Did the Libyan rebels lose a little global sympathy by "murdering" Gaddafi?

Personally, I think it was more of a travesty when Saddam was put to death after a farce trial.

Gaddafi got what he was asking for, his own people showed him their gratitude for what he did for them during his regime, much like Mussolini did. When you do that kind of shit it’s always a gamble, sometimes you win (like Francisco Franco) and sometimes they shoot you in the kneecaps, drag you in the streets and kill you.

True, you never should rejoice of someone else’s death, but pardon me if i don’t shed a tear either.

I agree with you @ucme but I think as soon as a bounty was put on his head, his days were numbered. There was no way he was going to be captured alive. I would prefer to have seen him tried in the International Criminal Court.

@Thammuz I’m not in the slightest bit saddened by his demise, just thought it was done in the wrong way that’s all.
@Bellatrix Yeah, I can’t believe he didn’t have the sense to “get the hell outta dodge”
Was he that deluded? He frequently stated that he had the backing of “his people”....really!?!

@ucme How would you have liked it? Just to understand what is wrong with this picture in your eyes.

Well I do think he was that deluded and evil. I agree with @Thammuz though, Saddam’s trial was a sham. So if he was going to be tried, it would have to be at The Hague.

Interesting opinion piece by Geoffrey Robertson

@Thammuz I’d have thought that was obvious, I mean it was a case of either killing him right there & then or putting him on trial, along the lines of @Bellatrix‘s suggestion.

@ucme see, i’m no fan of processing that kind of assholes, whether it is the hague or any other court. A process implies there is anything they could ever say or do that would get them off the hook or at the very least make us not think they are worthy of the death penalty. Saddam, Gaddafi, Mussolini, Hitler etcetera are clearly beyond the point where we could feasibly condemn them to anything less so i say kill them outright.

As for killing them then and there, I think there is a pragmatic, if a little callous, reason why they would never do that: the people want blood. They were fed up enough to start a revolution, they’re not going to be satisfied with that little. So actually making a show of it makes it more satisfying to the mob and actually helps morale and makes the transition easier.

I’m from Italy, and I can assure you, there is a reason why Mussolini was killed like that: hate. Searing boiling steaming hate. Hell they even killed his mistress, just because she was his mistress, in that same lynching. It’s fucked up, and it shouldn’t be endorsed, but it comes as natural as eating, sleeping and breathing.

I don’t think the Libyan rebels have lost sympathy in the eyes of the world. They still have that, but the murder of Gaddafi was unfortunate and shows the lack of discipline in the rebel ranks.

@flutherother one would think that them being rebels vould imply lack of discipline in and of itself, mate.

@Thammuz I get what you’re saying, a similar fate fell upon Ceausescu & his missus some years back. Then there’s Milosevic on the other side of the coin. I guess our opinions differ on the matter, which is fine & inevitable really.

@ucme Actually, i don’t think we disagree at all. I agree that it would be better as far as ethics and morality goes if they were tried and condemned in fair trials, but they’re never going to be fair because nobody would seriously approach anyone like that without knowing what they’d done and either being on their side or completely and utterly against them. It’s not that i disagree that i would be better, it’s just that it’s not going to happen…

They lost as much sympathy from me as the Basterds did when they killed Hitler et al. Given the chance, I would have strangled him with my bare hands.

I don’t think so. I do think that killing him was wrong, but they definitely have my sympathy, and most likely they still have the sympathy of the world.

As to your question of whether the Libyan people lost a little global sympathy, I’d say NO.

And perhaps some of the others in the region (Assad, Ahmadinejad, the Saudi Royals) had a bit more difficulty sleeping last night, knowing what is going to happen to them.

I would think yes they did lose some sympathy.

but probably not much

Right or not, it was their vengeance to exact for the burden born at his behest. Lost sympathy, not for this. What they do next will determine that.

Probably not from most people. I think it was barbaric what they did to him, but nothing more than he probably deserved. I wish he could have been captured and executed in a less torturous way, but I wasn’t there, he wasn’t my oppressor.

I am dismayed that the whole graphic thing has been shown on our television. I looked away after I realized what was happening to him and that he was still alive. Since when do we have to show all that? Just tell us what happened and leave that gory stuff for those who like to watch it on the internet.

I seriously doubt that keeping the sympathy of the rest of the world was uppermost in their minds. Probably not even a blip on their radar screen :)

They knew what had to be done and did it. Plain and simple. They tracked him down and made certain he’d never be able to harm anyone again.

It’s not as if there were mitigating circumstances to his cruelty and murder of others (like he had an unhappy childhood in extreme poverty or something). The guy was a psychopath.

@Buttonstc It’s not as if there were mitigating circumstances to his cruelty and murder of others (like he had an unhappy childhood in extreme poverty or something). The guy was a psychopath.
There would be no mitigating circumstances in my book. Poverty is not an excuse for murder.

I’ve never felt sympathy for the Libyan rebels (though I agree with their cause obviously, Gaddafi was insane). How else would they have dealt with the situation of finding Gaddafi other than gruesomely killing him? The continuos gunfire and violence from masses of men doesn’t mean as much to me as the lack of women, shown amongst all the images we see on TV. I feel sorry for these women, who are sitting at home, oppressed and with almost no voice to be heard. That’s just how I feel about this situation.

@wilma

I agree wholeheartedly with you. There is no excuse. I’m with Judge Judy on that one.

I was basically just pointing out an absurdity.

It is a fitting end for a crazy dictator. I am fine with it.

Due process? Is there anyone in the world who questions his quilt? Is there anyone in the world who does not know the penalty for what he did among his people?

Do the Libyans lose sympathy? Perhaps among a certain crowd of lawyers and people who are against the death penalty and people who believe there should be some kind of seemliness about it all. But I think most people will be understanding and give them a break. I think it will help them build a democracy and I think they need all the help they can get. They do not need this trial looming over them. They have much more serious things to focus on than dragging out the death of a hated dictator.

Good stuff @wundayatta, but does anyone really question the man’s bedding!?!
I mean, he lived a decadent lifestyle, but come on!

No. Gadaffi was a nutcase. It’s highly unlikely anyone besides his wife will miss him.

@ucme I know! (Or I think I know—are you referring to his garb?). Everyone talks about the “golden brown” nature of his pants. I haven’t seen a picture, and I’m not going to if I can help it, but I guess he must have thought he was some kind of djinn, and he’d magically get away with everything.

@wundayatta Well, yeah that & the fact you said his “quilt.”

@ucme LOL. I did say “quilt,” didn’t I? Well, you know how it is. That old catch phrase from the radio show, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The quilt knows!” The quilt throws a long shadow (a hint, in case you don’t know the radio show which, I must say, predates me, hard thought that may be to believe). (Ok. Another typo, which I decided to leave in just because). The fingers have minds of their own.

@CaptainHarley That busty nurse he always had with him might miss him a bit, lol.

The reports are still not conclusive. Even if it was murder, the rebel murderer does not stand for all Libyan rebels.

Of course a trial would have been the better way. Same for Bin Laden.

One would really have had to be out of touch with the whole tenor of this conflict (and with much of history, for that matter) to have expected a display of high-minded restraint. The rebels have never been much more than a mob, if that—more like a collection of mobs.

That’s not to detract from the rightness of their aspiration. But mobs don’t bring out the best in people (I think of when Lara Logan was assaulted in Cairo after the fall of Mubarak). SOmetimes it takes the raw energy of a mob to effectuate change against entrenched power, but everyone should recognize by now that a mob is a different kind of creature.

Sic Semper Tyrannis. The manner of his death is a pretty good concrete example of the virtue of moral justice.

Trials should be for people who’s guilt/innocence is in question, even if just by a tiny bit. Gadaffi wasn’t in any way an innocent man so why spend the money on a trial. I am fine with the way he was brought to justice.

Did they murder him?

I saw the snuff photos and videos. They were disturbing, but I didn’t see anything to support that claim.

The video shows a dazed Qaddaffi, alive, but with what looks like a gunshot wound to his head, being led through a mob by armed men. They aren’t hurting him, though it looks like some of the mob were being annoying.

The reports say that Qaddafi’s convoy was bombed by warplanes, then rebels on the ground fired heavy weapons at the convoy survivors… then, later they found Qaddaffi in a drain pipe. He had weapons on him, too.

As disturbing as all these images are, I don’t see any evidence that he was “murdered,” i.e. shot while defenseless or after having surrendered. It’s said he died in rebel custody while being transported… maybe they could have taken better care of his wounds, but, you know, he was apparently shot in the head. I hear that’s typically fatal.

I really think you guys are throwing around the word “murder” too loosely. Same goes for the bin Laden situation.

Both bin Laden and Qaddaffi were (1) armed, and (2) using force to evade their “arrest.” If a wanted suspect is fleeing from police wielding an AK-47 (bin Laden) or traveling in a heavily armed convoy (Qaddafi) and is firing shots at you, it’s not “murder” if you shoot at them and happen to injure or kill them.

I would love for our special forces and for the ragtag Libyan militias to have phasers set to stun instead of bullets in these situations, but that’s impractical.

I don’t really think they did lose much sympathy. I’m sure many people worldwide are actually glad that they killed him. And like @Buttonstc said, I’m sure getting global sympathy wasn’t their prime concern in the first place.

That’s life. I’m not rejoicing simply because I haven’t lived through what they did. If I were those people, I would’ve done the same.

LMAO @tedd

Ya think? : D

No. This man killed thousands everyday, and got what he deserves in return. I mean, the guy was insane.
But I’m a little confused, many sources suggest that the ‘NATO’ murdered Gaddafi during his escape from the region he resided in using planes from above. Correspondingly, I don’t really think anything else – including direct murder – could have showed such wounds as shown in pictures.. Especially that his son and his followers were murdered too.. So is this true?
There is a potential that after the ‘deed’ was done, the NATO’s decision to make it seem like the Libians murdered him in order to reconstruct their.. reputation or prestige, and make it seem like they took vengeance on behalf of their country’s honor.

Opinions?

@Luiveton, Q fled Surt in a convoy with about a hundred vehicles.

NATO fighter jets and a predator drone bombed the convoy.

Q and others survived but scattered and took cover.

Rebels then attacked the scattered survivors on the ground.

Q was found by rebels hiding in a drainage ditch. It appears that he had suffered a gunshot wound to the head before he was found, although that’s not entirely clear.

I say let Freedom Ring for the people of Libya. You can only mistreat the people for so long, until the law of self-preservation will take over.

Start a new country, a new government and call it New Libya.

This man was a cancer and needed to be dealt with and so the people did. Good.

Nope.

First of all, it’s not absolutely certain what happened in the killing of Gaddaffi or who pulled the trigger. Secondly, extrajudicial killings and assassinations are perfectly O.K. these days, it seems. The Libyan people suffered a lot more, for a lot longer than Americans did from the actions of Osama Bin Laden yet it was apparently O.K. for us to kill him without a trial.

@lillycoyote

What’s even more disturbing is when the government decides it’s ok to kill American citizens without benefit of trial, judge, jury or defense counsel. Basically just Obama ordering the death of an American citizen. Unacceptable, even if he was a terrorist ( Al Walaki ).

@Leanne1986 Actually, trials are for anyone accused of a crime. There is no justice in a justice system if you can deprive someone of liberty or life without due process. If trials were only for people whose guilt or innocence is in question who exactly is it or was it who has already determined that they were indeed guilty? The military, the media, you, me, a committee, the President, someone else?

[mod says] Off-topic conversation removed. Also, for the record, I have no idea why that symbol shows up sometimes. I always assumed it was a purposeful thing people were doing, but that it didn’t appear correctly in my browser.

@lily

You ask who it was that decided Gaddafi’s guilt or innocence ?

In his particular case, I’d say the answer is “pretty much the entire rest of the world” (with the possible exception of the other murderous totalitarian dictators doing the same things he did).

Some things are as plain as the nose on your face. Don’t you think that if there were a scintilla of doubt about whether he did the things he was reported (NOT purported; crucial diff. there) that some aspiring journalist or news organization looking to make a name for themselves wouldn’t be jumping all over themselves to report on this gross indecency ? How he was railroaded into this with bogus charges etc. etc.

There are certainly enough tried and true bleeding heart liberals all over the place to leap to his defense (if there were any conceivable defense) and proclaim his innocence to the world.

But the silence is deafening.

The absurdity of his innocence is what I was trying to highlight with my previous comment about “extenuating circumstances”. He didn’t even have a poverty stricken disadvantaged childhood where he was abused and neglected bla bla bla….

And even if he did, is that any excuse for his murderous brutal reign ? Come on.

The guy is a psycopath. Period.

BTW

Are you unaware of or have you forgotten about the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland which killed over 250 people ? Not military in a time of war. Civilians. Terrorism plain and simple.

Years later when he wanted to get back in the good graces of the Western world as well as get UN sanctions lifted (not US sanctions; UN sanctions representing the entire civilized world) he made restitution in the billions to the victims families in apology for his country, Libya. He cleverly avoided mentioning his own responsibility. But we know how things work in a dictatorship. He ordered it. Obviously didn’t do it himself but does that lesson his responsibility ? Without his order it would not have been done.

And just recently, his former Minister of Justice resigned over the govts. murdering of protestors. Hint:the govt. is Gaddafi. Thats the deal in a dictatorship.

And it was later reported in many newspapers that the Minister of Justice had proof that Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing, which merely confirmed what everybody already knew. That’s how it works in any dictatorship.

Is it even conceivable that anybody would be foolish enough to attempt something of this magnitude without specifically having Gaddafi give the order ? Why take a risk like that ?

Doing something of that scope without the approval of the dictator is a real good way to get oneself killed instantly. Gaddafi ordered it. That’s how things work in a dictatorship.

PS This item was reported by AlJazeera, the premier news source in the Middle East.

Hello ! ! It was AlJazeera; not exactly Fox news now, is it ?

For that one act alone, he would be more than guilty and eligible for death. That was over 250 innocent civilian people who never did a thing to him or his country.

But this is certainly not the only murders for which he is responsible. And the world has deemed him guilty indeed many times over. So that’s who decided.

Hope that answers the question.

And so many questions about that event and the subsequent release of the person found guilty of planting the bomb that will now never be answered.

I don’t think anyone in their right mind would suggest Gadaffi was a wonderful person. He was a crazy, megalomaniac that killed his own people, but what separates us from people like him is not behaving as they do. I can understand why those who killed him did. I don’t blame them for reacting as they did. However, I still would have preferred he had been captured and put on trial.

@Bellatrix

I understand the point you’re making.

But obviously it was the people of Libya who strongly disagree.

Besides, he was fleeing in the midst of a large FULLY ARMED convoy. And I’m sure that his and their weapons had the pursuers vastlu outgunned by a wide margin. You can afford the best armament when you’re the one in control of the money.

While it might (in an abstract sense) be preferable to apprehend him alive for trial, on a practical level that may simply be impossible in real world circumstances.

You’re facing a large group with superior armament, you’re not really thinking about trial vs. no trial. All you want to do is apprehend the guy without losing your own life in the process. If he gets killed in that process, that’s too bad (idealistically speaking) but at least you get to go home to your family.

Gee whiz, people. It’s not as if he was waving a white flag to surrender peacefully and got gunned down in the middle of the street.

If he and his convoy (apparently quite large) were able to kill every single protester in sight, do you have any doubt he would have done exactly that ?

If you do, I have a real nice bridge in Bklyn. which I can sell to you at a bargain rate.

The scenario was kill or be killed because he most certainly wasn’t waving a white flag to surrender. He could have. But he chose not to.

When you choose the behavior, you choose the consequences. He made his choice. And he suffered the consequences.

@Buttonstc I am neither unaware of nor have I forgotten any of Gadaffi’s history. My comment was, in general, a response to the notion that “trials should be for people who’s guilt/innocence is in question.” I did not specifically speak to Gadaffi’s guilt or innocence but to that idea.

Well, the OQ is in general so I assume you can understand why I was under the impression that the gist of your remarks WAS speaking to Gaddafi’s situation since the Q was specifically about him.

I do understand the point you’re trying to make about trials (for average folks) and presumption of innocence.

But you did speak about Bin Laden specifically with the statement that “apparently it was OK for us to kill him without a trial”.

He had an AK-47 within easy arm’s reach. He certainly wasn’t surrendering. Had a few seconds delay by the Seals enabled him to get a hold of that automatic weapon do you honestly think he would have hesitated to wipe out every single one of them ?

Similar to Gaddafi, it was a situation (quite literally) of “kill or be killed”. Should all the members of the Seal team have delayed for those critical seconds so they could ask him if he wanted to surrender ?

I’m trying to picture how you envision this scenario going down with them being alive in order for them to be able to haul him back here for trial.

As the leader of the team would you be willing to delay those precious few seconds and risk making widows and orphans of the families of everyone on the team, including yourself on the off chance that he would not use his weapon because he really wanted to surrender? Really now.

This was literally a split-second decision for them. I highly doubt whether each one was mentally debating with himself “let’s see, trial vs.no-trial. Which one should I pick hmmm…...oh dear me, which should it be ?”

So I will ask you a Q. Are there certain unique cases of a global scsle where a trial is unnecessary due to the fact that the perpetrator bragged about his role to as much of the world as he could possibly reach ?

He wasn’t coerced or beaten into a confession. He triumphantly boasted about it of his own volition and made certain that as many news outlets as possible would be able to disseminate it ?

Or is there no such thing as a unique case on a global scale? Personally, I know of damn few cases like Bin Laden or Gaddafi which have played out on a global scale like this so it’s not as if people can go hog wild about including anybody or everybody in that particularly unique category.

But perhaps you don’t believe that exceptions (rare tho they may be) do exist in the real world ( as opposed to an abstract one)

I would really be interested to know your view on that. I’m not being the least bit sarcastic. I really would like to know if you would allow for any exceptional cases or not.

Thanks for all the replies, other than all that off topic stuff, what the hell happened there!?!
Just to clarify my opinion stated in the details of the question, I have no quarrel whatsoever with the fact the evil bastard is dead. Forty plus years of tyranny extinguished in a heartbeat.

It’s just the manner, the circumstances surrounding the killing. He had no head wound & was clearly alive & lucid when the rebels surrounded him. Injuries sustained by the French bombing his convoy were survivable, indeed some rebels pleaded for him to be kept alive as he was bundled into a waiting ambulance.

Yes, he was a sick, twisted dictator & yes he deserved to die, but this just seemed like barbaric savagery. Pack him off to stand trial & execute the fucker through the proper channels. That’s simply my opinion on the matter, it can’t be changed & inevitably people’s views are going to differ, which is fair enough.

Once again, thanks for the input.

@lillycoyote Just so you don’t think I have ignored your post, I was going to answer your question based on my comment but seeing as I agree with everything that @Buttonstc said I would only be repeating something you have already read (although, @Buttonstc put it far better than I am able too).

No, I do not think they lost any sympathy. First, a lot of people outside of Libya wanted him dead anyway. Whatever we think about that feeling, that group of people surely doesn’t feel any worse now that he’s dead. Second, this is basically the choice that Gaddafi gave them. He swore he would never leave the country while he lived, so they killed him. Those who refuse to give up power when the time comes have it taken from them. Like @saint said: sic semper tyrannis.