhafi-killed-kno...00323.html

I really don't think this is good. In the American revolution, it wasn't about killing people. It was about receiving freedom so that we could take care of ourselves (which the King of England wasn't doing a very good job at). In the French revolution, they not only killed the King and Queen of France, but also rich people. If all of you notice, there's a difference between the American revolution and the French revolution. And I think a dictator actually took power right after the French revolution... But I do know that the French revolution ended badly.

Deathstar 80 Wrote:Just to let everyone know, the following link does involve graphic material. Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/gadhafi-killed-kno...00323.html

I really don't think this is good. In the American revolution, it wasn't about killing people. It was about receiving freedom so that we could take care of ourselves (which the King of England wasn't doing a very good job at). In the French revolution, they not only killed the King and Queen of France, but also rich people. If all of you notice, there's a difference between the American revolution and the French revolution. And I think a dictator actually took power right after the French revolution... But I do know that the French revolution ended badly.

So why don't you think this is good? lol.

Don't kid yourself...the American revolution might've not be about killing people (and neither is the Libyan revolution), but not many Americans thought twice about that. They had to kill the enemy to receive the freedom to take care of themselves and govern themselves.

Either way, they're not even really comparable or worth comparing. I'm not big on criticizing a people for fighting for their own freedom...

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Sounds like hostilities to me. At least Obama's violation of the War Powers Act will soon come to an end. I am happy to see justice finally obtained for the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and their survivors but I have my doubts that American national interests will be served by Gaddafi's demise.

There is no indication that the rebels who we have enabled to depose the Gaddafi regime are any less inclined to engage in terrorism than the previous government and it is clear that the thugs who have filled the power vacuum left in Egypt are much less supportive of American interests than Hosni Mubarak was.

You tell them hoot. Obama not only helped take down a murderous dictator he done it without killing thousands of our troops. Oh wait he broke the law? So we should have got congress approval on false Intel then deploy ground troops on foreign soil and do it the legal way. Brilliant!

I honestly think it would kill you to go through one thread without taking a shot at your president.

With all of this - it only leaves one mad man to tend too.

Fidel Castro or Cuba.

Personally, I'm glad another "murderous dictator" is gone. I also don't care who's Amin it's under. Gaddafi is gone and we (USA) have no idea what's in store for Libya. Can our drones insure democracy?

What's most frustrating is the two faced media. If a republican President did this in the same exact way, the democrats and their campaign headquarters (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) would be squealing as loud as they could about what a mess had been created.

There are two faces on both sides, but democrats and the media own it, but can't handle it when a republican stoops to it. Why is that?

Obama is a leftist Democrat so he continues to get free passes. Hopefully he doesn't get a free pass for four more years of job killing policies. Maybe our next President can make him the #1 Hit Man. He is good at that.

I did say Obama was a good hit man. That is a compliment.

vundy33 Wrote:So why don't you think this is good? lol.

Don't kid yourself...the American revolution might've not be about killing people (and neither is the Libyan revolution), but not many Americans thought twice about that. They had to kill the enemy to receive the freedom to take care of themselves and govern themselves.

Either way, they're not even really comparable or worth comparing. I'm not big on criticizing a people for fighting for their own freedom...

I think you're missing my point vundy33. I'm claiming that Libya isn't going to have freedom. I encourage you to read about the French revolution and the Iranian revolution. Today in Iran, they don't have human rights like we have here in America.

Muammar Gaddafi did some horrible and incredibly evil acts. I'm not disagreeing with you about that. But it's bad that the rebels treated him the way they did. First, nobody should be killed the way Gaddafi was, even if they've done horrible actions. If you're able to watch it, I encourage you to watch the violent video of Gaddafi's final moments, but I warn you that there's a lot of graphic images in that video. Secondly, that video is an obvious sign that this isn't an "American revolution". To me, this is obviously a "French revolution". The Libyan people will end up just like today's Iranian republic. If Libya had someone like George Washington, then things would be much better for Libya. George Washington was willing to show honor and respect to everyone, even to his enemies.

Great news yes but time will tell what the "Arab Spring" really means to America and our interest.

TheRealVille Wrote:Spin it anyway you wish, but we weren't in a war with Libya.

My guess that the overwhelming majority of people consider firing missiles from unmanned drones and planes and killing troops and civilians (a/k/a "rebels") on foreign soil to be acts of war. The rules of war may have changed over time but the definition of war has not.

Deathstar 80 Wrote:I think you're missing my point vundy33. I'm claiming that Libya isn't going to have freedom. I encourage you to read about the French revolution and the Iranian revolution. Today in Iran, they don't have human rights like we have here in America.

Muammar Gaddafi did some horrible and incredibly evil acts. I'm not disagreeing with you about that. But it's bad that the rebels treated him the way they did. First, nobody should be killed the way Gaddafi was, even if they've done horrible actions. If you're able to watch it, I encourage you to watch the violent video of Gaddafi's final moments, but I warn you that there's a lot of graphic images in that video. Secondly, that video is an obvious sign that this isn't an "American revolution". To me, this is obviously a "French revolution". The Libyan people will end up just like today's Iranian republic. If Libya had someone like George Washington, then things would be much better for Libya. George Washington was willing to show honor and respect to everyone, even to his enemies.

What is it with you and revolutions man? I lol'd for a sec to be honest. I've also read a lot already about these revolutions you've mention.

In my opinion...

First -- "nobody should be killed the way Gaddafi was, even if they've done horrible actions. If you're able to watch it,"

Come on...it's not like he was tortured. Put yourself in the rebels position, they have been in a war with the Gaddafi regime and his forces for what, 7-9 months? Gaddafi said that he'd step down over his dead body, and that he'd die fighting. Well, he died, which is pretty much an automatic step down, and he died being a little crybaby, but oh well. He wasn't tortured, just beat on some. Alot of that was those civilians/rebels were hitting him with the bottom of their shoes in the face as much as possible, that's a weird way Arabs show that they hate you, a good spit to the face would be our equivalent from what I've gathered.

Numero dos -- "Secondly, that video is an obvious sign that this isn't an "American revolution". To me, this is obviously a "French revolution". The Libyan people will end up just like today's Iranian republic."

Ok...if this was going to be likened to one of those revolutions, it would be the American. We haven't seen a mass murder or "prosecution" of government leaders, nor have we seen the mass murder or prosecution of an entire social class. What we have seen, though, is a group of people that were being oppressed and wanted rid of it, so they formed together to create the NTC and reject the rule of Gaddafi's regime. They managed a war against the regime out of this council and militia/rebels fought to gain independence for themselves and their country, which they have now, for the most part, achieved. Now it is time for the NTC to govern, and although the Americans of 1783 were much more prepared to govern themselves, the NTC has functioned well, so far, and have showed no signs of any kind of rule that would even remotely resemble Iran. So far, their leaders have more than welcomed the U.S., and show nothing that would indicate that "the Libyan people will end up just like today's Iranian republic".

And fiinnnalllyyy -- "If Libya had someone like George Washington, then things would be much better for Libya. George Washington was willing to show honor and respect to everyone, even to his enemies."

lol what?!?! IF ANY COUNTRY had someone like George Washington, then things would be great. We could use another George Washington right now really. Anyway...George Washington showed honor and respect for the British huh? This dude was a straight up killing machine when it came to killing Brits..the dude parked his army about 20 miles outside of Philly, at Valley Forge, for 6 miserable months just so he could kill them some more when they moved out of the city. This cat was a beast when it came to warfighting man..show honor and respect to his enemies?! Sure must've not been the British enemies he was baking cookies with, besides the normal military honor and courtesy codes of the late 18th century, of course.

Dude, this is such a different culture, these people actually done a respectable job compared to what I thought they would do. They didn't do anything overly crazy to the body, they didn't drag it through the streets, they didn't torture him...I don't think it's really bad at all considered what the rebels could've done. They had been in a war with this guy for months! He killed so many of his own, and he's government has been confirmed to have fund and help plan attacks that killed Americans. I can think of plenty of people throughout history that should've been and should be killed alot worse than Gaddafi was...

And also, the Libyans do not like the Iranians. Hardly any of Iran's Arab neighbors like them. Arabs and Persians don't like each other...it's been like that for a long, long time, and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Plus, alot of the leaders of the NTC are former government officials under Gaddafi that have defected and spoke out against the regime...I find it hard to believe that they would allow, much less want, a government like Iran's.

Iran also isn't as different as you seem to think it is...do some more reading up on it. Persians don't like when they get portrayed like their "uncivilized" Arab neighbors like they are living under an iron fist or 15th century Sharia law or something, lol. Two-thirds of Iran's population is under the age of 25, and they're pretty cool people. These are the people that will make another, successful revolution in Iran happen. Also, Iranian women are freakin' hot...

[Image: 640x480_resize_thumb_persian_girl_soccer_game.jpg]

Hoot Gibson Wrote:My guess that the overwhelming majority of people consider firing missiles from unmanned drones and planes and killing troops and civilians (a/k/a "rebels") on foreign soil to be acts of war. The rules of war may have changed over time but the definition of war has not.

Ahh come on man, you know better than that crap. That's not the "definition of war".

Now that obviously looks like a reach to try to blame Pres Obama and his administration with something. We weren't killings any rebels, we were asked for help by the "rebels", and we provided that help along with NATO. Not all civilians were/are rebels. Throughout the war, the term "rebels" was most commonly used to describe the fighters that were part of the Libyan resistance.

Saying the United States was at war with Libya is not really correct...we were fighting Gaddafi's Army, the Libyan Army, but we did not recognize Gaddafi's regime as the leaders of Libya, the NTC took over that role. So, does it really make sense to just simply say "the United States was at war with Libya"? I don't think so, if anything, it was "NATO was involved in armed conflict in Libya".

The only rebels and civilians NATO killed were incidental. That kind of stuff happens when rounds and bombs come into play. Small numbers of civilian casualties because of NATO strikes sounds alot better than Gaddafi's troops shelling a city indiscriminately for 3 days and killing many more civilians. Good trade to me.

vundy33 Wrote:Ahh come on man, you know better than that crap. That's not the "definition of war".

Now that obviously looks like a reach to try to blame Pres Obama and his administration with something. We weren't killings any rebels, we were asked for help by the "rebels", and we provided that help along with NATO. Not all civilians were/are rebels. Throughout the war, the term "rebels" was most commonly used to describe the fighters that were part of the Libyan resistance.

Saying the United States was at war with Libya is not really correct...we were fighting Gaddafi's Army, the Libyan Army, but we did not recognize Gaddafi's regime as the leaders of Libya, the NTC took over that role. So, does it really make sense to just simply say "the United States was at war with Libya"? I don't think so, if anything, it was "NATO was involved in armed conflict in Libya".

The only rebels and civilians NATO killed were incidental. That kind of stuff happens when rounds and bombs come into play. Small numbers of civilian casualties because of NATO strikes sounds alot better than Gaddafi's troops shelling a city indiscriminately for 3 days and kilyling many more civilians. Good trade to me.

I did not mean to imply that the deaths of Libyan civilians was deliberate but friendly fire deaths are a part of war. Libya was a sovereign nation, Gaddafi was its head of state, and Gaddafi's army was Libya's army. We inserted ourselves into a civil war, the outcome of which would have been quite different without our military intervention. I don' see how you cannot call what happened in Libya war.

The issue of whether Obama violated the War Powers Act does not hinge on whether Gaddafi posed a serious threat to our military. Deliberately attacking amd killing the troops of a sovereign country is an act of war, regardless of the justification.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Sounds like hostilities to me. At least Obama's violation of the War Powers Act will soon come to an end. I am happy to see justice finally obtained for the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and their survivors but I have my doubts that American national interests will be served by Gaddafi's demise.

There is no indication that the rebels who we have enabled to depose the Gaddafi regime are any less inclined to engage in terrorism than the previous government and it is clear that the thugs who have filled the power vacuum left in Egypt are much less supportive of American interests than Hosni Mubarak was.

Yes, there is indication that they will be better. The NTC wants a road to democracy, and have stated as much. Like Vundy said, they seem to very much pro-US. Hillary Clinton has already went to Libya to start the Libya/US ties process and to proclaim that we will stand by them in their path to being a democratic nation.

TheRealVille Wrote:Yes, there is indication that they will be better. The NTC wants a road to democracy, and have stated as much. Like Vundy said, they seem to very much pro-US. Hillary Clinton has already went to Libya to start the Libya/US ties process and to proclaim that we will stand by them in their path to being a democratic nation.

I am sure that the rebels took a vote to determine which of them got the honor of executing Gaddafi, an injured and defenseless prisoner of war, without the benefit of a trial. Look around the world. How many democratic Muslim nations do you see? Libya has no democratic tradition and it is extremely unlikely that they will form a democratic government. If they do, it will revert to form within a very few years.