I seem to recall Tony Blair being photographed laughing and smiling with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and we all know what they were responsible for in the past. I know it was for the peace talks, but it still made me feel sick.
but i really do think the media need to be more responsible ...all the footage of his corpse ,his death etc in the papers,tv and net literally de-moralises us ,its highly inappropriate and i hope ,at least in this country, we dont see things like this again .All we need to know is that he is dead .
Sorry only just watched all the proper coverage. news channels have really moved on that they are now showing a man get killed on telly . Grim viewing.
Agreed
ok Gaddafi was a horrible bit of work
but i really do think the media need to be more responsible ...all the footage of his corpse ,his death etc in the papers,tv and net literally de-moralises us ,its highly inappropriate and i hope ,at least in this country, we dont see things like this again .All we need to know is that he is dead .
Not comfortable with the images at all. That was my gut instinct. It is understandable to a certain extent and at least they have a valid reason - an emotional release after 40 years of oppression. Makes me think of what the world thought about the images coming out of england from the riots a few months ago. Given similar circumstances I believe the uk would act in the same way. Perhaps shooting gaddafi dead gives closure and is certainly cheaper than a show trial!
nasty pictures no doubt about that. However dont you think that there is a true base justice here. He died begging for his life after cowering in a sewer like the rat he was. The terror and shame he went through in those last mins is nothing to what he put many thousands of his own people through.
Still wont it be grand to see Blair and Brown turn up at his funeral i mean he was their buddy after all it would be so rude not to,
Grim way to go, but cant say im suprised or upset about it. Lets hope the country and those who have been oppressed can move on to better times and another tyrant doesnt swoop in to take over the reigns
Personally I don't object to the images being shown but I would consider them to be very much post-watershed content and would not want kids being exposed to them. In this day and age though, that's virtually impossible.
Still wont it be grand to see Blair and Brown turn up at his funeral i mean he was their buddy after all it would be so rude not to,
Again, it would not be the first time a former British PM expressed sympathy for a tyrant who murdered thousands of his own people!
From the BBC website....
'A spokesman for Baroness Thatcher said the former PM would not be issuing a formal statement but would be sending "deepest condolences" to Gen Pinochet's widow and family.'
Nobody beats De Valera (Eire's premier) attending the German ambassador in full morning suit to express his deepest condolences on Herr Hitler's untimely demise.
There is no way that gaddafi ain't going to be replaced with another vile piece of shite because that part of the world will never ever be able to hold a democratic society,
But Libya was a democracy (albeit a flawed on) before Gadaffi's coup. They had universal suffrage (including women) to a elected house and an appointed house.
Trying to judge a country like Libya by our own, western morals is madness, to say the least.
Disagree completely. Don't accept the argument that "they do things differently there" is an excuse for inhuman behaviour here, there or anywhere.
I'm with Jints on this. The mob that killed Gaddafi are not the leaders of the revolt. Hopefully those leaders can restore democracy and civil rights. No guarentee that they will but now is when the real politics starts and the UK, France and US push them towards fair and open government.
I have to say I have no problems with the pictures we have seen and would not judge for a moment the people who killed him and treated him in such a brutal manner. Just as I have no problem with the fact that the US had no other objective other than to kill Bin Laden when they found out where he was. When the first concentration camps were liberated by allied forces in 1945 there were many reported brutal killings of camp guards by allied forces. Cursory attempts were made to punish those soldiers responsible but I don't think they could because no one would testify against them. No one could possibly judge those allied soldiers for reacting the way they did.
As for the pictures and whether or not they should be shown? I hope I never see the day when some faceless news media 'managers' determine what images of the real world I should and should not be allowed to see. I remember seeing footage of the allied armies entering the concentration camps in the 'World at War' TV series in my early teens and those images are seared into my brain to this day. They did me no harm but, as with the images we are seeing from Libya, they demonstrated how fragile modern societies and so called civilisation can be, and how easily any advanced society can revert back to sub human behaviour.
Well we havent seen any film of Bin Ladens execution and i dont want to .The point i am making is whether this kind of footage/photos/film should be so in the public domain ,it is uncontestable that this kind of thing is corruptive and corrosive to impressionable minds it is sending the message that is acceptable for one human to do this to another (yes i know hes a mass murderer/despot/supressor/warmonger) Well it seems that it is the faceless(probably with an agenda)managers who are influencing what we ought to see.If i am judged as a prude i am happy to be one ,Id say the same about casual attitudes to drugs and pornography on the TV/newspapers/net aswell ...although thats getting off this thread .The images did you no harm (red in se8)because most probably you are a mature balanced human being but what about the kid from the ghetto who might think this could be the next gang ritual or someones 7 year old who had nightmares last night .
Whilst I have no sympathy for gadaffi, if he had been allowed to live and stand trial, maybe some questions would have been answered, like who was responsible for the Lockerbie bombings and who killed Yvonne Fletcher? Now, there is no chance of finding out.
I have to say I have no problems with the pictures we have seen and would not judge for a moment the people who killed him and treated him in such a brutal manner. Just as I have no problem with the fact that the US had no other objective other than to kill Bin Laden when they found out where he was. When the first concentration camps were liberated by allied forces in 1945 there were many reported brutal killings of camp guards by allied forces. Cursory attempts were made to punish those soldiers responsible but I don't think they could because no one would testify against them. No one could possibly judge those allied soldiers for reacting the way they did.
As for the pictures and whether or not they should be shown? I hope I never see the day when some faceless news media 'managers' determine what images of the real world I should and should not be allowed to see. I remember seeing footage of the allied armies entering the concentration camps in the 'World at War' TV series in my early teens and those images are seared into my brain to this day. They did me no harm but, as with the images we are seeing from Libya, they demonstrated how fragile modern societies and so called civilisation can be, and how easily any advanced society can revert back to sub human behaviour.
Whilst I have no sympathy for gadaffi, if he had been allowed to live and stand trial, maybe some questions would have been answered, like who was responsible for the Lockerbie bombings and who killed Yvonne Fletcher? Now, there is no chance of finding out.
There was an interesting discussion about this very point on radio 4. The consensus was that the death of Gaddafi was probably the best thing that could have happened, otherwise too many Libyans would have continued to live in fear as they believed that Gaddafi's henchmen would still hold power all the time Gaddafi was alive. The discussion emphasis then shifted to the gathering of evidence that could have been used against Gaddafi in a criminal court and it was felt that the documentation ( such as may have existed under his chaotic 'political system' ) would have already been destroyed. Despots everywhere have become acutely aware, ( post Nuremburg etc) of the danger of keeping paper traces recording their activities and it was felt that future historians were going to find life very much more difficult.
I'm mightily relieved that another drug addled madman has gone but very fearful that there are insuffiicent people with the experience needed to put the country back together again. That in turn makes me scared that we'll end up with another fight between a resurgent militant Islam and a neo Con US puppet government.
Difficult one this. I think on balance we should all be grateful he's dead, without the drawn out show trial. Albeit with a foregone conclusion and therefore he's no longer the focus for his supporters.
On the other hand getting a fair trial is a cornerstone of a modern democracy and something none of his opponents had the benefit of.
Grim the footage may be and I don't think we needed to see it I think it may be important for the Libyan people to see it to help them move on without fear. Hopefully this will mean that the country can get back to some degree of normality sooner than had he still been around as a figurehead.
I have worked with a number of Libyans over the last three years and am in no way pro-Gadaffi.
My moral maze question is this: if NATO troops had captured Gadaffi and subsequently shot him without trial and then paraded his corpse they would almost certainly have been in breach of the Geneva Convention; are Libyan NTC troops bound the Geneva Convention (Libya is a signatory to the Geneva Convention) and could they face international sanction?
I have worked with a number of Libyans over the last three years and am in no way pro-Gadaffi.
My moral maze question is this: if NATO troops had captured Gadaffi and subsequently shot him without trial and then paraded his corpse they would almost certainly have been in breach of the Geneva Convention; are Libyan NTC troops bound the Geneva Convention (Libya is a signatory to the Geneva Convention) and could they face international sanction?
NATO are regular soldiers and correctly expected to be held to stricter rules. The Libyan "soldiers" in this case are not regulars and there seems to have been a considerable amount of tit-for-tat killings to muddy the waters. When the original protests started back in February the Gaddaffi regime is estimated to have killed around 700 protestors.
I have worked with a number of Libyans over the last three years and am in no way pro-Gadaffi.
My moral maze question is this: if NATO troops had captured Gadaffi and subsequently shot him without trial and then paraded his corpse they would almost certainly have been in breach of the Geneva Convention; are Libyan NTC troops bound the Geneva Convention (Libya is a signatory to the Geneva Convention) and could they face international sanction?
NATO are regular soldiers and correctly expected to be held to stricter rules. The Libyan "soldiers" in this case are not regulars and there seems to have been a considerable amount of tit-for-tat killings to muddy the waters. When the original protests started back in February the Gaddaffi regime is estimated to have killed around 700 protestors.
The NTC has been recognised by our government and others as the legitimate government of Libya and so is bound by the treaties of previous Libyan governments unless they rescind the agreements. Presumably its troops are acting under its orders, whether or not they are professional soldiers and so should protect captured enemy combatants - which Gadaffi must have been.
Either way it's messy and nobody concerned comes out with any dignity.
Still add... what is a neo con us govt? I'm thick so don't know what that means.
The neo-conservatives were the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush etc who had no problem utilising the power and capacity of the US State to pursue foreign policy objectives that sought to secure resources for exploitation by US big business, usually this is presented in terms no one could object to. For example the invasion of Iraq, ostensibly this was about regime change and bringing democracy to a blighted part of the Middle East, alternatively it was about stealing several decades worth of Iraqi oil.
I have worked with a number of Libyans over the last three years and am in no way pro-Gadaffi.
My moral maze question is this: if NATO troops had captured Gadaffi and subsequently shot him without trial and then paraded his corpse they would almost certainly have been in breach of the Geneva Convention; are Libyan NTC troops bound the Geneva Convention (Libya is a signatory to the Geneva Convention) and could they face international sanction?
NATO are regular soldiers and correctly expected to be held to stricter rules. The Libyan "soldiers" in this case are not regulars and there seems to have been a considerable amount of tit-for-tat killings to muddy the waters. When the original protests started back in February the Gaddaffi regime is estimated to have killed around 700 protestors.
The NTC has been recognised by our government and others as the legitimate government of Libya and so is bound by the treaties of previous Libyan governments unless they rescind the agreements. Presumably its troops are acting under its orders, whether or not they are professional soldiers and so should protect captured enemy combatants - which Gadaffi must have been.
Either way it's messy and nobody concerned comes out with any dignity.
A fair point - but this is war and it's a messy business. Libya has had no meaningful concept of the rule of law in decades except that decreed by Gaddafi. It would have been better for him to have stood trial and been held to account etc, but those who live by the sword can have no objection if they die that way.
Comments
I seem to recall Tony Blair being photographed laughing and smiling with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness and we all know what they were responsible for in the past. I know it was for the peace talks, but it still made me feel sick.
Grim viewing.
but i really do think the media need to be more responsible ...all the footage of his corpse ,his death etc in the papers,tv and net literally de-moralises us ,its highly inappropriate and i hope ,at least in this country, we dont see things like this again .All we need to know is that he is dead .
Again, it would not be the first time a former British PM expressed sympathy for a tyrant who murdered thousands of his own people!
From the BBC website....
'A spokesman for Baroness Thatcher said the former PM would not be issuing a formal statement but would be sending "deepest condolences" to Gen Pinochet's widow and family.'
I'm with Jints on this. The mob that killed Gaddafi are not the leaders of the revolt. Hopefully those leaders can restore democracy and civil rights. No guarentee that they will but now is when the real politics starts and the UK, France and US push them towards fair and open government.
I have to say I have no problems with the pictures we have seen and would not judge for a moment the people who killed him and treated him in such a brutal manner. Just as I have no problem with the fact that the US had no other objective other than to kill Bin Laden when they found out where he was. When the first concentration camps were liberated by allied forces in 1945 there were many reported brutal killings of camp guards by allied forces. Cursory attempts were made to punish those soldiers responsible but I don't think they could because no one would testify against them. No one could possibly judge those allied soldiers for reacting the way they did.
As for the pictures and whether or not they should be shown? I hope I never see the day when some faceless news media 'managers' determine what images of the real world I should and should not be allowed to see. I remember seeing footage of the allied armies entering the concentration camps in the 'World at War' TV series in my early teens and those images are seared into my brain to this day. They did me no harm but, as with the images we are seeing from Libya, they demonstrated how fragile modern societies and so called civilisation can be, and how easily any advanced society can revert back to sub human behaviour.
Well it seems that it is the faceless(probably with an agenda)managers who are influencing what we ought to see.If i am judged as a prude i am happy to be one ,Id say the same about casual attitudes to drugs and pornography on the TV/newspapers/net aswell ...although thats getting off this thread .The images did you no harm (red in se8)because most probably you are a mature balanced human being but what about the kid from the ghetto who might think this could be the next gang ritual or someones 7 year old who had nightmares last night .
There was an interesting discussion about this very point on radio 4. The consensus was that the death of Gaddafi was probably the best thing that could have happened, otherwise too many Libyans would have continued to live in fear as they believed that Gaddafi's henchmen would still hold power all the time Gaddafi was alive. The discussion emphasis then shifted to the gathering of evidence that could have been used against Gaddafi in a criminal court and it was felt that the documentation ( such as may have existed under his chaotic 'political system' ) would have already been destroyed. Despots everywhere have become acutely aware, ( post Nuremburg etc) of the danger of keeping paper traces recording their activities and it was felt that future historians were going to find life very much more difficult.
I'm mightily relieved that another drug addled madman has gone but very fearful that there are insuffiicent people with the experience needed to put the country back together again. That in turn makes me scared that we'll end up with another fight between a resurgent militant Islam and a neo Con US puppet government.
Difficult one this. I think on balance we should all be grateful he's dead, without the drawn out show trial. Albeit with a foregone conclusion and therefore he's no longer the focus for his supporters.
On the other hand getting a fair trial is a cornerstone of a modern democracy and something none of his opponents had the benefit of.
Grim the footage may be and I don't think we needed to see it I think it may be important for the Libyan people to see it to help them move on without fear. Hopefully this will mean that the country can get back to some degree of normality sooner than had he still been around as a figurehead.
Saddam dead
Gaddafi dead
Next Mugabe .... what? Oh no, oil so he does not count as a tyrant and gets left alone ..... oh.
Ps I heard as I was about to board a plane to New York ........ Gulp ...... still got here ok and 7 hours on a virgin!
LOL
Lot of sense being talked on here. What the hell's going on?
NATO are regular soldiers and correctly expected to be held to stricter rules. The Libyan "soldiers" in this case are not regulars and there seems to have been a considerable amount of tit-for-tat killings to muddy the waters. When the original protests started back in February the Gaddaffi regime is estimated to have killed around 700 protestors.
The neo-conservatives were the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush etc who had no problem utilising the power and capacity of the US State to pursue foreign policy objectives that sought to secure resources for exploitation by US big business, usually this is presented in terms no one could object to. For example the invasion of Iraq, ostensibly this was about regime change and bringing democracy to a blighted part of the Middle East, alternatively it was about stealing several decades worth of Iraqi oil.
A fair point - but this is war and it's a messy business. Libya has had no meaningful concept of the rule of law in decades except that decreed by Gaddafi. It would have been better for him to have stood trial and been held to account etc, but those who live by the sword can have no objection if they die that way.