Is there a generally accepted consensus regarding the reason behind Gaddafi's death?

[Nevianx]

Is this gif real and in relation to Qadaffi's death?

Yes it is.

[Deleted]

Because he was an asshole tyrant who opressed his people and was hated by them. Fortunately for his people, he had something that someone else more powerful wanted, so he had to die.

[Cerilis]

Looking at the post in this thread, I think we can safely assume that the answer is "No."

[downnola]

It never ceases to amaze me how some of the posters here make it a hobby to defend dictators that shoot at protesters and shell civilians. B-b-but muh non-interventionism; haven't we learned our lesson?

[Elba]

Yes it is.

What a cunt. I think I have to rethink my support for her.

[Nevianx]

What a cunt. I think I have to rethink my support for her.

Sadly, there's much more. I'm not a Trump supporter but I don't get how people voted for someone who casually suggests "can't we just drone this guys" (in regards to Assange).

[Yvaelle]

Because Libya was actually doing ok as a country and his new banking system could have potentially cut somewhat into the profits of the world banking system. It clearly upset the wrong people, so they gave a little donation to Hilarys Clinton Foundation

^ Mostly this.

In the original timeline Gaddafi's gold-backed African common currency collapsed the global fiat banking system in the year 2078, after World War 4, when Africa becomes the worlds sole Hyperpower. So the Illuminati Banking Guild combined all their remaining wealth and hired their top assassin - Hillary Clinton - to take vengeance upon Supreme Emperor of Earth Mecha-Gaddafi (he died in WW3, but his mind lived on embedded within the body of a mechanical avatar).

As a Timelord Reptillian, H'lari Kling-Ton is uniquely qualified to travel backward into the past, like the Terminator, and alter Mecha-Gaddafi's meteoric rise to power. In the year 1970 she traveled to Yale, and assassinated Jimi Hendrix, then seduced the then-virginal and studious Rhodes Scholar, Bill Clinton, who would one day become POTUS: killing Jimi was essential as in the original timeline Jimi & Bill married and became the first gay POTUS: after Walter Mondale legalized gay marriage, upon crushing Reagan in the 1984 election.

She stayed with Bill in this alternate timeline for 45 years in prelude, before finally taking her shot at Mecha-Gaddafi - rising to power as Secretary of State - then organizing an elaborate plot to destabilize him, start a civil war, and ultimately disgrace Mecha-Gaddafi and his ideas: dooming Africa to another century of darkness - as the banking guild contract demanded.

Then - for such is the incomprehensible and mercurial will of the Timelord Reptillians - she also travelled further back and gave birth to Hitler: just to fuck with everybody.

Note: If it was not clear, I am joking. While I do think she played an important role in destabilizing North Africa - I doubt Gaddafi's death was ever an intended consequence of her actions.

you guys have it all wrong. gaddafi uncovered a draenei plot to destabilize the world's supply of silver.

Pfft, what would space goats ever want with silver? Now Sandstone...

"This planet has a tremendous supply of sandstone. The inhabitants must be wealthy beyond their dreams."

[God-King Skovald]

Some terrorist group stole a bunch of Libyan plutonium, and the team Gaddafi sent to recover the materials, backed by Russian weapons, was a huge failure.

Edit:

Not to mention the whole debacle with the German armored vehicles.

I remember watching a documentary about this. Pretty embarrassing that they got outwitted by a plucky teen in a life preserver.

[Ripster42]

How would this be an anti-US thread? The major push for the no-fly-zone was spearheaded by france.

[Deleted]

I'm trying to figure out what were the real motives behind Gaddafi's death but there's just too much controversy regarding the issue on the internet. Some say the main reason was his idea of a new African gold-backed currency and the US was highly insecure about the effects of this new currency to its economy. Is there a generally accepted consensus regarding the issue?

He stopped to work hand to hand with USA.

[Lartok]

It never ceases to amaze me how some of the posters here make it a hobby to defend dictators that shoot at protesters and shell civilians. B-b-but muh non-interventionism; haven't we learned our lesson?

Is it to not intervene because nothing useful is achieved only shit like ISIS?

[ParanoiD84]

Wasnt he responsible for the Pan Am Flight 103 crash.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/...minister-libya
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-...tland-12552587
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/wo...-am-plane.html

[Notchris]

I see everyone has conveniently forgotten that this was pushed by France and England, not the U.S.

[Skroe]

The reason for Gadaffi's death was perforation of his colon by a gun barrel. He was also beaten and sumarily excuted. This was on the other end of a US Drone Strike he narrowly escaped.

After 40 years of raping and pilaging Libya and launching terrorist attacks against the West, he got off easy.

So yes. "We Came, We Saw, He Died".

But for the record, it was mostly the UK and France's idea. The US was mostly just the muscle.

[Deleted]

It never ceases to amaze me how some of the posters here make it a hobby to defend dictators that shoot at protesters and shell civilians. B-b-but muh non-interventionism; haven't we learned our lesson?

Libya had free healthcare, free education plus some generous social programs which were better than those you'll find in many parts even in western europe. In Africa, by far the most dysfunctional continent on earth.

And yeah he shot protesters. Which would happen anywhere if there was a serious prospect that those protests would lead to ISIS taking over.

As for "shelling civillians" yanks really need to shut the f*** up about bombing civillians for obvious reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

The reason for Gadaffi's death was perforation of his colon by a gun barrel. He was also beaten and sumarily excuted. This was on the other end of a US Drone Strike he narrowly escaped.

After 40 years of raping and pilaging Libya and launching terrorist attacks against the West, he got off easy.

.

Yeah he raped Libya by offering:

1) Free healthcare.
2) Free education.
3) Subsidized affordable petrol.
4) Free electricity.
5) Grants to newborn mothers (5000$, a small fortune in Libya)
6) 0% Loans offered by the state bank.
7) Start-up capital for farms was provided by the state.

Currently Libya is in an ISIS-infested state of perpetual war and anarchy.

[Skroe]

Is it to not intervene because nothing useful is achieved only shit like ISIS?

The problem with intervention isn't the intervention itself. It's that Western Countries plan for it poorly.

Afghanistan - which lets be clear, was a war of retribution first - was a small footprint counter-terrorism operation for years before it became a large scale campaign. The US still doesn't know what to do with it.
Iraq - the Neocons thought we'd be out by late 2003 / early 2004. They didn't plan for a protracted occupation.
Libya - In an effort to not do another Iraq, they went for the low-footprint approach, but it unleashed factional chaos.

The moral about intervention is that it is poorly advised to do it, unless a country is willing to go all the way. If you want numerical contrast see below.


Basically doing Iraq "right" would have required an occupation force of 400,000... far more than the 150,000 at its peak. That's the take away: half measures don't work. To be clear, I'm not advocating for doing that. If anything the timeless wisdom of the Powell Doctrine endures, and Iraq (and Libya) simply did not meet it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah he raped Libya by offering:

1) Free healthcare.
2) Free education.
3) Subsidized affordable petrol.
4) Free electricity.
5) Grants to newborn mothers (5000$, a small fortune in Libya)
6) 0% Loans offered by the state bank.
7) Start-up capital for farms was provided by the state.

Currently Libya is in an ISIS-infested state of perpetual war and anarchy.

So he took good care of his pets.

Or did he?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-image-amnesty

Floggings used as punishment for adultery, indefinite detentions and abuses of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, as well as the legacy of unresolved cases of enforced disappearances of dissidents are documented in a 135-page report – the product of Amnesty's first visit to Libya in five years during which the human rights organisation enjoyed partial co-operation from the authorities.

Amnesty singles out Libya's internal security agency, which has unchecked powers to detain and interrogate individuals suspected of dissent or of terrorism-related activities. Detainees can be held incommunicado for long periods, tortured and denied access to lawyers. Hundreds languish in jails after serving their sentences or having been cleared by the courts. The death penalty is still used – and disproportionately against foreigners.

The report highlights the failure to adequately address the notorious Abu Salim prison killings of 1996 in which up to 1,200 detainees are believed to have been extrajudicially executed following a riot. A promised investigation has not materialised and families of victims have been offered compensation on condition they do not resort to the courts.

The cases of dissidents Jabalah Matar, Mansour al-Kikhiya and others, who disappeared in Egypt, remain unresolved. There have been no efforts to investigate the "physical liquidation" of opponents of the regime during the 1980s.

Amnesty's mission, like a recent one by Human Rights Watch, was facilitated by the Gaddafi Development Foundation, run by the leader's reformist son and possible heir, Saif al-Islam. But planned prison visits were curtailed and researchers were unable to conduct activities independent of the GDF programme such as meet families of victims of human rights abuses.

Libya has seen "tangible but modest" improvements in freedom of expression but state control is still tight, says Amnesty.

Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers from elsewhere in Africa attempting to seek sanctuary in Italy and the EU face arrest, indefinite detention, and abuse, the report finds. Libya is not a signatory to the 1951 UN convention on refugees and this month, the authorities ordered the UNHCR to leave.

"The human rights situation in Libya remains dire," the report concludes. "Officials responsible for gross human rights violations remain above the law and enjoy total impunity. On the other hand, thousands of individuals are completely outside the protection of the law and continue to suffer in silence and isolation, seeing little hope in the 'Libya of tomorrow', a slogan frequently repeated by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi."

Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa deputy director, Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, said: "If Libya is to have any international credibility, the authorities must ensure that no one is above the law and that everyone, including the most vulnerable and marginalised, is protected by the law.

"The repression of dissent must end. Libya's international partners cannot ignore Libya's dire human rights record at the expense of their national interests."

"But at least he gave free healthcare and subsidies utilities". Give me a fucking break. With that mindset, it's small wonder that in the 21st century autocrats can still establish a foot hold. People like you, advanta , are psychologically predisposed to be ruled. You clearly value a dictator handing quality of life and comforts to the obedient over their inalienable human rights.

[Danner]

Guys guys, you're completely missing the obvious here.

Gadaffi had a high midi-chlorian count, and Darth Obama needed him gone in order to unite the world under Sith rulership. How can you all be so blind and not see that?!

--

More serious: I'll play the straight man here and give a serious answer:

The 2010/2011 Arab Spring had spawned dissent in all the Arab countries. When that came to Libya, the Libyan government agents fired on the protesting crowd to incite a violent response, scaring off the majority of the protestors, and to create a casus belli for siccing the army on the remains. I believe this strategy couldn't have worked, but it was the go-to strategy for every single Arab government to deal with the protests.

Anyway, the official casus belli for the NATO intervention in Libya was to save the civilian population. But there are not enough people in the world gullible enough to actually believe that was the actual reason. Why was Libya singled out as the country where NATO retaliation happened? Why not Egypt, Yemen or Syria where similar events took place?

IMO it is mostly down to the terrible relationship between Gadaffi and the western world. The US had several armed skirmishes with Gadaffi's forces in the 80s where Gadaffi saw himself as a counter to US imperialism - and fought them (and lost) at every turn. France loathed him as the source of instability in an almost-bordering neighbouring country. The UK loathed Gadaffi after the Lockerbie bombing and the Yvonne Fletcher incident. Basically, the entire western world were itching to remove Gadaffi from office just to put one persistent annoyance out of the map. While some of that resentment had been normalized by 2006 when the UN removed Libya from the list of states sponsoring terrorism - I honestly believe the old doctrine of the cold war country control still was going strong. And Libya was clearly against the western world, at one point almost joining the warsawa pact.

That alone isn't enough to trigger an invasion, or Gadaffi would be gone in the 80s. The main reason is the threat to the supply of oil. Libya is a large oil producer. And the reason why Libya had been allowed back into the international community in 2006 was because they allowed foreign investors to build oil installations in that country. All those newly built installations were in danger of being lost had the country devolved into a civil war. And that's the real reason there was an intervention in my opinion: Securing those investments (in the name of human rights).

As much as I dislike the western world first response to any problem is to bomb it to death - I cannot really say the world became a worse place for this military intervention. While Libya still has issues - an ongoing civil war to be precise - it could have become a Syria. And it did not.

[Revi]

"But at least he gave free healthcare and subsidies utilities". Give me a fucking break. With that mindset, it's small wonder that in the 21st century autocrats can still establish a foot hold. People like you, advanta , are psychologically predisposed to be ruled. You clearly value a dictator handing quality of life and comforts to the obedient over their inalienable human rights.

As many terrible things as he did, I do sometimes question whether or not the ME "dictators" might know their regions better than us sitting at our computers in the west typing long paragraphs about what they should do better.

The tight state control, treatment of suspected terrorists and awful controls put on various groups in their regions are awful, undoubtedly, but it does seem every time we come along to force that iron grip open, we unleash far worse groups and make the regions far worse. Maybe there is reasoning behind the oppressive state control beyond simple sadism.

I'm not saying we should accept it, but the views we espouse (basically summed up to "they should stop it immediately") keep being proven naive, ignorant and deadly.

[Deleted]

"But at least he gave free healthcare and subsidies utilities". Give me a fucking break. With that mindset, it's small wonder that in the 21st century autocrats can still establish a foot hold. People like you, advanta , are psychologically predisposed to be ruled. You clearly value a dictator handing quality of life and comforts to the obedient over their inalienable human rights.

The US actively props up numerous governments with human rights records which are far, far worse than Libya's was. As you well know.

This is Africa. You can't have some happy-clappy democracy overnight. It is culturally, politically and economically impossible. How is that democracy working out in Iraq?

And yeah I do consider free healthcare important. You are a yank so you don't understand this. Let me explain this in simple terms:

I don't want I or my family to die a slow and horrible painful because I or they happen to get sick.
Let me explain that again for you

I don't want I or my family to die a slow and horrible painful because I or they happen to get sick.

Do you understand yank? People think that is important. Without decades of millitarist brainwashing they don't think the latest in missile technology is more important than watching their children die. ie they are not subhuman monsters.

[Skroe]

The US actively props up numerous governments with human rights records which are far, far worse than Libya's was. As you well know.

We got out of the "actively propping up" business decades ago, unless you count Iraq and Afghanistan, whose governments we back are not "far far worse" than Syria. If you're referring to paragons of human rights like Saudi Arabia... they prop themselves up. We have a political and military relationship with them, but if we were to break up, they'd endure.

This is Africa. You can't have some happy-clappy democracy overnight. It is culturally, politically and economically impossible.

Really? Because Democracy in Africa, though flawed, has really come together over the past two decades. Libya was an outlier, because of Gadaffi. The African Union in particular has been rather vigilant about enforcing peaceful transfers of power.

How is that democracy working out in Iraq?

You mean the second most democratic country in the Arab world after Tunisia? It's been better. Better than under Saddam.

And yeah I do consider free healthcare important. You are a yank so you don't understand this. Let me explain this in simple terms:

I don't want I or my family to die a slow and horrible painful because I or they happen to get sick.
Let me explain that again for you

I don't want I or my family to die a slow and horrible painful because I or they happen to get sick.

Do you understand yank? People think that is important. Without decades of millitarist brainwashing they don't think the latest in missile technology is more important than watching their children die. ie they are not subhuman monsters.

Glad to see you rather you and your children being kept like pets rather than given your human rights to their fullest extent. A cage is still a cage, even when it's clean and well taken care of.

Healthcare is a political end. Western countries, like your own, achieved world leading healthcare through a political process. It was decided, by the people of the country, it was important. But that came after a process that created a state that respected human rights and implemented Democracy.

What you're doing is in fact, backwards, and it's entirely perverse. You're saying "because they have healthcare and these amenities, they were well off just fine." No. Human rights trump political ends like healthcare or universal pre-k or other important but things... but all less important than freedom for oppression.

It's easy to appreciate someone's well kept cage when you're not the one that has to live in it. Militarist brainwashing? Hah. Somehow you came to love healthcare and things like it so zealously as an abstract idea you've lost sight of things that are actually more important than it. A fair system of justice, is more important than healthcare. An open and competitive political process is more important than healthcare. A right to life is more important than health care. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of movement are all more important than healthcare.

Healthcare matters. But while important, it is not as fundamental as some of the human rights I've named, period. There is no point to healthcare in a country that does not respect its citizens right to life, for example. Healthcare, in a country like that, such a Gadaffi-era Libya, essentially cares for the dictator's pets.

- - - Updated - - -

As many terrible things as he did, I do sometimes question whether or not the ME "dictators" might know their regions better than us sitting at our computers in the west typing long paragraphs about what they should do better.

The tight state control, treatment of suspected terrorists and awful controls put on various groups in their regions are awful, undoubtedly, but it does seem every time we come along to force that iron grip open, we unleash far worse groups and make the regions far worse. Maybe there is reasoning behind the oppressive state control beyond simple sadism.

I'm not saying we should accept it, but the views we espouse (basically summed up to "they should stop it immediately") keep being proven naive, ignorant and deadly.

I know you're not meaning to be racist (and please don't misconstrue that) but the argument you're making here is essentially a racist one. It's somewhat innoocently denying the universality of human rights and saying, in other words, that maybe people in certain regions are better off under systems that do deny them because it respects their local politicial, ethnic, religious or cultural traditions.

It sounds like something that is sensible, but it is actually extremely racist (again, not saying you intend to be), because it basically condemns non-Westerners to less-than-Western standards of human rights by virtue of their current status of development and specific actions by their governments to prevent democratic norms from taking root, and conflates that with cultural and regional reasons.

Development and Democracy go hand in hand, and the diversity of cultures, regions and traditions that have successfully implemented Democracy as they developed, is a monument to that. To put it another way "Maybe the local dictator knows better" is a cop-out. Anyone in the world, given economic opportunity and political opportunity will capitalize on that in a positive feedback loop. Democracy emerges naturally from that. In fact that Democracy has not blossomed in Russia, Iran and China is a result of concerted efforts on the part of the regimes to retard the relationship between development and democracy.

The 1990s "democratization" of Russia unleashed complex, violent forces in parts of Russia. The Middle East... we know what happens. China would see large portions of it break off. These violent actions we see come not from things the "dictator" was keeping a lid on that made their system preferring to Democracy, but rather because of internal and regional historic contradictions never being resolved, and in a world without a dictator, those contradictions being resolved. In Iraq for example, it was a Shiite-majority country ruled by a Sunni minority for many decades, and post-War Iraq became Shiite-dominated. ISIS directly emerged from that - the backing of ISIS was originally Iraqi Sunnis who lost their pre-war societal stature. So was the solution to leave Iraq to be a Sunni-run minority dominated country? No. That just would have avoided resolving the contradiction... a contradiction, mind you, created by the West after World War I.