If the reports are true they have captured him. Now to see if the war was succesful.
EDIT: he dead now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...topNews&rpc=71
Lets hope they got their facts straight. If he is alive this thread has no meaning!
Printable View
If the reports are true they have captured him. Now to see if the war was succesful.
EDIT: he dead now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...topNews&rpc=71
Lets hope they got their facts straight. If he is alive this thread has no meaning!
Nobody has confirmed nor denied this. The world has to wait to see his corpse.
I saw A pic which showed him lying dead on the ground in his blood, released by al-Jazeera. If it is fake or not I do not know.
Ahhhh, what a shame, I was really looking forward to the 10 year trial at the Hague where on his first appearance he suddenly turns up gravely ill and dies the day before the verdict.
I get my news from BBC radio. At around 13:00 GMT, they said it wasn't confirmed that the body is Gaddafi.
Wikipedia says he is dead. And the Libyan Prime Minister says the same thing. I think its safe to say he is dead.
I wasn't aware that they elected a prime minister so quickly.
It is basically the leader of the NTC
Now is the time for prosperity and democracy in Libya... not! Gaddafi was the one who kept Libyan tribes in check. With him gone we could see very bloody clashes between the tribes and eventual breakup of Libya.
Well I don't think it is right for us to judge a whole country just yet, they new leaders might pull of something amazing.
Yeah, those rebels really look like people capable of forming a government and running a country.
And Gaddafi was capable ???Quote:
Yeah, those rebels really look like people capable of forming a government and running a country.
lets wait and see and not act like an EastEnders (very bad English soap opera) character and make a judgement before we have any real evidence.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is now further tension in Lybia; the only thing uniting their cause was their hatred for their now dead leader.
Actually I'm a little more optimistic on this one.
It's far from a done deal but the NTC have been making all the right noises about sharing power between the various factions etc. I think it will come down to whether they mean that or whether they attempt to hold the majority of the power for themselves.
There's bound to be some tensions. Egypt has had some teething problems but they hardly feel like a counrty on the brink. Hopefully the experience in Libya will be similar.
Here's hoping.
Well I know how the politics work in Africa, it would be refreshing to see at least one functioning government on this Continent.
Sure he was. I'm not saying he ran it well though. When he came to power it was a single organized movement with one agenda, so he was able to establish a dictatorship. These rebels are disorganized, without a strong leader and consist of at least three factions with very different agendas. I'm not wishing for things to be bad, it's just my realistic opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
What? Isn't the Republic of South Africa a functioning Government?Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindSniper
I met Gaddafi jogging up a trail in Colorado back at the end of July, just a couple months ago. He looked remarkably fit, and I thought it unsually droll that he would take a vacation from the tensions in Libya to come torture himself in the Colorado mountains. I said hello to him both times he passed me, but he was moving right along, so we didn't get to chat. I didn't think it would be proper to address him by name, since we hadn't been formally introduced, but I recognized him from all his pictures. He looked a little younger than he had in recent pictures, which I attributed to bad lighting and too much stress when those pictures were taken. Now he's dead. Just goes to show that it doesn't pay to exercise. He should have stayed in Colorado.
It will be interesting to see what direction Libya takes now that he's gone. They don't need unity, they just need civility, but that can be a serious challenge.
no not really, if we didn't have an insane amount of natural resources we would be just like every other run down African country. But the biggest part in our success was the Europeans that came, I'm not even going to dare think how this country would be without them.Quote:
Originally Posted by abhijit
The reason why I say our government isn't functioning is because we could easily have been a first world country with a massive economy, instead we buy warships and submarines from Germany that no one can drive, we by gripen fighter jets that are to expensive to fly. And we don't even need those things, we are not at war and we do not plan to go to war. Instead of focusing on what is important the government has decided to focus on switching around apartheid and by doing so driving the minority with the majority of wealth and knowledge out of the country.
Dare I? Yes, I dare. For start, you wouldn't have apartheid.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindSniper
Here's an interesting point of view: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/video...raM4UQ7MvsR60y
Makes you wonder why US (and NATO) military action mainly seems to be concentrated on oil rich countries and not others. There are a lot of conflicts, civil wars, human rights violations currently in Africa and the Middle East, and there have been many in the past. Dr Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Rwanda... However, there hasn't been much military involvement there and certainly much less media attention. I wonder why.
Their wouldn't have been apartheid then because there would be no government or establishment to enforce it.(and I would have been born in Europe)Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
Gaddafi was killed and it was publicised. This wasn't the right thing to do. They should have put on him a trial. As much as Gaddafi's dictatorship was unfair, this was also unfair.
And how is that a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindSniper
I have no doubt apartheid is a fantastic system, unless you're black.
I can't really speak for South Africa but I grew up in Nigeria. Common consent (even among the ex-pats) is that the West has been generally harmful to the country. Yes, the British bought efficient government, but not to the benefit of the native Nigerians. Yes, the British built a rail system, it leads exclusivly from the interior to the coast so isn't actually particularly useful except for shipping goods out. Yes the British bought law and order, but not for the Nigerians. Yes, the West continues to invest heavily in the oil industires, but the only output of the the Nigerians benefit from is massive polution in the Delta.
The West has done some good for Africa, but the bad far outstrips it I'm afraid.
I might have taken you seriously when you were saying your government was wasting cash. I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me, governments tend to. But when you start trying to justify apartheid you lose me in a heart beat.
I agree but I think it was understandable. I always like to see justice done publicly and through a proper legal process where possible. But in this case I'm willing to live with a summary execution.Quote:
Gaddafi was killed and it was publicised. This wasn't the right thing to do. They should have put on him a trial. As much as Gaddafi's dictatorship was unfair, this was also unfair
Not trying to take the topic more off-topic, but I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was trying to justify apartheid, personally I think it was wrong and if I had a choice I wouldn't have let it happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Well in my opinion Dictatorship is not being capable it is basically saying the biggest bully in the playground is in charge, it doesn't lead to a well run country it leads to corruption and cronyism and i think it is about time that some of these (so called arab spring) countries got a chance to be run differently.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
And Gaddafi was capable ???
lets wait and see and not act like an EastEnders (very bad English soap opera) character and make a judgement before we have any real evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja_yu
Sure he was. I'm not saying he ran it well though. When he came to power it was a single organized movement with one agenda, so he was able to establish a dictatorship. These rebels are disorganized, without a strong leader and consist of at least three factions with very different agendas. I'm not wishing for things to be bad, it's just my realistic opinion.
Maybe it will work out maybe it wont, but pre-judging based upon clan rivalry or on what we think we know about Libya i dont think is helpful.
Also People get nervous it seems to me when they hear that Islamic parties or factions may end up in power to one degree or other, but as far as i am concerned it is not label of the party that matters it's what they do and how they act.
Personally i would like to see religion as far away from politics as it can get but i dont think much of the world is ready for that yet.
Fair enough. It did come across a bit like that but the internet is the perfect breeding ground for misscomunication.Quote:
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was trying to justify apartheid
To all the pessimists, it's worth bearing in mind that the divisions between the various factions in Libya aren't as fundamental as in some other Arab countries. Ther are no religious devisions (they're basically all Sunni) and they don't have a 'Hard-Line Fundamentalist' tradition. There are tribal divisions but there are plenty of examples of functional multi-tribal democracies in Africa. And there are, of course, political divisions but I can't think of any democracy where that doesn't apply.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by coldnight
'Unfair' is probably a tad light.Quote:
Originally Posted by coldnight
Isn't that reflected in the label of the party?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
.
Not really for instance the Political party that holds power in Burma (or Myanmar) now is the - "Union Solidarity and Development Party" i dont see how that tells you anything about the party itself.Quote:
Isn't that reflected in the label of the party?
In the UK the only party who's name probably truly reflects them is "The Monster Raving Loony Party"
That's because they have been in power for a while, while in the case of Libya, things are just starting to roll now.
Wouldn't an Islamic xyz party follow Islamic principles? Wouldn't a party with a Congress in its name try to be secular and all inclusive?
.
Well that would make the Nazi Party Democratic and Socialist. I'm not sure they were either.Quote:
Isn't that reflected in the label of the party?
It's also worth noting that a party being Islamic doesn't mean it can't run a moderate or even secular government. Angela Merkel is the head of the "Christian Democratic Union" party but Germany is run as a secular country. I don't see why Islam should be any different to Christianity in this regard.
How were these parties founded/started? Was the Nazi party undemocratic and un-socialist right from the word go? Was the Christian Democratic Union not following any Christian values right since the begining? My point is Libya is just experiencing the rise, rather birth of political parties, and so at this stage most parties will choose names to reflect what their ideals and values are.
Twenty years down the line is a different matter, though.
.
I thought this ad was amazingly good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1EX-...layer_embedded