Gaddafi murdered by NATO and new buddies.

According to Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch, ‘weapon proliferation out of Libya is potentially one of the largest we have ever documented... If Gadhafi loyalists decide to mount an Iraqi-style insurgency, they have access to a thousand times the explosives that the insurgents in Iraq had’.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/26/headlines#4

A democratic Libya?....Pah!

 

Gadhafi loyalists?

 

yes the witch may be dead but his sons and the family and tribe and loyalists are still alive and I can bet you not happy at the images we are seeing

 

Then I hope to see more.

 

The current ' Prime Minister ' of the new Assassins Republic of Libya has just been on tv lying through his teeth. Just another rat-man in the western mold.

 

You mean Jibril? How do YOU know he's a liar?

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/213461-libyans-awake-ludicrous-nightmare.html


It should not come as a surprise that Libyans have adopted the pre-Qaddafi national symbols, including the flag and 1951 Libyan Constitution that Qaddafi suspended in 1969; that era was the last sane period many remember.

The majority of Libyans were born during his dictatorship but many are yearning for those days of stability and constitutional order and a semblance of civil society

 

Excellent posts guys, I totally agree with you both

 

Because I've just witnessed the little rat attempting to tell the world that Gaddafi died accidentally in ' crossfire '. This was almost immediately after a broadcast featuring the fool who shot him and witnesses to that event. Get real, Margot. The manner of Gaddafi's death is an embarrassment to the successful coup, to NATO, to the United Nations and to liars in general. Somebody should have shot the witnesses. Maybe they have by now.

 

There was NO way thta the NTC could guarantee Khadafi's safety unless he surrendered..

Khadafi should have saved himself and his family back in March or April.

Khadafi was shot by ONE young fighter.. It was NOT a collective.

I heard Jibril say that he wanted Khadafi alive to stand trial.

 

Jibril denied that Gaddafi was assassinated. That makes him a liar. Libya is now led , temporarily, by assassins and liars. The difference now is that these are Western-friendly assassins and liars. That's very bad news for Africa.

 

So it wasn't ONE young soldier who shot Khadafi... it was ALL of them???

Is that your logic?

 

I do not understand why you have posted this several times given that in 1969 Gaddafi came into power in a bloodless coup. The previous rulers were hated.

 

You mean Idris? He wasn't hated. He had been the Emir of Tripoli for years before he was chosen to be king and united the tribes to drive out the Italians.


Here's the Constitution from that time

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/213138-constitution-libya-1951-a.html

 

It was a group act, yes, and the group acted under orders . If not they were a rogue group of mercenaries out for infamy and plunder. Whichever it was, NATO and its imperialist leadership must take the ultimate blame.

 

Rubbish.

An individual is an individual first and foremost.

Unless he acted on orders, which would have to be proven BTW, only he is responsible for this acts.

That is the basis of criminal law and will not be changed for your agenda.

There is no such thing as collective guilt under criminal law.

 

You talk a worse quality of tripe every time you appear. Spectators at a gang rape - particularly those providing encouragement- are guilty of a crime. The same is true of murderers and their entourage .

 

Moon, persons can only be found to be guilty of a crime (such as accessory to murder or aiding an abetting a murder) IF you prove that they partook in that particualar crime. It is not criminal to be a spectator of a rape and that is in fact an issue that many have with the law pertaining to rape as it currently stands in most jurisdictions. With respect to murder the rules are even more lenient in wartime by virtue of military law which acknowledges that detroying the enemy is the while purpose (and with Ghadaffi wielding a golden pistol and publically making known that he will never surrender but fight to the death, I think proving that this man acted illegally in the criminal law sense, would be impossible - not to mention your foolish reference to NATO and imperialism). Can you prove anything instead of resorting to insults? Or do you prefer emotive anti-western diabtribes?

 

Geez really. I hate it when stupid takes precedence for the sake of argument. Its quite a bit different, well quite a lot different actually. Everyone there was celebrating the capture = no problem, then one person took an action which took a second. A gang rape is when a gang rapes which is going to take a lot more time. The ability of the 'crowd' to do anything is directly related to the time the event takes because they have to perceive, decide and then act - so with a pistol shot at close range that is impossible unless the guy stands up and proclaims he is going to shoot the guy with sufficient time beforehand.

 

Axial Moon's claims that a crowd is guilty of the crime that they witness is not true. His claim that spectators of rape are guilty of rape is wrong.

In fact even if one could prove that this man murdered Ghadaffi intentionally, the fact that he refused to surrender and told the world that he would never do so, plus that he was armed and it was a war zone, would eradicate any possibility of a conviction. Of course none of his superiors can be shown to have given orders, even less so for the leaders. Going up the chain to NATO, even less connection or evidence = no crime.

All in all typical anti-western rhetoric in support of a dictator who killed his own people without batting an eyelash.

 

This thread belongs in the conspiracy section but since we all know who the mods sympathize with it wont be.


Anyway, no, nato didn't murder him. This "he had secrets" crap is so bull(*)(*)(*)(*). He could have started releasing secrets the day the air strikes started, yet he didn't, WHY? Because there weren't any. You conspiracy loones are really funny. Apparently you lack any and all ability to actually think before you speak because you're blinded by your own stupidity.

Im sure my post will be modderate and this thread still wont be moved to the proper section, where it belongs.

 

Nah, it's such a crap post that nobody will bother with it.

 

Neither of these claims are mine. Your capacity for invention is working overtime.

 

You claimed that spectators at a rape are guilty of a crime but that is not true. Here:

As criminal law does not punish a crowd which witnesses a crime, contrary to your aforementioned claim that it does, it seem that you are not leaving much to the imagination at all.

 

I suggest you bone up on some law. Try Jodie Foster's The Accused , for example, as an entertaining route to improving your knowledge ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_(1988_film)

Funnily enough, it deals directly with witnesses to rape........and you're wrong.

And for emphasis;

 

I think you are speaking of the duty to rescue, here. For instance, if you witness a rape and don't do anything to make it stop (such as calling the police) you can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. That works well in a bar setting, not so well in a war torn society.