To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.
How many who voted for Obama (or at least against John McCain) would expect their vote would elect a President who would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan with a special forces operation, murder an American citizen without due process, and enter into armed conflict with Libya without the consultation of Congress and eventually assassinate a sitting head of state?
Those that knew what to look for saw this coming before even he ran for president.. As soon as he voted to give retroactive immunity to telecom companies spying on US citizens, it was clear what stuff he was made from.
I still very much admire his propaganda ability. His campaign was amazingly successful. Yes, Bush being Bush helped a lot, but still. The disconnect (even among the intellectual liberals who rabidly supported him) between the perception of who Obama is and who he really is, is amazing (even after all this time).
Nobody denies that it is easy to lead and brainwash ignorant masses with fears of 'terrorism', 'communism' & 'homosexuals' but one has to admire the ability to brainwash relatively liberal and intelligent people. Looking back at Obama I will mostly remember him winning the AdAge 'Marketing Campaign Of The Year' award.
I don't think it's known at this point that Qaddafi was assassinated by the US. The two more common things I'm hearing is that he was either shot by rebels or hit by a NATO air-strike, which is kind of ambiguous.
Providing material support to a revolution isn't the same thing as an assassination. Due process doesn't apply on a battlefield, but it should apply to a prisoner in custody.
“It’s a great day,” Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on CNN on Thursday morning. “I think the administration deserves great credit. Obviously, I had different ideas on the tactical side, but the world is a better place.”
I would say a court marshal ending with a televised execution wouldn't been better.
This man was evil. And he was crazy. A violent death, no matter how, is what he deserved.
That's what they said on TV, didn't they? Must be true then.
In other words - how do you know? How do you know the picture you are being fed by the media is accurate enough to assign him a "violent death" as a proper punishment? And without a public trial at that.
This kind of pseudo-intellectual relativism is depressing. The man massacred his own people. He was insane. Don't take CNN's word for it; listen to the damned audiotapes yourself.
Critically analyzing media portrayals is good. Dismissing any conclusions reached as, "well nobody can really say" is facile and lazy. It's what people who don't have anything to add to the conversation say in an attempt to sound smart.
> It's what people who don't have anything to add to the conversation say in an attempt to sound smart.
This applies to literally every comment on this page.
It is not "well nobody can really say" dismissal. It is a matter of media feeding made-up facts since current conflict started. You must've missed the photos of insurgents storming strongholds in their flip-flops, the same guy posing dead in more than one position and other marvels of staged photography. The fighting was there, but it was not done by "insurgents" photographed by the press. Whatever was coming out of the tube was an A grade orchestrated bullsh#t. That's what's depressing. If you are comfortable cheering on his death provided with such accurate and transparent media coverage, who am I to spoil the fun.
> It is a matter of media feeding made-up facts since current conflict started
Therefore the past 30 years mean nothing?
His crimes did not begin and end with the NATO operation. He was notorious for decades, in particular when certain Western governments were all too happy to offer him hospitality and (military) trade deals knowing full well what he sanctioned against his own people. But who cares about such trivialities when they're our friends, right?
Well if you don't trust the collective portrayal of dozens of different media outlets and books printed from all over the world by people of different nationality, allegiences, motives, and religions, then you really can't believe anything. And so at that point what is a trial? Couldn't that all be fake too?
At some point you will have to trust something - you can't even be sure of what you see with your eyes as shown by numerous studies of false eye witness testimony.
On the cases where the evidence is slim or the news has just broken I'm very critical - this morning I didn't quite belive that he was even dead. But when you have such overwhelming evidence of horrible deeds over the last couple of decades it is pretty easy to say he was a bad man.
I don't have to trust anything. I am perfectly fine with not having an opinion on a subject of Libya or Gaddafi or any other evil-du-jour. Especially, when there is oil involved (which always seems to be the case). It gets way too complicated to judge given the facts available.
He would've never been brought to the ICC. The NTC made it clear that they were planning on trying him in Libya if he was captured. And that would almost certainly have ended with an execution anyway.
Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy etc. Pretty sure too many people like these would be shamed by this lunatic. Maybe it's best that he died, the world wants to keep its heroes.
Well I'm sure there's nothing but good times for Lybians from now on right? /s Sorry but my framework of reference just doesn't allow me to buy into this as a great thing for freedom and "democracy"
I guess it's okay that he's dead, but I'm concerned about the way he was killed. A bunch of soldiers ran into his house, stripped him, dragged him through the streets, and shot him at some point. That is some Trojan War shit.
I'm still not convinced that the Middle East is civilized... which is why I'm an isolationist.
I'm not very reassured by this quote from the transitional government spokesperson: “We were serious about giving him a fair trial. It seems God has some other wish."
Having been born and raised in the middle east (Egypt), I can assure you that by many definitions of 'civilized' we fare really well compared to the US.
True, there isn't separation of religion and state, and that leads to much 'uncivilized' behavior, and a wacky sense of law.
On the other hands, we don't have nearly the same rates of murder, rape, theft that we have here in the States. And we don't put one out of every 300 people in prison.
Our elderly mostly die surrounded by family and friends in their homes, and very very very few people sleep on the streets.
Our health care system is much poorer, and much more primitive than the US system, but nobody gets turned away because of 'pre-existing' conditions or lack of funds.
In most of the Country, if you stop someone and ask for directions, they'll invite you to their home for a meal and be serious about it. Even though they make less than a .50 cents a day.
So yeah, maybe broaden your idea of what 'civilized' looks like and you won't need to isolate so much.
p.s. We cook a yummy Egyptian dinner once a month for friends, ping me and come over next Monday for civilized discourse over foul and falafel
I suspect if you were black in America you'd have a much different perspective. Or Mexican.
There are marginalized, abused groups everywhere. The West fares no better, though it does make it look cleaner (e.g., rampant discrimination is codified by law instead of remaining unwritten).
I seriously doubt blacks and Hispanics in America have to worry about being blown up as they leave their places of worship. Violence and malice towards Copts in Egypt is on an entirely different plane than racism experienced by minorities in the West. These moral equivalences grow tired.
That said, I still believe the claim that the Middle East is "uncivilized" (with the implication that the West is), is awfully arrogant - as if the NATO powers haven't all done far worse, just not as visibly, and far from home.
Reading some of the posts in this thread you'd swear that the mark of a civilized people is how well they can hide their acts of brutal violence, as opposed to simply how much brutal violence they commit.
Yeah, I had some questions about civilization in Egypt. Is Egypt assassinating thousands of people worldwide with anti-tank missiles fired from unmanned aircraft, on a daily basis?
Because if not, then yes I'd say you compare quite well to the U.S.
> "I'm still not convinced that the Middle East is civilized... which is why I'm an isolationist."
If that kind of violence makes you doubt the civility of a people, you might want to add every other country in the world onto your list of "uncivilized places", and yes, including the USA.
> "My definition of "civilization" is a society "ruled by law" and something approaching a "democracy"."
The same "rule of law" that permits the USA to assassinate one of its own citizens without due process, only executive order? The same "rule of law" that permits it to covertly fund and equip rebel forces in democratic countries simply because their leadership dare oppose US national interests? (Chile is the most salient example of this, but far from the only one)
It seems your definition of "civilization" is less concerned with how much unjust blood is spilled, but rather how visible and public said blood is. This seems like a poor definition.
You have that backwards, it should be: "I'm an isolationist, which is why I think the Middle East is uncivilized."
Also, politicians pandering to various religious communities happens all the time in America. Let's not pretend it is different because the people are brown and the word "God" is pronounced differently.
My definition of "civilization" is a society "ruled by law" and something approaching a "democracy". I can't think of a country in the Middle East remotely qualifying -- maybe Israel.
Trying to equate "religious pandering" in the US to the various REAL theocracies and military juntas that inhabit the Mideast is "shame"ful.
That's the whole point - "your" definition. There are billions of people in the world, any many of them disagree with your definition. Pretending your definition is the only definition is the height of egotism, and I wish that we as a people, could understand that and have sympathy and constructive conversations about the future.
Both were written some time ago. Both have been modified, "interpreted" or just plain ignored. People are people no matter where you go. Power ebbs and flows to different people and groups over time. You are currently born into the group with the most power. This does not make you more correct, better than, or more civilized than others. It just makes you lucky.
I don't think he gave them any other option. Seriously, after all the bad stuff he did when he was in power, after drumming up war when things got tough - did anyone really expect any other outcome?
I'm pretty sure he was determined to fight to the bitter end. Which he did.
I believe that Libyans are by and large a civilized, reasonable people (just like Iranians, Iraqis etc) but if anyone in the West thinks that the rebel army is made up of regular, work-a-day Libyan lawyers, doctors, teachers and other civilians... then the media did a great job at spinning this one.
I have watched the Libyan and Tunisian revolutions. I can confirm that the Tunisian one was led by a particular part of the population (mainly the poor and forgotten). In the Libyan revolution, I saw all kind of people from different background, social and economical levels. Libyans are friendly, and generally quite generous and kind. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised that a good part of the rebel army is made of regular citizens.
I agree in principle, though I think the concept of sovereignty at all is bullshit.
But to play devils advocate, we put down dogs who bite people don't we? Yeah yeah, human life is precious, but sometimes we need to be a little pragmatic.
In the particular situation you are referring to you are correct, but I don't think that is a generalizable concept.
Pattern? This civil war wouldn’t have been won by the revolutionaries without support from NATO but there still would have been a civil war. This civil war was not faked by NATO, it was very real – and all things considered the right side won.
It would make more sense for Nato to attack Saudi/UAE/Bahrain etc.
They buy western hardware so if we destroy a few hundred Tornadoes/Eurofighters/F16s then there are big replacement contracts to create jobs in Europe and America.
We spend $8Bn on some new stealth fighters.
We only ever use them against countries with no air defences. So the fighters never get 'used up' so there are massive job losses at BAe.
The traditional option was to fight a competent enemy - but then your own people get shot down which doesn't play well with the electorate.
A modern solution is to sell your weapons to an ally, then destroy them and then sell more of the same replacement items to the replacement government. The big advantage of that is that the replacement government is normally pretty well disposed to you - if they know whats good for them.
The mood here is very gloomy. Back when they kicked out Ben Ali and Mubarak there was celebration on HN. I guess you're not really a dictator unless you're an ally of the US, huh?
Ben Ali was not shot in the head by an armed mob. Mubarak wasn't killed either. There was a stable transition in either case.
The issue isn't that anyone sympathizes with Gadaffi, but that it calls into question the solidarity and stability of the rebel government. Until now, Libyans have been united by their hatred of Gadaffi but we haven't seen whether the government can pull Libya together in a post-Gadaffi nation or really what kind of government or society will emerge. This execution was an action by Libyans with guns against the express will of the nominal government (which wanted to try him first.) It's a bad omen.
I hope yours is the correct explanation. Nevertheless, I get the feeling that many Americans for some reason sympathize with anti-Americanist foreign leaders, even if their own people consider them ruthless dictators.
(I'm not American, btw.)
The same Qaddafi who was a "partner in the war on terror" when Prime minister Blair visited in 2004 ?
Or the same Qaddafi that provided the `special questioning` facilities when the British secret service sent the current democratic leader there to be interrogated about terrorist links.
The sympathizing I've seen and sometimes feel is more along the lines of the US not admitting its own evil doing and how its actions cause lots of blowback that just hurts the country more. Then as with other comments here, it's annoying and disturbing that we've gotten in the habit of just killing people we don't like. It's a contrast to Saddam, whom we captured and gave a trial to, as well as interviewed for some interesting information (at the very least of historical interest). Read the transcript for the interview sometime; he may have been corrupt but he wasn't stupid.
Comparing Iraq, a messy invasion that drug on for a decade and cost hundreds of billions, to Libya, a tactical exercise that lasted a few months and cost only a billion plus, might not be a fair comparison, but there is no question that remote reconnaissance, targeting, and attack capabilities have improved dramatically since 2001. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-stealth-drone...
Sorry you felt that way, I enjoyed reading everyone's comments though. I just reread the submission guidelines and won't submit articles like this in the future. Still new around here.
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.