At brutal tyrants who mass murdered people and terrorised their own countrymen with secret police. That's a good place to stop.

Gaddafi himself isn't a mass murderer, people murdered under his regime. Similarly the rebels killed many people who didn't want a change in government; should their leaders be killed also?

Technically as it was a legal killing the Gaddafi regime murdered no one.

Also that doesn't quite work with your previous justification. I fail to see how on a personal level Gaddafi's crimes exceed those of a drug lord, weapons dealer, rapist and murderer. Except for the fact he was almost certainly all four.

Gaddafi commited war crimes, he should have been tried and legally sentenced to death at a war tribunaral. This is standard military law.

So your saying he should still have been killed, just by someone else, later on? Because it's such a big difference. He's dead any way, wanting him to be tried will not change the past.

Hang on, hang on. You’re telling me Gaddafi isn’t a mass murderer because he didn’t personally pull every trigger?


There is a difference between killing people in open war and killing people as a dictator.


http://i.imgur.com/SqrAk.gif

Well, no. Even in the case of war crimes I don't approve of the death penalty. But all that aside, even if it was inevitable that he'd be killed some day, it should have happened in a controlled manner and not by a mob. That is fundamentally what seperates society from anarchy.

Until they put a government up the society is mob society.

Except no.

The NTC has the legitimacy of a formal government and support of everyone. Employing the same kind of tactics that Gaddafi once used reflects badly on everyone.

Well this is how Gadaffi's Regime began I suppose.

Yeah I'm not even going to defend myself. I admit everything I said (in that post) was bullshit, I didn't even believe any of it. I just like trying to find moral upsets.

And two wrongs make a right?

What eventually happened in Egypt, are they a democracy yet?

Nope. Elections take a long time to organise. Also, it was probably a mistake to put the military in charge.

I'm slightly more optimistic for the future of Libya, as the rebels got a lot of help from NATO they're going to be under pressure to create a democracy.

Venezuela isn't impressed. Chavez called Gaddafi a national hero and compared him to Che Guevara.

I don't like Venezuela.

When in doubt, I ask: What would Sam Vimes do?

Here I'm not in doubt, but I still agree with the Commander. I've found that as I grow older the frequency in which I personally face difficult problems that will impact other people increases, a few of which have literally been a matter of life and death. Whether or not I do or can make a difference when these occasions roll around anyway is not generally known until after the fact, but at the time that is irrelevant (and a dangerous distraction). I don't know whether your choices make you who you are or are determined by who you are. Either way these moments define you.

If they were a simple matter of good and evil they would not be difficult. The choice is usually between easy and right. And the path of least resistance is just so desirable.

This here is emphatically not one of those moments for any of us. But I know what I've learned, and I know what is right. Killing an evil dictator in cold blood after capturing him is so easy, for everyone concerned. But it is absolutely not right. Doing what's right, making change for the better, resisting that old reptilian portion of our brain, working against the tide of social and actual entropy, these all require very hard work. Few worthwhile things do.

When it comes to imprisoned criminals and monsters, treating them like human beings is right, and it is essential for society. The most important reason is not the benefit of the prisoner, but the benefit of us. It keeps us civilised, keeps us human. Since the problems in Libya this year first began, the most misused word in the media was "brutalise". This does not mean treating others in a brutal fashion. It is one of those rare words that does not describe the impact of an action on the victim, but the impact on the one performing that action. Gaddafi did not brutalise him people, he brutalised his men, and him self. He made them into brutes. And our backward cries for quick and like "justice" on our criminals, little more than revenge, well, that is us on the teetering edge of brutalising ourselves.

Know this: anyone who can abuse and kill the lowest among us, be that a convicted criminal, some poor beggar on the street, helpless child or wretched dog, they are someone to watch out for. They could do the same to anyone of us. One day they'll become capable of that. And that goes for demanding or condoning the same of someone too.

So I found out that I had a grossly biased and, well, incorrect view on what happened to Gaddafi. Having not actually read a damn thing about it.

I was under the impression that he was just up and shot. I was not aware he was tortured. I was not aware he was paraded like such a trophy.

I got thinking to do.

He was also sexually tortured, there's a few nasty videos floating about of rebels sticking batons up his rear.

Not sure what to think.

I wouldn't expect Russian news to be too pro-NATO, but this report is rather interesting nonetheless.

My brother loves Russia Today. He has a drink every time they say the Western government is failing.

I like France 24 better.