This clip is higher *quality than the FAUX clip on the front page. No offense to mintbbb.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

F*ck the bible! REJOICE IN THE SLAYING OF YOUR ENEMIES!!

Last weeks Bill Maher interviewed a Christian minister and asked whether it was right to kill Bin Laden despite the sermon on the mount. The dude said yes.

Kind of off topic I know, sorry.

I for one have no qualms about rejoicing at this news. I try hard not to take personal joy that Gaddafi is dead, but instead I take joy in knowing that finally Gaddafi will not be ordering the murders of anybody anymore. I believe one CAN hold the position of grief for the death of anybody, even Gaddafi, while at the same time taking joy amidst that grief in the fact that this particular death means less deaths later on and accordingly, less grief.

In much related news, Al Shabab killed a whole bunch of African Union peace keeping forces in Somalia and was dragging their bodies around the streets cheering this morning. Even while holding the position that killing is one of the worst possible moral things to do, you can logically conclude that some people need killing. IMHO Gaddafi was one, and Al Shabab's leadership is another.

The news of Gaddafi's death prompted me to do a little searching on the causes of the war. Like anything, it turns out it is more complicated than reported. I'm not defending Gadaffi in any way, it seems he had a history of... controversial opinion and dealings. It's just that the conflict in that region is complicated.

Russian PM on NATO involvement in Libyan War:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.

When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.

However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.

Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.

>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

So end all tyrants..

>> ^cosmovitelli:

So end all tyrants..


I wish that were true. The sad reality is many of the most notorious and terrible of tyrants die of old age, wielding absolute power until the very end.

Stalin, 74 years of age from complications stemming from a stroke.
Mao, 82 years of age from complications following a heart attack.
Kim Il-Sung, 82 years of age, heart attack.

Actually, Kim Il-Sung is an exception, he STILL hangs on to power from beyond the grave as North Korea's constitution holds him as the Eternal President.