Gadaffi

[Hacienda71]

Two wrongs don't make a right..........

 

[snailracer]

I think if you read Montyboy's last post properly, you'll see that he acknowledges that very fact.

But it's still murder, that's the cold hard fact. If Gadaffi had been tried and found guilty, then we could dicuss the fine distinction between murder and execution, but he didn't, so murder it is...

IMO, assuming he didn't simply bleed to death after a kosher shootout, the legal situation is less clear cut that might be presumed.

Being both armed and not in uniform, Gadaffi would appear to be an illegal combatant and so was not entitled to all the protections accorded to legitimate POWs. Also, being a leader and figurehead, his (alleged) execution could also be justified under the principle of military necessity, which the various treaties of war do little to restrict (otherwise nuclear weapons or strategic bombing would be illegal, for example).

Morally, to most reasonable people, it would be a murder. However, the laws, rules and conventions of war were drawn up by countries whose own legitmacy was often established through the use of indiscriminate and ruthless violence, which helps explain why the various legal loopholes are in place.

 

[montyboy]

IMO, assuming he didn't simply bleed to death after a kosher shootout, the legal situation is less clear cut that might be presumed.

Being both armed and not in uniform, Gadaffi would appear to be an illegal combatant and so was not entitled to all the protections accorded to legitimate POWs. Also, being a leader and figurehead, his (alleged) execution could also be justified under the principle of military necessity, which the various treaties of war do little to restrict (otherwise nuclear weapons or strategic bombing would be illegal, for example).

Morally, to most reasonable people, it would be a murder. However, the laws, rules and conventions of war were drawn up by countries whose own legitmacy was often established through the use of indiscriminate and ruthless violence, which helps explain why the various legal loopholes are in place.

He was armed and was dressed in combats and he was also a military figure head all of which complicate the legal position. Was Lybia at war or was this a case of civil unrest?

I suspect that nobody wants a detailed investigation and the world will turn a blind eye to this embarrasing incident as the final outcome was acceptable.

It will be interesting to see how the world views the new regime in a few years from now.

 

[Tim Bennet.]

It was civil unrest.

We were only bombing people to 'save lives'.

Semantics are so important when you're trying to justify killings.

 

[SimonC]

I dont think I have a comfortable UK mindset as I have lived and worked in the middle east and do understand a bit of the Arab psyche.

The West backed a rebel group in order to oust a murderer and guess what they did?

There is no such thing as a democracy in the middle east and I doubt there ever will be. Its not a concept they value whilst corruption is not only tolerated but is socially acceptable.

"I dont think I have a comfortable UK mindset as I have lived and worked in the middle east and do understand a bit of the Arab psyche." - no offence but that's bollox.

I have lived and worked all over the world, middle east, west africa, india, far east, but in no way was my lifestyle like that of the locals and I would doubt yours was either.

 

[montyboy]

"I dont think I have a comfortable UK mindset as I have lived and worked in the middle east and do understand a bit of the Arab psyche." - no offence but that's bollox.

I have lived and worked all over the world, middle east, west africa, india, far east, but in no way was my lifestyle like that of the locals and I would doubt yours was either.

Simon, my statement was factual and not "bollox" as so nicely put it.

I dont think I have a comfortable UK mindset, I have lived in the middle east and I do understand a little of the Arab pysche!

I never suggested for one moment that my lifestyle was in any way similar to the locals, where did you get that from?

 

[snailracer]

It was civil unrest.

We were only bombing people to 'save lives'.

Semantics are so important when you're trying to justify killings.

The Libyan people probably do consider the semantics important.

 

[subaqua]

It was civil unrest.

We were only bombing people to 'save lives'.

Semantics are so important when you're trying to justify killings.

thats like f***ing for virginity

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

There are quite a few people on here with repugnant views in my opinion.

A someone who can quite happily watch open heart surgery on the TV whilst eating dinner, I welcome the fact that the news outlets have not just dumbed it all down as if it was all fluffy, nice and a little bit beige.

Qaddafi lost his right to any respect when he started terrorising, arresting and killing his countrymen and woman 30+ years ago (did he start straight away?).

 

[montyboy]

As ugly as it might be I often wonder if it would be a good thing for people to see the reality of theses situations when they are calling for action.

You regularly hear the view that we should "send the troops in" or "sort these people out". The reality of such actions is in reality quite horrific and I speak from experience. Taking another human beings life in violent circumstances is deeply unpleasant and always stays with you.

Or is it the opposite in as much that if people see it often enough then it just becomes the norm?

 

[wiggydiggy]

Of course it would have been more 'humane' for him to be captured, treated and put on trial but the fact remains that there was an airstrike followed by a prolounged gun battle. Peoples blood was up so to find him in that situation, it is hardly surprising that someone may have taken matters into their own hands.

Summary and instant justice is nothing new, here is a non offensive picture of similiar 'justice' from around 50 years ago:

EDIT - Moved moderation query to support/feedback

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Of course it would have been more 'humane' for him to be captured, treated and put on trial but the fact remains that there was an airstrike followed by a prolounged gun battle. Peoples blood was up so to find him in that situation, it is hardly surprising that someone may have taken matters into their own hands.

It had absolutely sod all to do with an airstrike and gun battle! He was captured by the very people who he had effectively shat on for the past 42 years and as a result, utterly hated every fibre of his being. Are people so naive to think they would just have let him pass by and stand trial? No, they probably would have ripped him to pieces with their bare hands given half the chance!

They utterly hated each other! - put it another way, it would have been like if Stalin had captured Hitler (or vice versa). Do you honestly think it would have been civilised?

 

[wiggydiggy]

It had absolutely sod all to do with an airstrike! He was captured by the very people who he had effectively shat on for the past 42 years and utterly hated every fibre of his being. Are people so naive to think they would just have let him pass by and stand trial?

Put it another way, it would have been like if Stalin had captured Hitler (or vice versa). Do you honestly think it would have been civilised?

I am talking about the events leading to his capture, and the timeline of his death. Without repeating what is reported in more detail elsewhere I believe it is roughly:

1) The 'Rebels' (now the legitimate government) are advancing on his compound/hiding place
2) Gadafii along with some soldiers attempts to flee
3) A NATO airstrike disables hi convoy, potentially injuring him and halting his retreat
4) A firefight ensues in which he retreats within a drainage pipe, he is already wounded at this point
5) He is subsequently wounded further whilst being capture on foot
6) He is paraded on camera
7) Off camera, he receives further wounds OR dies of his existing injuries.

So the airstrike was the catalyst, without it he may have been able to flee. I think that is opposite of 'sod all' sorry.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Sorry, misunderstood it as: it had started 42 years before that airstrike and gunfight

He still stood a snowball's chance in hell once he was caught though.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Sorry, misunderstood.

He still stood a snowball's chance in hell once he was caught though.

NP

Of course, and I agree with you even if it wasnt 'the heat of the battle', chances are a latter day Jack Ruby would have taken him out.

What are the chances of Saif (if he's still alive) getting any sort of fair trial?