Killing him is not some great victory.

Yes it is.

It seems our difference of opinion on this may be very fundamental.

A victory would have been capturing him, having him tried in a proper court and actually convicted of something with real evidence.

I agree that would have been an even bigger victory. This is still a victory too though as it greatly reduces the capacity of a group of Islamic terrorists that were actively killing people nearly every day. Sure they hadn't killed very many Americans for some time now, but Pakistani civilians are dying everyday to terrorist attacks that WILL be put under pressure and disarray thanks to Osama's death.

If he could actually be shown to be responsible...
If????????

Shame on you for your ignorance. You have access to the internet. go read Al Jazeera, where they have on several occasions reported letters they've received from Osama taking full credit for multiple terrorist attacks on civilians. Go read the English language Pakistani news papers if you don't trust the pro-Western
propaganda of Al Jazeera. Even Pakistan's papers report on direct admission from Osama himself of being responsible. There are elected Pakistani officials that declare Osama a muslim hero, BECAUSE of the attacks he is responsible for.

If??????

Basically they are saying that they turn off their morals at a certain point...

Then you don't see the difference between fighting a war, and enforcing the law. Seeing as you don't even admit Osama's guilt though I shouldn't be surprised.

If you want any respect for your opinions on this from me your passion needs to be matched by your knowledge of the situation, not your ignorance...

from wikipedia

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same, and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children.

Videotape broadcast on al-Jazeera TV as reported by CNN (29 October 2004)

Fox News had four paragraphs written after President Obama spoke. ABC had three pages of pre-written material. Dudge Report linked to ABC, as a matter of fact. Al Jazeera first confirmed DNA testing. NYT first to air video and say that body was on U.S. soil.

Predictions: 1) GOP will blame Bill Clinton again, 2) Conservative radio will mock Obama's conciliatory tone with Islam, 3) Dismiss Obama for working with Pakistan.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.

I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.
"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"
Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador
You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.


How about this...have you read history. The history of the US...the history of NATO? My guess is you have...a watered down history that doesn't point to the war crimes we've committed. Yet you're just fine saying without all the information that we're doing the right thing. I'm merely pointing that we SHOULD FUCKING WAIT before just applauding ourselves like idiots.

I hope we did the right thing...however saying we know everything and that the evidence is overwhelming at this stage is just stupid. Your confidence means nothing to me, express some doubt or you're just another moron saying that God exists and there's no such thing as Global Warming.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission.

Just stop saying that please. Stop thinking the world is black and white it just isn't. You saying that we know there would be a genocide is just stupid. You saying you BELIEVE there would be a genocide is reasonable. Do you understand the difference?

I understand how it can make you uncomfortable, but it must be said.
Gaddafi announced he would commit a genocide.
Gaddafi's historically brutal methods meant we should take that threat seriously.
Gaddafi's immediate actions following his statement make it almost impossible to ignore his threat.
Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi and his own deputy to the UN's warning make it irresponsible to deny his threat was real, credible and unfolding before our eyes.
Gaddafi intended to commit a genocide, and was within hours of seizing the control he needed to do it. Our actions stopped that genocide.
Sure terrible things may still happen, there's still a war going on against a maniacal dictator. The fact of the matter is, how could the world in good conscience stand back and watch a genocide unfold without at least attempting to stop it?

I don't know what else to say except that you don't know if your information is faulty or not. You get your information from where? That matters, you seem to not believe in doubt at all. Do you just believe what everyone tells you about their assessment of a situation immediately or do you want to save some doubt for other possibilities? In other words have you ever taken a science class...apply that same thinking here.


I am confidant because I spend so much time studying multiple separate and independent sources. Al Jazeera being one of the ones that seems to be 'better' by and large. It's their own article here that references Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN. Admittedly he had defected from the regime at the point he said this, but clearly he isn't just some nobody he doesn't understand the situation.

"In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly"

Ibrahim Dabbashi,
Deputy Libyan UN ambassador

You can have doubts about some things, but when the evidence is overwhelming you eventually have to act on it.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.
Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.


But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission. That much we can say with certainty. Even Al Jazeera's article here leaves little doubt where things were going hours before the UN resolution was passed.

The article includes this quote from an interview with Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN:

In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly.

Advising caution is great. Advising inaction in the face of a pending genocide is cowardice.

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech. In fact, he did what almost EVERY country on the face of the planet would do when faced with an armed uprising (this includes the US and the UK). There are other issues at play here also, such as why Burmese, Rwandan, Ivory Coast, Kenyan, North Korean, Saudi, Bahraini leaders deserve more respect than Iraqi and Libyan (oil rich) leaders.

By UN estimates the US killed 100,000 Iraqis (civilians and soldiers)in the first Gulf War. Other estimates show countless thousands died due to the sanctions in the 90s, and god knows how many in the last Iraq War disaster. The entire infrastructure of the Iraqi state has been in shambles for 20 years. In fact, they went from the most modern, secular, arab state to a destroyed wreck of a country. I strongly feel that a 70 year old Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US war was. In my opinion time would have been a much kinder ally to the Iraqis than the US was. Though I understand your point about the Kurds, realistically anything said about Iraq could easily be said about Turkey, one of our biggest allies.

"As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?" I guess my answer to you is yes. Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes. Inconsistency is not going to help anyone.

Thanks for you civil and informed answer. Just so you know, I probably won't have the time to respond again any time soon.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.


like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context
Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.
In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.
The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.
You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.
Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.
As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

>> ^vaporlock:

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.



like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context

Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.

In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.

The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.

You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.

Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.

It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.

As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).

Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).

I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

>> ^vaporlock:

I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"



Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

I've been watching the arabe world change on Al Jazeera in the past few weeks (I am a lucky man working from my home), and let me say that it is sooooo inspiring. I would qualify the movement as the arabe revolution as important as the french revolution to the west. I believe that it is the begining of a new wold. I'm sorry for beiing so dramatic but without the arabe nations fueling the terrorist (advertently or not) there will be changes in the every day policies of the police nations such as the USA or GB or France or even Russia and China that will probably change our lifes in the process. Imagine taking a holyday in Benghazi for exemple maybe not today nor tomorow but one day or eating a real desert from an export shop out of Egypt ...

I have a dream !!! Ok that's enought I had to vent !!!

My government decided to stay out of this mess for the time being, but just like the Turkish, they are already on the verge of joining the party. I was suprised -- and baffled, really -- by the enormous amount of pro-intervention articles by the media, both progressive and conservative, and the lack of hard information therein. The most commonly named reason for supporting the intervention was international standing and diplomatical reliability -- and they don't even realize what fucked up reasoning that truly is.

And the political odour of this entire activism by Sarkozy and Cameron, it just smells like the gents at the pub I was last week: both have serious domestic problems, so one can't help but think of Maggie Thatcher's eagerness about the Falkland War. Fukushima certainly didn't help those two either, both are strong proponents of nuclear power.

Laughland mentioned Kosovo. Remember how the war criminal Slobodan Milošević was removed from power by supporting the UÇK? What a merry band of democrats that was, Hashim Thaçi certainly is one hell of a posterchild. Carla Del Ponte, former prosecutor for the ICTY, published some very insightful articles about it over the years, but the ones I have at hand are in German. Despicable shit.

As for the intervention in Libya: Al Jazeera had some informative op-eds about it, eg. "The drawbacks of intervention in Libya" and "Libya intervention threatens the Arab spring". And, as usual, Greenwald: "The manipulative pro-war argument in Libya".

I had five more paragraphs of personal opinion, but I decided to remove that block of biased rambling.

Yeah Propaganda Radio.... Way to figure out what they have really been up to over there at NPR. Which right wing nut told you that, it's hard to keep track of who is spewing what now. Which one still has credibility to the stupid American masses. Are Glen and Rush still doing well after laughing at the 20,000 Japanese dead, then again I bet their listeners where hooting when they did that. I have to ask you quantum because your the only moron I'm in touch with on a daily basis.

I bet this is a play to slowly dissolve any real news coverage/reporting. At least there is the BBC and Al-Jazeera. American news is already the biggest joke in the world, and this is just making it worse.

It has been reported by Al Jazeera that it was mistakenly shot down by rebel forces.

>> ^criticalthud:

anonymous...you are my heroes
protectors of the global consciousness. the war for information is the most important war of our species


I am not so sure they are heroes. One thing they are is noteworthy.