Liverpool FC Forum

damjan193 wrote:Can't believe you guys are so naive. Gaddafi a tyrant? Do you believe everything you see on TV? What kind of tyrany has free education, free medicine, high earnings, equal rights to all people, men, women and children? Gaddafi is responsible for all this since he took over the country. But the thing that's really bugging me is the "heroes" or the "liberators" or the "fighters for good and just" that people tend to blindly believe in - the governments of France, Italy, UK and who ever else. These people are worse than what you believe Gaddafi is. These people use the situation it the country for their own profit, they bomb the sh!t out of the place and call it collateral damage, they present themselves as freedom fighters when actually they were just there for the oil, I think that much was obvious. So I really can't understand, how was Gaddafi the tyrant and these thieves were heroes?

Anyway, just wanted to say they found Gaddafi's favorite cup which he used to drink his tea. It had the Liverpool logo on it .

Boocity wrote:

damjan193 wrote:Can't believe you guys are so naive. Gaddafi a tyrant? Do you believe everything you see on TV? What kind of tyrany has free education, free medicine, high earnings, equal rights to all people, men, women and children? Gaddafi is responsible for all this since he took over the country. But the thing that's really bugging me is the "heroes" or the "liberators" or the "fighters for good and just" that people tend to blindly believe in - the governments of France, Italy, UK and who ever else. These people are worse than what you believe Gaddafi is. These people use the situation it the country for their own profit, they bomb the sh!t out of the place and call it collateral damage, they present themselves as freedom fighters when actually they were just there for the oil, I think that much was obvious. So I really can't understand, how was Gaddafi the tyrant and these thieves were heroes?

Anyway, just wanted to say they found Gaddafi's favorite cup which he used to drink his tea. It had the Liverpool logo on it .

Sheep like you is the reason tyrants get to stay in power and abuse their people, I suppose Hitler and Stalin were good guys as well in your universe

Unfair, really. If you want to go down that route, then don't forget to add Thatcher's name on to that list. One of the biggest kunts to ever hold power. You want to talk about murder, she just did it in different ways to those other two. She's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cambodians that died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Her land mines are still claiming victims to this day. It's interesting how British PM's can get away with shaking hands and doing deals with these so called Tyrants, then label them as mass murderers and dictators, when they are the who do deals under the tables, supplying them with weapons and whatnot. Hypocrites the lot of them.

SouthCoastShankly wrote:Supposedly shot in the stomach.

Emerald Red wrote:

Boocity wrote:

damjan193 wrote:Can't believe you guys are so naive. Gaddafi a tyrant? Do you believe everything you see on TV? What kind of tyrany has free education, free medicine, high earnings, equal rights to all people, men, women and children? Gaddafi is responsible for all this since he took over the country. But the thing that's really bugging me is the "heroes" or the "liberators" or the "fighters for good and just" that people tend to blindly believe in - the governments of France, Italy, UK and who ever else. These people are worse than what you believe Gaddafi is. These people use the situation it the country for their own profit, they bomb the sh!t out of the place and call it collateral damage, they present themselves as freedom fighters when actually they were just there for the oil, I think that much was obvious. So I really can't understand, how was Gaddafi the tyrant and these thieves were heroes?

Anyway, just wanted to say they found Gaddafi's favorite cup which he used to drink his tea. It had the Liverpool logo on it .

Sheep like you is the reason tyrants get to stay in power and abuse their people, I suppose Hitler and Stalin were good guys as well in your universe

Unfair, really. If you want to go down that route, then don't forget to add Thatcher's name on to that list. One of the biggest kunts to ever hold power. You want to talk about murder, she just did it in different ways to those other two. She's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cambodians that died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Her land mines are still claiming victims to this day. It's interesting how British PM's can get away with shaking hands and doing deals with these so called Tyrants, then label them as mass murderers and dictators, when they are the who do deals under the tables, supplying them with weapons and whatnot. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Thats called world trade 

Emerald Red wrote:

Boocity wrote:

damjan193 wrote:Can't believe you guys are so naive. Gaddafi a tyrant? Do you believe everything you see on TV? What kind of tyrany has free education, free medicine, high earnings, equal rights to all people, men, women and children? Gaddafi is responsible for all this since he took over the country. But the thing that's really bugging me is the "heroes" or the "liberators" or the "fighters for good and just" that people tend to blindly believe in - the governments of France, Italy, UK and who ever else. These people are worse than what you believe Gaddafi is. These people use the situation it the country for their own profit, they bomb the sh!t out of the place and call it collateral damage, they present themselves as freedom fighters when actually they were just there for the oil, I think that much was obvious. So I really can't understand, how was Gaddafi the tyrant and these thieves were heroes?

Anyway, just wanted to say they found Gaddafi's favorite cup which he used to drink his tea. It had the Liverpool logo on it .

Sheep like you is the reason tyrants get to stay in power and abuse their people, I suppose Hitler and Stalin were good guys as well in your universe

Unfair, really. If you want to go down that route, then don't forget to add Thatcher's name on to that list. One of the biggest kunts to ever hold power. You want to talk about murder, she just did it in different ways to those other two. She's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cambodians that died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Her land mines are still claiming victims to this day. It's interesting how British PM's can get away with shaking hands and doing deals with these so called Tyrants, then label them as mass murderers and dictators, when they are the who do deals under the tables, supplying them with weapons and whatnot. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Emerald Red wrote:

Boocity wrote:

damjan193 wrote:Can't believe you guys are so naive. Gaddafi a tyrant? Do you believe everything you see on TV? What kind of tyrany has free education, free medicine, high earnings, equal rights to all people, men, women and children? Gaddafi is responsible for all this since he took over the country. But the thing that's really bugging me is the "heroes" or the "liberators" or the "fighters for good and just" that people tend to blindly believe in - the governments of France, Italy, UK and who ever else. These people are worse than what you believe Gaddafi is. These people use the situation it the country for their own profit, they bomb the sh!t out of the place and call it collateral damage, they present themselves as freedom fighters when actually they were just there for the oil, I think that much was obvious. So I really can't understand, how was Gaddafi the tyrant and these thieves were heroes?

Anyway, just wanted to say they found Gaddafi's favorite cup which he used to drink his tea. It had the Liverpool logo on it .

Sheep like you is the reason tyrants get to stay in power and abuse their people, I suppose Hitler and Stalin were good guys as well in your universe

Unfair, really. If you want to go down that route, then don't forget to add Thatcher's name on to that list. One of the biggest kunts to ever hold power. You want to talk about murder, she just did it in different ways to those other two. She's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cambodians that died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Her land mines are still claiming victims to this day. It's interesting how British PM's can get away with shaking hands and doing deals with these so called Tyrants, then label them as mass murderers and dictators, when they are the who do deals under the tables, supplying them with weapons and whatnot. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Boocity wrote:

damjan193 wrote:Can't believe you guys are so naive. Gaddafi a tyrant? Do you believe everything you see on TV? What kind of tyrany has free education, free medicine, high earnings, equal rights to all people, men, women and children? Gaddafi is responsible for all this since he took over the country. But the thing that's really bugging me is the "heroes" or the "liberators" or the "fighters for good and just" that people tend to blindly believe in - the governments of France, Italy, UK and who ever else. These people are worse than what you believe Gaddafi is. These people use the situation it the country for their own profit, they bomb the sh!t out of the place and call it collateral damage, they present themselves as freedom fighters when actually they were just there for the oil, I think that much was obvious. So I really can't understand, how was Gaddafi the tyrant and these thieves were heroes?

Anyway, just wanted to say they found Gaddafi's favorite cup which he used to drink his tea. It had the Liverpool logo on it .

Sheep like you is the reason tyrants get to stay in power and abuse their people, I suppose Hitler and Stalin were good guys as well in your universe

damjan193 wrote:If you support and believe in every word the UN or NATO say than you are a sheep as well my friend. And Hitler and Stalin are no heroes of mine.

Anyway, I'm glad that most of you understand that the so called fighters of the just are nothing of the sort. There are no such things as good guys in this world. Every government fights for either power or money... or both.

SouthCoastShankly wrote:This Guardian article explains it best, I suggest you read it Damjan, it might prevent more ramblings of a mad man you continually post.

Gaddafi's burial: the desert is the best place for him

So Muammar Gaddafi has been buried according to Islamic custom, albeit five hesitant days late, at a secret location in the Libyan desert. Good. But will that be an end to the matter? History suggests that the fate of tyrants' bodies matters – so it may not be.

Gadaffi was a complex and unusual leader: vain, mystical, shrewd and with a genius for polarising the wider world, usually against him, even fellow Arabs in north Africa and the wider Middle East.

But his career was not all to his discredit. He did create basic health and educational services for Libyans (including girls), he did lead emerging oil-producing nations to get a fairer return for their product.

A pity he wasted so much of the revenue, a pity he succumbed to tyranny and murder at home and abroad, funding all sorts of grotesque and contradictory causes (Ulster Loyalist weapons buyers as well as the IRA's, rightwing plotters in Spain, malignant interventions in Africa) and, above all, brutalising his own people – just six million citizens, who had hoped for better.

Hence the savage scenes that greeted his capture and death. Hence the jubilation on the streets of Tripoli and Benghazi, hence the queues to photograph the corpse on display in a white-walled cold meat storage unit – a more dignified lying-in-post-state than it sounds, according to one photo I saw.

All sorts of outsiders have clucked disapprovingly about this, both individually and at institutional level. He should have been detained and tried, either in Libya or at the international court in The Hague, they said. The human rights lobby protested, as did foreign governments. Sensing it had better make a gesture, Libya's new ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) promised an inquiry.

Hmmm. I think we know what happened. Trapped in a storm drain – odd that he should have promised to hunt down his enemies like "rats" – Gadaffi was captured, attacked and then shot by an as yet unidentified teenager with his own golden gun, according to some accounts.

Not very nice or very tidy (I felt a brief twinge of human sympathy for the hunted man, didn't you?), but it often happens that way. I do not think those of us who did not live in fear of the secret police for the 42 years of his rule over Libya have much right to judge those who took their revenge on the architect of that tyranny in the heat of battle.

I understand why they feel the need to assert the civilised alternatives, and am glad they do at one level. But the consequences of that outcome would have been expensive, to the new Libya and to the international community. A tent in a prison courtyard in The Hague with Gadaffi holding forth in the courtroom? We have seen it with the dreary villains on trial from the ex-Yugoslavia. Gadaffi would have been much more of a handful.

Ah, say the conspiracy theorists, he had to be bumped off because he knew too much to embarrass the west. OK, if you say so, but plenty to embarrass the west – and the north, east and south, too – has been falling out of Tripoli filing cabinets in recent weeks. I don't think the NTC, let alone the CIA, had him killed. Until shown otherwise, I assume the teenage executioner was doing what testosterone-sodden kids do, given the opportunity.

In today's Guardian, Jonathan Jones, our cerebral art critic, offers a different take. Western concern about the treatment of Gadaffi – as shown countless times on TV since his death last Thursday – is further proof of our hypocrisy because it's the images that upset us, not the underlying reality of what happens in war.

What Jones describes as "the west's dangerous delusion that war can be a decent and worthwhile activity" is thereby exposed as a sham. The second world war, a "good war" against tyranny, bolsters that myth, as does sentimental attachment to the republican cause in the Spanish civil war. The good guys weren't as bad as the bad guys – but they did dreadful things too, Jones reminds us. The butchered priests don't feature in Miró's painting.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure he's quite right, or has been since the Vietnam war disabused Hollywood of its John Wayne conventions 40 years ago, just when the young Gadaffi was shaping up to overthrow King Idris.

It's complicated and, by way of pleasing coincidence, today's Guardian also carries an article explaining why Joseph Heller, the author of Catch-22, had a much better time flying 60 combat missions in a B25 than his fictional second world war hero John Yossarian.

But thanks to the new pseudo-realism and CGI technology, films and books about "war as hell" have become much more brutal than they were, even if Sylvester Stallone-style fantasising persists. It's true that armies, ours included, have taken far more interventionist steps to curb reporters and TV crews since Vietnam (you can hardly blame them – they did it in the second world war too) at the same time as newspapers agonised more over what they print.

After in-house debate, the Observer's shocking 1991 photo of the charred but recognisable head of someone still seated at the controls of an Iraqi tank was tucked away on an inside page.

But the internet, the wild west of the visual image, has snookered such efforts. From child porn to Islamist decapitations, pretty much anything goes. It may contribute to the fact that, in practical terms, most of western Europe is functionally pacifist: its armies simply don't work any more, don't even turn up.

The Franco-British air sorties over Libya, vital to the NTC success on the ground but shameful proof of Nato feebleness, may be our last hurrah. Good, critics will say – until the next lot of Vikings storm up the beach.

But what about the corpses of tyrants? The novelist Ben Okri has a thoughtful article in the Times (paywall), in which he reviews the evidence of centuries. Ancient Egyptians knew the power of death and built the pyramids to acknowledge it. Caesar wept at Alexander the Great's now lost tomb in Egypt. Napoleon's body was eventually brought back to Paris from St Helena to be emtombed in the grotesque memorial grave in Les Invalides.

And so on. Jonathan Jones doesn't mention the Obama administration's decision neither to show photographs of Osama bin Laden's corpse nor to return it to his family, as Saddam Hussein's body was to his after his trial and execution by fellow Iraqis, but to bury him at sea.

Both events were criticised by the usual armchair suspects, which shows you can't win, so the best thing it to follow your instincts and hope it turns out OK. Each case is different. Saddam was captured and not killed because his captor was an American GI, not an Iraqi full of pent-up rage against his oppressor.

Bin Laden's killing was a clinical assassination inside another (highly suspect and volatile) state. I'd say there could be no question of leaving the body behind for fanatics to venerate.

It's early days in the eternal battle that accompanies famous corpses. We must all be grateful to Hitler for his decision to commit suicide and to the Red Army for taking the body to Moscow in great secrecy, though it allowed conspiracy theories that he was alive in South America (where the Daily Mail once claimed to have found him) to thrive for decades.

In due course, Stalin's body was removed from the Kremlin Wall and buried (privately or secretly, I can no longer remember), but the old monster still has his admirers who'd love him to rise from the dead and take charge again.

Chairman Mao, of course, still has queues waiting patiently to inspect his embalmed body in its Tiananmen Square mausoleum. I've seen it and he looks more florid, more like his old chum Ted Heath (no mausoleum for him) than you'd expect.

Of all the 20th century's monsters, Mao is my best tip for acceptance by history as a great man despite his crimes against his own people. Much like Napoleon, really – a great bad man. Don't waste any money at Ladbroke's betting on similar glory for Gadaffi. The desert's a big place, suitable for his boundless conceit. I only hope he's not located near a bus stop.

LINK

Colonel Gaddafi - a monster who met justice the exact way he dished it out, merciless.

metalhead wrote:

damjan193 wrote:

aCe' wrote:Damjan... ffs... You obviously know little to nothing about Libya or the Arab World for that matter so I dont even get why you're arguing here. If anything, its you who seems to accept and repeat a clearly flawed perspective on the whole thing. Probably read or heard a report by a clueless economist sitting behind a desk reading figures released by Libyan officials on how double digit growth rates and 10k+ income per capita figures add up to all things being well and dandy in the country. If you had bothered to research your 'claims' a little more, you would have realized that huge sections of Libya have no schools, hospitals, or any other signs of development simply because the government cut all spending on these areas for different reasons (tribal, political..etc). Income inequality in Libya is also amongst the highest in their bracket and where the fck did you come up with the equal rights thing from ?!
On the standard of living thing, what exactly is standard of living. Not even the UN can clearly define standard of living so I dont understand you constantly referring to the 'high standard of living' in Libya. In most developed countries, income per capita and life expectancy are usually seen as a strong indicators but as you move down to developing & 3rd world countries, other factors such as 'freedoms', equality and political stability start gaining huge importance.

Obviously others have mentioned other things that anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the issue would have taken into account so I wont go there (funding terrorism, embezzlement, aiding corruption in Europe..etc). But I cant help but notice you bringing up his ceasefire announcement which by the way came AFTER Nato announced they would initiate strikes and was nothing more than a public attempt to gain International support. Meanwhile, pro-Gaddafi fighters were mass murdering civilians, media personnel and opposition forces on the ground while banning international media from entering the country in fear of getting exposed.   

Last thing, how do you know the people who follow him wont be any better ? While I dont agree with executing him without a trial (though I do see the logic behind it), I find it unreasonable to assume that the very people who sacrificed their lives to change the status quo would do so simply to.... return to it.

The equal rights and high earnings of Libyans are also mentioned in SouthCostShankly's article.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you. In my country income per capita is 4000 dollars, there are only 2 universities not including the private, there are kids that travel miles just to get to their elementary school never mind kids that go to high school. Helthcare sucks and I bet it was 10 times better in Libya (not to mention it was free) so people usually must travel to the capital city just to get some proper helthcare. Don't get me wrong, I love my country but these things must be improved, and if we reach the level that Gaddafi had in Libya I'll be more than satisfied. For some reason people don't protest much but I guess we're just used to it cause it's been like this for centuries. So what do you think, should UN and NATO bomb us now? Because obviously, at least from your point of view, since you've probably never been to either of the two countries, living is much worse than it was in Libya.

And what people sacrificed their lives? I was talking about UN and NATO, who are actually the ones who took over Libya, not about the Libyan protesters. It will be different, but in a way still the same thing. The people who were there to use the natural resources of Libya (profit) and to establish their own control over the region (power, control). Come on man, you can't say that UN was there to free Libya, they were there to use the situation of the country and benefit out of it, the same thing they said that Gaddafi was doing. That's why I'm saying that it's still the same thing to me. I'll be more than happy if this improves the life of the Libyan people, and I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Anyway, I'm no expert at this, I'm just expressing my own opinion, and no I haven't read or heard any "experts" that support the same things I do on this matter, I'm just looking at the facts and make my own logical opinion.

First off, what country are you from? is it a republic? do you get elections every few years?

"Libya’s economic freedom score is 38.6, making its economy the 173rd freest in the 2011 Index. Its score has decreased by 1.6 points, reflecting declines in three of the 10 economic freedoms. Libya is ranked last in the Middle East/North Africa region, and its overall score is well below the world and regional averages."

"The Libyan government eliminated all private property rights and most private businesses in 1978. The renting of property was declared illegal, and ownership of property was limited to a single dwelling per family, with all other properties being redistributed. The judiciary is not independent, the private practice of law is illegal, and all lawyers must be members of the Secretariat of Justice. There is little land ownership, and the government has the power to renationalize any property that has been privatized. Foreign companies are especially vulnerable, and the government has a history of expropriation. Trademark violations are widespread. Libya is ranked 113th out of 125 countries in the 2010 International Property Rights Index."

Yeah, pretty democratic republic with all the usual elections and stuff. I'm from Macedonia, if you know where it is .

I don't know where you got those statistic but I think they're wrong. Like I said though, I'm no expert. But even with those rankings, I'm pretty sure my country comes close.