October 20, 2011

Kazzafi is dead

Across Difficult Country has the details.

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

Khadaffi was, after Ben Ali, one of the shorter foreign mega-villains to get his ass kicked in recent times. Saddam was definitely taller, whereas Uday & Osama could have had illustrious careers w/ the Adelaide 36ers

Anonymous said...

The horrific, brutal, frenzied manner in which Qaddafi was summarily executed just demonstrates how barbaric these people really are.

Forget all this romantic "Arab Spring" nonsense. All that the West has done in Libya is help replace one bunch of violent, sadistic savages with another.

No matter his crimes, Qaddafi deserved a trial.

Anonymous said...

"No matter his crimes, Qaddafi deserved a trial."

What nonsense.

Col. Reb Sez said...

What gets me is that we had beaten the guy down into behaving like a civilized human being. He gave up his weapons of mass destruction. He paid billions in reparations. He provided intelligence for the war on terror and tortured people for us so the U.S. wouldn't get its hands dirty. And so for reasons that are an absolute mystery, we murdered him, his children and grandchildren. We all know that as a result of our intervention Libya is going to be a real zoo for the next several years, so the question is, why does the U.S. want Libya to be a real zoo?

Dana Thompson said...

"Qaddafi deserved a trial" is nonsense? Isn't it self-evident that execution without trial always serves an interest -- Qaddafi had a tale to tell, and someone would prefer that tale not be told? Is that interest the same as your interest? Did Oswald, J. W. Booth, and Bin Laden (or whoever it was) not have tales, and are we all not all poorer for not hearing them? I hold it as one of life's basic truths that knowledge is always better than lack of knowledge, and as for anyone who cannot understand that -- well, the letters "LOC" pop into my mind == "Lower Order of Creation."

Anonymous said...

The fact that the Springahdis lynched Kuddurfi is no great surprise; what I am struggling with is how OK Niceworld is with that. Even NPR, for Gawd's sake, is happy to spin the gruesome truth clear out of the narrative.
Gilbert Pinfold.

Anonymous said...

"Isn't it self-evident that execution without trial always serves an interest -- Qaddafi had a tale to tell, and someone would prefer that tale not be told?"

Yes, if we got him lawyered up, THEN he'd tell us everything!

Georgia Resident said...

On another note, why do they now call it "inserting" troops when they send US forces abroad? Can't we just call it an invasion, or a raid, rather than something that sounds like we're administering a suppository?

Anonymous said...

Well, at least it was a soldier's death - and honorable in it's own way.Gaddafi said he would rather die than give up.
Can you imagine the horrid wimps of the current western political elite doing the same?
Gaddafi confronted what fate finally threw at him manfully.As easy it is for me to type these words in a warm comfortable room, there is nothinh more undignified and unmanly than whiny pleading and begging for life - like many an American bastard justifiably sitting on death row does shamelessly and unabashedly.

Anonymous said...

I've heard it was French planes that shot up the Gaddafi convoy.
The French have filthy hands in north Africa.We have the case of Algeria, the joker in the pack, untouched, apparently, by the Arab spring.Putting aside French colonial atrocities in Algeria (as recently as 1960), we have the fact that the Islamist opposition party (which has mas popular support) won the election of 1991, with the result being annulled and suppressed by the ruling dictatorship with very heavy French backing.
This duplicity cannot and will not stand.There will be a very heavy payback for France.

Anonymous said...

Dana Thompson - Did Oswald, J. W. Booth, and Bin Laden (or whoever it was) not have tales

Up to a point but surely Jack Ruby had a tail too, he died in prison but there was plenty of time to find out his tale, no one did.

Anonymous said...

Better this than pancreatic cancer

Antioco Dascalon said...

First Bin Ladin, now Qahdhdhaphi is dead. Perhaps this is the best time for America to destroy it's enemies. With a Nobel as cover, and the anti-war crowd in meek silence, perhaps Obama can assassinate Kim Jong Il, bomb Arak, Iran and topple Castro in Cuba. He can use drones, off-shore subs tossing Tomahawks, and the cover of France and Britain. Sort of a Nixon goes to China moment.

Anonymous said...

Up to a point but surely Jack Ruby had a tail too, he died in prison but there was plenty of time to find out his tale, no one did.

Never knew that Jack Ruby had a tail ... weird! As for his dying in prison without telling his tale, it's not clear that anybody ever asked. But even if they had, a Chicago Outfit-associated guy like Ruby would never have talked. Chicago guys adhered to the "rules" until recently.

Anonymous said...

So, "Qaddafi deserved a trial" is nonsense?

Since when is dragging an unarmed man by his hair around his hometown, beating him senselessly, taking pictures with him dead corspe, pounding him with his own pair of shoes, playing with his dead eyes, shooting the dead body in the head and both legs, parading his body around the town and then stomping on it, justice? Sinking to his level doesn't make you heroes, it makes you animals like him.

Anonymous said...

Gadaffi was a dick.

He should have fled in exile to a friendly black African country while he had the opportunity and saved his own skin - and he had ample opportunity to do so.

Anonymous said...

Seeing the Gadaffi death footage is all the justification any intelligent person needs to have in order to justify a complete ban on Arab immigration to western nations.
Yes, they ALL do behave like that when 'let off the hook' - this is fact confirmed by observation and not bigotry or prejudice.

Anonymous said...

In the event Gaddafi's female body guard troop proved to be absolutely useless.

The Imam of Detroit said...

It's always awesome to see on-the-road-to-extinction American white males proudly bluster about the foreign actions taken by the same gubmint that's displacing them at home.

I guess one good thing about you not having any children is that they won't be around to suffer all the eventual blowback that historically rolls around.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't the Western elite haved pulled off this sacrifice closer to Halloween? They're getting sloppy.

Chicago said...

They probably already had plans to overthrow him at the time he shook hands with Obama. The Nobel Peace Prize winner must have known Ghaddafi was a dead man walking but kept up the charade of developing better relations in the future. Shake his hand then rub him out, just like the mafia.

Anonymous said...

It's funny. Gaddafi was the Diva of Defiance who told his people he was standing up to the Evil West. He dressed and acted loudly. But it turned out he dilly dallied with the West for riches, his sons were spoiled partiers with Western elites, etc. People must hae grown cynical when the Gaddafis spent millions to have decadent Western pop stars come to perform for them in Tripoli.
And via the internet, Libyan youths found out West is a lot more fun--and that things were changing in Tunisia and Egypt too.
They too began to act like Defiant Gaddafis against Gaddafi. Look at photos of them with guns mugging for the camera. Everybody wanted to be moviestar.
Diva revolution.

Anonymous said...

"The horrific, brutal, frenzied manner in which Qaddafi was summarily executed just demonstrates how barbaric these people really are."

It's how Americans used to deal with people they didn't like: lynching.

WLW said...

The Attack upon Libya is the same thing as NATO attacking Serbia.

America is the seat of world revolution. The Moneyed Oligarchy of America decided to take out Khaddaffi. So one evil took out another evil?

When the stupid Repubs voted against the war--they winked at continuing the financing. Just utter cowardice and duplicity by Republicans.

America is Evil. There was no Rule of Law, No respect for sovereignty, none whatsoever. Why the Popes did not condemn both the attack upon Serbia and Libya are black eyes.

This country is evil. And its leadership is evil.

Anonymous said...

"Forget all this romantic "Arab Spring" nonsense. All that the West has done in Libya is help replace one bunch of violent, sadistic savages with another."

Same thing happened with Ceaucescu. When people are brutally oppressed for decades and their rage finally spews forth, this is what happens.

Same with Mussolini. He emotionally brutalized his people with paeans to war, revival of classic Rome, Italian machismo, etc. Italians ate it all up and worshiped him as the baddest man in the world. But when Italy turned out to be weak and helpless--not only against Allies but supposed friend/partner Germany--, Italians took out their brutalized emotions against Mussolini himself.

Even so, I find Libyan violence less unsettling that what Japan did in Nanking, what Germans did in Eastern Europe, and what Russians did to German women.

Also, though I'm glad he's gone, I'm kinda saddened too. Gaddafi was an 80s icon, a time when I came of age. Seeing him fall like this is kinda tragic(though also comic). It is also a sober reminder that nothing in this world is forever or for sure. It's like one of those cautionary Greek myths.
Also, I admire the fact that he didn't run but died fighting. And his sons, though spoiled and rotten, did stick by their father. That's something too.
In my younger, more leftist days, I had hoped Gaddafi could be a role model for the Third World, a revolutionary leader. But it soon dawned on me that he was a moron. His support of revolutioin and violence around the world had no rhyme or reason except for mugging for attention. Just like Jesse Jackson went for every photo-op, Gaddafi had to have his hand in every troublespot. I don't think he ever thought about any of this, which is why Oriana Fallaci said he was a stupid stupid man. Some evil men are smart. Gaddafi was just stupid. He cared more for attention than result.

Even so, despite his grisly record, he was one of the more colorful and entertaining Third World strongmen, a true eccentric. A real personality.
Also, whatever his crimes, he was far from one of the great tyrants of the modern world. He was no mass murderer. And by Third World standards, he comes off better than many others America's been very close to or has tolerated.
In a way, his downfall was less the result of iron-fisted tyranny than his relative willy-nilly mildness as a tyrant. Tyrant, yes, but more a tribal chieftain who demanded loyalty in exchange for goodies than a totalitarian monster like Mao or Stalin or Hitler. In fact, had he set up a more totalitarian apparatus, he would still be in power.

But diva that he was, he thought his people loved him--at one time they did, seeing him as their Michael Jackson--when, in fact, his people eventually tired of him. He created his image as a man of defiance. So, when he schmoozed with the West he'd been railing against all his life, Libyans prolly began to feel like jackasses. Gaddafi turned out to be a phony. Besides, Gaddafi cut a dashing figure when he was young, especially in his military uniform. But he's been looking more like a sagging old hag for the last 10 yrs. When pop stars fade, they really fade.

Anonymous said...

"What gets me is that we had beaten the guy down into behaving like a civilized human being. He gave up his weapons of mass destruction. He paid billions in reparations. He provided intelligence for the war on terror and tortured people for us so the U.S. wouldn't get its hands dirty."

International politics is gangster politics. There are no permanent enemies, friends, or alliances. Gaddafi should have known that, being a gangster himself.
"Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."

But we must remember Gaddafi would still be in power--and there would have been no Nato bombardment--if the Libyan people didn't rise up. Without Nato support, the rebels would not have won. But without rebel uprising, Nato bombardment wouldn't have worked. This was a Libyan revolution that we supported from behind. And given French military played a crucial role in the War of Independence and American military liberated France, what is wrong with Nato helping out a people who wanna overthrow a dictator(whom we secretly loathed despite diplomatic pretense in recent yrs)?

If Hungarian Uprising in 56 had succeeded, communist leaders would have been 'murdered' too. Good thing too.

Matt said...

It's a crime how rarely ADC updates.

Anonymous said...

"Since when is dragging an unarmed man by his hair around his hometown, beating him senselessly, taking pictures with him dead corspe, pounding him with his own pair of shoes, playing with his dead eyes, shooting the dead body in the head and both legs, parading his body around the town and then stomping on it, justice?"

Unarmed man? You mean disarmed man. When Gaddafi had the power,he controlled most of the arms and used them ruthlessly. He got what he's been doing to others--even blowing innocent people out of the air.
If your family member had been killed by Gaddafi's terrorists, wouldn't you want to tear him limb from limb?

Many Libyans got sick of him, his tyranny, his lunacy, his cult of brutality. He preached violence and so it boomeranged back to himself. Gaddafi also filled up Libya with black Africans and ignored the pleas of his people to do more for Libyans than get involved with Africa. He didn't listen. He created the very conditions that led to his downfall.

Anonymous said...

"No matter his crimes, Qaddafi deserved a trial."


Legally, everyone DESERVES a trial, but it doesn't work that way in wartime.

Hunsdon said...

Amidst all the glee---and I found HRC's "We came, we saw, he died" to be especially disgusting---we continue to forget Sun Tzu's message about building golden bridges for our enemies. The K man had mostly straightened up and flown right---cooperated with intel, abandoned his WMD programs, become a good corporate citizen---since 9/11, and look how we reward him.

I'm afraid the moral of the story is that you should never, ever trust the USG.

White man speak with forked tongue, anyone?

(And in terms of his internal policies, I'd much rather have been a citizen of Libya than most of the other middle eastern countries.)

Rainforest Giant said...

Yes anon at 10:48 clearly the eighty something man deserved to be dragged around town, kicked, pummeled, and tortured to death.

That's what he deserved. If there was ever a useless and needless war this was it. But like Steve said, Obama doesn't want to be known as the president who started a war with Kaddafi and lost.

Anonymous said...

"The horrific, brutal, frenzied manner in which Qaddafi was summarily executed just demonstrates how barbaric these people really are."

Hey, bitch, we elected a brother for president and got us a motherfuckin' drive-by defense policy.

josh said...

"Isn't it self-evident that execution without trial always serves an interest"

Isn't it self-evident that an execution with trial always serves interest? Why further legitimize this insanity with a show trial conducted by people who should have no authority to try anyone? If we are not going to have law, at least let it be as naked as possible.

Anonymous said...

Soviet Juggernaut destroyed the nazis. Internet bloggernaut seems to have played a role in taking out Gaddafi. Gaddafi was laptoppled.

Anonymous said...

Somehow, I think there will be a massive and very harsh blowback to France.
France along with Britain was the instigator of Gaddafi's downfall.
As we all know France has an enormous Arab population that is only too aware of French duplicity and meddling in their region and also only too aware of gallic racism, snobbery and unpleasantness.The Arab population of France is growing exponenetially to the point where they will soon challenge the Gauls for supremacy.Before then we will see some very interesting fisticuffs - in particular if the Gauls have the temerity to vote FN.

Anonymous said...

Little remarked is the berock of anti-Gaddafi resistance in the NTC is hard-core Islamist - rely on the fact that all other talking heads will disappear and be pushed aside in a few years' time.
The resistance to Gaddafi was really induced by a notorious prison massacre of Islamists.

Kylie said...

What a loss! It's not every leader who knows how to accessorize like that.

Libyan fashion is all the poorer for his passing.

Anonymous said...

Qqahdaphi had it coming in a minor way.

But I'd rather America killed dictators for raison d'etat rather than for good measure.

In other words, Uncle Sam sure oughta knock off a dictator from time to time, and do it without assuming responsibility for the country, and inasmuch I'm on board with qillhing Cowdefie--but it would be much better to knock off a dictator that hadn't already truckled under to us.

-osvaldo M.

David Davenport said...

A hint to Mr. Steve:

THANKS TO EVERYONE who’s bought items via the Amazon links on this page or the search box in the right sidebar. By doing so you’ve supported this blog at no cost to yourself. It’s much appreciated!

Posted at 11:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds

/9:44 AM 10/21/2011


Instapundit

Anonymous said...

I must say at least he died fighting like a man. I kind of admire that.

Nanonymous said...

Yeah, it is curious to see MSM not having any problems with the gruesome lynching. They are probably thinking that his lynchers are our sons of the bitches now.

Traveller said...

Just to be obvious, this story showed the world how it is dangerous being friend and listening to the so called Western world.

About the barbaric killing, I guess no one would be surprised.

About the trial, at last an interesting dilemma. Skipping a trial is acceptable only in private matters (killing a burglar entering in one's house).

Probably Gaddafi as a dictator did some nasty things to his people, no one will know for certain. But more probably, amongst savages it needs a small sparkle.

Anonymous said...

What bothered me perhaps most about Ghaddafi's torture and street execution was that his captors were all bearded like Osama, all chanting "Allahu Akbar". I feel like his relatively secular regime is going to be replaced by a theocracy.

Carol said...

Sinking to his level doesn't make you heroes,

Well these rituals do serve a purpose. At least we know for sure he's dead....or is he???

Anonymous said...

After 42 years the Qaddafi nightmare is finally over. Now the people of Libya can get to work building their own nightmare.

Hammer-Drill

Muzzie said...

"What gets me is that we had beaten the guy down into behaving like a civilized human being. He gave up his weapons of mass destruction. He paid billions in reparations. He provided intelligence for the war on terror and tortured people for us so the U.S. wouldn't get its hands dirty. And so for reasons that are an absolute mystery, we murdered him, his children and grandchildren"

That is the interesting story here. Any suggestions?

Anonymous said...

Just as no European shed a single tear over the death of Ceaucescu, most Arabs are happy to see the end of Gaddafi. He was an embarrassment. To conservative traditionalists, he was a troublemaking bad boy. To reformist democrats, he was a megalomaniacal strongman. Maybe he might have cut a dashing figure in the 60s with Castro, Che, and Ho cultures, but he came to power in 69 when that sort of thing was starting to fade. Also, his ideology was impossible to pin down. He was everything to everyone, pro and con. He was an Arab nationalist, he was an Africanist, he was a revolutionary, he was a devout Muslim traditionalist, he was a feminist(relative to places like Saudi Arabia), he was a male chauvinist, he was socialist, he was rich playboy, he was for black Africans, he fought wars against black Afrians(Chad). This mumbo jumbo cannot even be said to be nihilism. Unwittingly and uncannily, maybe he was the first post-modern dictator.

Anonymous said...

And only just before Steve ran out of alternate spellings for his name.

Anonymous said...

Monomania was too boring for Gadfly. He was a multimaniac. His vanity required him to be hero of both right and left, muslim and secular, african and arab, modern and ancient, tribalism and universalism.
Come to think of it, Sukarno was kinda like this: the playboy muslim communist whatever else popped into his head. His fall didn't sadden many in SE Asia. And fall of Suharto was even less mourned.

Lying Eyes said...

The MSM outlets I heard yesterday were giving the patently false cover story that K-DaFee was killed in a gunbattle and dragged out of a sewer.

There is clear video out showing him being dragged out of a car trunk by the hair, mobbed and executed on the spot. Check rt.com.

Have our elite become so complacient and secure they no longer feel the the need to come up with propaganda soundtrack that at least matches the video?

Anonymous said...

Obama to pull all US troops out of Iraq and to substantially give up on Afghanistan. His base will like him, and indies will like it too.

The question is... is it to set up the next confrontation... with Iran, possibly after his re-election?

Anonymous said...

I think many on the American Right are really pissed by the fall of Gaddafi cuz...

1. It makes Obama look good. Obama got Osama, he got the other Al Qaeda leader, he got Gaddafi, he's pulling trooops out of Iraq.

2. Conservatives had gleefully hoped for the Libya War to be a huge embarrassment for Obama/Hillary, but the fact is Nato played its card right. This wasn't very costly, Libyans did the ground fighting, and Libyans who toppled Gadfly are now more pro-western than ever.
What Nato did was kinda devious, but international politics is devious. Some say this interventionism was the product of Wilson idealism. It is partly. But it is also an example of realism, i.e. 'idealism' was used as cover for realist objectives: get revenge on a longtime enemy and make an oil-rich nation more indebted to the West. Don Corleone may have seemed soft and idealistic when he sued for peace with the five families, but he was actually preparing for victory in a secretive realist manner.
Gaddafi's fall makes Obama/Hillary look good. And all the conservatives who'd been predicting that this would be another Iraq, that Libyan rebels were too stupid to win, or that Arabs are so stupid that they deserve to ruled by tribal thugs, and etc have not been vindicated. To be sure, things in Libya could get worse, but it's also true that many Libyans do feel euphoric and proud that they finally got rid of a nutjob tyrant.

Though I don't want anything to make Obama/Hillary look good, the fall of Gaddafi is good for the Libyan people, and I salute them. If I were a Libyan, I would have picked up a gun and joined the rebellion too. Better a hopeful, albeit uncertain, future than a certain future under idiot Gaddafi and his trashy sons.
(That said, I also pay tribute to Gaddafi's courage to stick it out to the end. He died like a man, and that can't be taken away. And I salute his sons for their loyalty to their father who provided them with everything.)

jody said...

the whole thing does not make much sense. it seems like something france wanted, then others joined in opportunistically. libya was the furthest thing from obama's mind 1 year ago, i'm one thousand percent sure. when it started to happen, obama had never thought about libya for more than 10 minutes in his life. then it was kind of like a gang beating down some guy - obama saw a chance to get in a few punches on some guy he never would have started a straight up fight with. just 1 or 2 years earlier, obama had a friendly chat or two with gaddafi.

gaffafi was pretty much cooperating with other nations too and had been for years when the revolution "broke out". the revolution turned to out be mainly the airforces of a few first world nations, and special forces sent into to direct the nearly hapless rebel infantry that was trying to take on gaddafi's forces.

the US definitely had no interest here at all. and the situation in the region is possibly worse. nobody really knows what will happen with hardcore muslims in charge, and it's likely libya as a nation won't be a helpful and cooperative with europe as it was under gaddafi.

obama thought what happened in egypt was great, but reporters have been covering egypt since the photo-op moments ended there, and what's happening is that the military is in control, is not allowing elections, and is actually rounding up christians and killing them. no word from obama on how "great" all that stuff is.

you do have to admit that the obama administration is good at getting things to spin their way in the US political media. of course, this is dramatically easier when almost all of the US television news is in the tank for you. if GW bush had allowed gaddafi to be straight up killed without trial by random angry IQ 85 peasants with guns, liberals would have had a fit. they still think what happened to saddam hussein was highly objectionable, while at the same time feeling that taking out small time, can't fight back targets the way obama is, is simply great.

Anonymous said...

We are going to discover in short order that removing this man from power was a mistake, and a large one at that.

Anonymous said...

I wonder... did Gaddafi really know what he was getting into when he said he'd fight to the end? Or, was he thinking in terms of movie logic? He's been living the lifestyle of a movie star diva for so long that maybe he either thought he could not lose or his tragic end would be romantic/glorious--like in LION OF THE DESERT. But in fact, the violence was ugly, putrid, humiliating, cruel. In other words, real. He was slaughtered like a goat.

Tom said...

So, was any Islamic terrorism ever pinned on Gaddafi? They tried to frame him for a whole series of incidents, but it was never convincing. His support for the IRA is solidly documented.

Anonymous said...

"In some ways, I’m glad that Colonel Gaddafi has (apparently, at least) been captured and killed in his hometown of Sirte by the barbaric hordes that he had kept at bay for so long. I don’t say this because I have much hope for the democratic dawn in Libya...
Instead, I am somewhat gladdened by the reported outcome because there is a certain heroism to Gaddafi’s demise, which would have been lost were he to live out his life in secluded exile. We can now remember Gaddafi in happier times, when he cut the figure of a dashing dictator."

Spencer of Alt Right never fails to amaze me. A nutjob lunatic has fallen, but Spencer speaks of 'heroism' and 'happier times (as) dashing dictator'. Is he really so fooled by appearances? Gaddafi was always a vain clown.
And what is this about 'barbaric hordes'? I'm not saying the rebels are saints or cut-out for modern democracy, but they did put their lives on their line to live in a free or freer society. Can you say this about white people in US or EU? I wish they had some barbarian-rebel-warrior soul.

Though I don't see the immediate future of Libya or Middle East as rosy--and I certainly do NOT want those people flooding into the West--, can't we at least wish them well in this genuinely momentous period in history? Not all went well in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism either, but that was HUGE. For awhile, things were worse in Russia; Yugoslavia turned into a barbaric hellhole; Romania is still a mess. But we were right to wish the new order well, help out where we could; and indeed, progress has been made, some of it profound.

I'm not calling for more interventionism, and the Nato effort in Libya was risky(and I think those who opposed it were on solid ground). But Libyan rebels were genuine and committed to fighting and winning. And they won. Even if this victory for Obama is politically galling for us, it seems the much bigger story is the new dawn in Libya. It seems the only decent thing for us as humans is to wish them well(while fully being aware of the dangers)instead of insulting and demeaning the rebels as 'barbarian hordes'.
Besides, the ragtag American soldiers of the revolution were not exactly the most refined people on Earth. Indeed the Brits and Loyalists denounced them as 'the mob' and the 'rabble'. And indeed many were. But a new America was shaped from such raw material.

Anonymous said...

More hilarious stuff from a commenter at Alt Right:

"It is rather frightening. As much as I hated Bush's imperialism, at least there were some superficial procedures in place, such as capturing and trying Saddam Hussein. Nowadays it seems like the government is openly celebrating its lawlessness and power to kill anyone at whim. Upon word of Gaddafi's death, Obama openly crowed about how great it was that Gaddafi was killed. In the same way as he trumpeted the glorious news that bin Laden and Awlaki were killed in cold blood. How can we trust a government that is so...morbid?"

This is funny. Alt Right's hero is Nietzsche, Mr. Will to Power. Alt Right commentators often invoke him and scoff at 'slave morality', 'humanitarianism', 'humanism', 'international law', 'abstract ideals', 'Enlightenment values', etc. They pretend to understand the real force in history: the ruthless, devious, cunning, and creative WILL TO POWER.
Well, they finally come face-to-face with it in how NATO used brilliant gangster politics(masked with 'idealism')to topple an old enemy, and suddenly Alt Rightists are squeamishly invoking international law, process, decency, and etc etc to denounce such naked Will to Power(or Brill to Power; brill for brilliant).
So much for Nietzscheanism. When they come face to face with the real thing, Alt Rightists shriek like little girls.

In the end, guys like Gaddafi and Mussolini are not true Nietzscheans. They aren't cunning or creative enough. By showing off and grandstanding, they became blinded with hubris and made themselves easy targets. Creative Will to Power hides or masks the hunger for power with 'ideals'.
Alt Right boys will never get it.

Whiskey said...

Yes Khadaffi's murder was barbaric and brutal (but he himself dealt that out for Pan Am 103 and the Berlin Disco bombing so no complaints). His people are a disgusting rabble. And Islamists through and through.

The point is taken, Khadaffi HAD cooperated, while enemies like Syria and Iran pay no price. We won't get guys to go along to get along, behaving like that. We have to reward friends and punish enemies, not punish friends (Khadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali) and reward friends (Syria, Iran, Pakistan). IF you made the case OK Khadaffi is finished because only Hafez Assad survived a revolt late in his career, others were all done, then the point should have been to replace him quick, guide who takes power, and make even worse examples of Syria and Iran. Before they get nukes. And become untouchable.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, it is curious to see MSM not having any problems with the gruesome lynching. They are probably thinking that his lynchers are our sons of the bitches now."

Who, whom. Boercide is cool with MSM too.

Anonymous said...

"Diva revolution."

Divalution. Well, it beats devolution.

Anonymous said...

His name is Gaddafinished now.

Anonymous said...

"Gadaffi was a dick. He should have fled in exile to a friendly black African country while he had the opportunity and saved his own skin - and he had ample opportunity to do so."

I guess his balls were bigger than his dick.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, those animals in Libya taking an eighty-something dictator who tortured them for 42 years and giving him a beatdown/execution.

Quite unlike the gentle black yoofs in Philly who gave an 84-year white guy a beatdown just because he was old and white.

Who are the animals?

Anonymous said...

"Since when is dragging an unarmed man by his hair around his hometown, beating him senselessly, taking pictures with him dead corspe, pounding him with his own pair of shoes, playing with his dead eyes, shooting the dead body in the head and both legs, parading his body around the town and then stomping on it, justice? Sinking to his level doesn't make you heroes, it makes you animals like him."

You must have had a peaceful life. Though I prefer peace and rule of law, I've lived in all kinds of communities and I've wanted to do certain people what rebels did to Gaddafi. They would have deserved it too.

War brings out the 'worst' in us. Heck, we nuked two cities to hell and even incinerated babies. GI killed a lot of surrending soldiers with flame throwers. We burned German children in their sleep through carpet bombing. And look at Sherman march in the South. Or look at the atrocities by Southern vigilantes in the film RIDE WITH THE DEVIL. Or consider Jesse James and his revenge campaign against yankees in THE LONG RIDERS. And look at the back-and-forth atrocities between US cavalry and the Indians.

It's easy to judge things from afar and call other people 'barbarians'. But people who abhor violence suddenly find themselves doing horrible stuff in war. It almost comes naturally. And liberated France and Italy took horrific vengeance on Fascists and collaborators.
And according to the film CACHE(which I didn't like), there was a massacre of over a 1000 Algerians in France in the 1950s.

Recently, I went on a hiking trip. I generally love nature and wax romantic and have nice thoughts about animals. Well, I got lost in the forest and it wasn't long before my emotions got 'brutalized'. When you're hungry, thirsty, confused, anxious, and dazed, you don't think of idealized nature; you become part of nature, which is brutal. Every tree and bluff was no longer 'beautiful' but hostile. Every animal looked like something I should kill and shove in my mouth.
If getting lost in forest for several hrs has this effect, imagine the brutality of war. There is also the element of catharsis among Libyans. For so long they had to just go along with Gaddafi and act like sheep. It must have been liberatingly orgiastic and orgasmic--a kind of blood-soaked Woodstock--to finally ride around and do as they please. Much of it was ugly but hardly surprising.

Anonymous said...

Remember in SEVEN SAMURAI where the peasants seem timid and cowardly. But once they begin to fight, they are brutal, vengeful, and nasty. When the samurai capture an enemy scout and wanna keep him for questioning, peasants rush at him to tear him limb from limb. That's people alright. Arabs don't have a monopoly on this.
And during the Greek-Turkish war, both sides did horrible things to one another. And then there was the thing with Armenians.

Anonymous said...

What kind of all-powerful dictator can't get promoted to general?

Anonymous said...

Though the West talks about 'democracy in Libya', I think they learned the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of a centralized democratic government--though a semblance of such will be instituted for symbolic value--, I think the West will promote and encourage a kind of regionalism along tribal alliances. As long as each tribe gets something--at least more than before--, they'll be happy.

Will Libya become a theocracy? I don't think so. Majority of Libyans are young, and they want laptop computers, iphones, and such, not rote learning of sacred texts in madrasas. And despite his nuttiness, Gaddafi(and his children)was worldly enough to open his country to foreign influences.
Why did Alqaeda fail in Iraq? Initially, Al had a great opportunity, what with Sunnis pissed at Shias and US. But Sunnis discovered Al to be medievalist, puritanical, no-fun, and pain-in-the-ass. Women couldn't even buy cucumbers.
The Arab world may be backward, but most Arabs--esp. the young--don't wanna live under something like the Taliban or even Muslim Brotherhood. And in Persian Iran, most young people don't like clerical control, and it's only a matter of time before theocracy ends in Iran.

Also, the aura of the GREAT STRONGMAN is finished in the Arab World. When Nasser royally messed up in the war with Israel, he was scared out of his wits. His aura of invincibility was gone. But most Egyptians pledged their undying loyalty to him.

Times have changed. Arabs have seen Hussein fall from power and be exposed as a pathetic creature. Arabs no longer see leaders as 'great men' but corrupt assholes with too much power. At one time, Gaddafi had an aura about him. But by the 90s, Libyans were already no longer seeing him as a great man than as a clown hogging the power. There has been a revolution in mindset--akin to when Europeans stopped being impressed by so-called 'divine right of kings'. The French masses who killed King Louis just saw him as a pompous putz with fancy clothes and a crown.
So, history will not repeat itself cuz times are changing with new technologies and new attitudes.

There's bound to be more violence in the Arab world cuz most nations were artificially carved by Western imperialists without regard to ethnic homogeneity or diversity. But then, it finally took WWII to reconfigure Europe along more ethnically meaningful lines. WWI and WWII were both, in a way, ignited by ethnically criss-crossing borders. And it wasn't resolved in Yugoslaia unitil the 90, and how bloody that was.

Anonymous said...

""Yeah, it is curious to see MSM not having any problems with the gruesome lynching. They are probably thinking that his lynchers are our sons of the bitches now."

Who, whom. Boercide is cool with MSM too."

Yes. It looks like the Terreblanche trial is heading down the O.J. Simpson track. The Rainbow Republic's finest pro bono shysters have decided on the 'if the glove don't fit, you must acquit' defense. The strategy seems to be that if you can create an atmosphere of pure and sustained non-sequitur, then any verdict will eventually be possible.
Gilbert pinfold

Kylie said...

"Since when is dragging an unarmed man by his hair around his hometown, beating him senselessly, taking pictures with him dead corspe, pounding him with his own pair of shoes, playing with his dead eyes, shooting the dead body in the head and both legs, parading his body around the town and then stomping on it, justice?"

When his name is Muammar Gaddafi (or however you choose to spell it). You write as though he were an innocent victim like James Byrd, rather than a brutal dictator accused of crimes against humanity.

"Sinking to his level doesn't make you heroes, it makes you animals like him."

I don't think the people who found him and killed him wanted to be heroes nor do I think they sank to his level. They just wanted him dead, the sooner the better. It could have been much, much worse.

I'm not saying what they did was right. I'm saying it was understandable.

Apparently, you're one of the lucky ones Noah Cross referred to in Chinatown when he said, "...most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they're capable of anything."

Anonymous said...

Spencer called Gaddafi's last stand heroic. What a fool. Maybe Gaddafi had courage, but heroism is not about fighting to save oneself but to put oneself in danger to save or help OTHER people.

Nanonymous said...

Nato played its card right. This wasn't very costly, Libyans did the ground fighting,

Really? Supposedly, Libya cost us over $1 billion. A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there - and pretty soon we are talking about real money? Besides, what money would you put against the odds that the future Libya will be a land of Jihad? Care to estimate potential costs of such development?

Anonymous said...

"Really? Supposedly, Libya cost us over $1 billion. A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there - and pretty soon we are talking about real money?"

Better billion than trillion.

ben tillman said...

Khadafy killed a lot fewer Americans than Obama, Bush, or Clinton did.

I am decidedly uninterested in his fate.

ben tillman said...

What kind of all-powerful dictator can't get promoted to general?

That drew a smile, though it wasn't quite as amusing as the thought of Jack Ruby with a tail.

Anonymous said...

The Arab world may be backward, but most Arabs--esp. the young--don't wanna live under something like the Taliban or even Muslim Brotherhood.

They would, if they thought it was the only thing that can restore "real" Law and Order (not wimpy western rule-of-law).

jody said...

"Also, the aura of the GREAT STRONGMAN is finished in the Arab World."

seems like they are doing fine, in nations where obama doesn't want to start a straight up, planned and deliberate fight. i would not call using the combined air forces of the UK, france, and US to take out the dictator of a small, weak, irrelevant nation of 6 million people a good example here.

this was pretty much a good fistfight to get into from obama's perpective. low risk, gang up on some weak guy after somebody else already starting throwing the punches so nobody can claim "obama started it", and nearly certain victory with hundreds of modern jets and bombers flying over some rinky dink forces.

of course obama was wrong about every single thing he said. he claimed this wasn't a war, but it was. he claimed it would take days, but it didn't. he claimed he didn't need to get congress' authority, but he would have - if the US was a serious nation anymore, but now it just lets the half african guy break the rules whenever he wants. and he claimed nobody would be on the ground, but they were. well, i guess it was technically accurate. he let the french and british do that shooting guns at people on the ground thing.

probably the biggest lie was that the US had some national interest here. because catoffee was gonna slaughter thousands of innocent people. that was a load of shit.

but like i said, obama knows his US media well. all that matters is "Obama killed Ghaddafi too. He's actually a total asskicker."

well played, mr obama. well played. i'm actually starting to wonder if his staff sits around, considering whether there are other easy targets to kill or assassinate, for ratings purposes.

Anonymous said...

"Also, the aura of the GREAT STRONGMAN is finished in the Arab World."

"seems like they are doing fine, in nations where obama doesn't want to start a straight up, planned and deliberate fight."

By 'strongman', I don't just mean autocrats. In a way, Iraq is still run by autocratic types.
I mean someone like Hussein or Gadaffy or Nasser, who acted like and was worshiped like a god among his people. Gadaffy was once a superstar among his people. He lost it and couldn't get it back.

the Dude said...

Why is Obama (the USA) given credit for this when France and England started it and, it appears, finished it?

the Dude said...

Trials for dictators: Ceausescu did have a trial, but it was a Stalinistic show-trial devoid of any real legal meaning. And the outcome was known before it started. Also, Sadam Hussein was tried and everybody knew ahead of time that he will be executed. Nothing of value (The Inside Story of the Grassy Knoll or something) was learned in either case. Ceausescu and Hussein and Gadafi were all going to be executed, trial or not, so better do it quick and while the "situation" is still hot.

David said...

>But we must remember Gaddafi would still be in power--and there would have been no Nato bombardment--if the Libyan people didn't rise up. Without Nato support, the rebels would not have won. But without rebel uprising, Nato bombardment wouldn't have worked. This was a Libyan revolution that we supported from behind.<

Baloney. History is made by determined minorities, not by "the people rising up." All revolutions are started and carried on by a tiny number of self-conscious agitators; the mob ascends only near the end, when it's lootin' time.

Libya looked especially stage-managed. You can view some of the self-professed agitators at movements.org. They don't seem to be standard-issue Libyans; many aren't Arabs or Africans at all.

Hillary Clinton essentially admitted that the US fomented the whole thing. "We came, we saw, he [Gadhafi] died," she said, cribbing from Julius Caesar. Not only was NATO fronting for us, but also so probably were the agitators. They were probably no more than a rent-a-mob.

As to the heroic Libyan people shtick, come on. Disorder is endemic to the Arab Street. It wouldn't matter who is in power; if stirred up and backed by overwhelming force, they would drag Mr. X, too, by the hair, gouge out his eyeballs, and fire their rifles in the air over his corpse while ululating.

I am reminded of something Oliver Cromwell said. "Do not trust the cheering [mob], for those persons would shout as much if you or I were going to be hanged."

The interesting question is that of motive. Why this stage-managed "revolution"? Why did "we" get rid of Gadhafi? Whom we will put in his place?

Anon87 said...

I'm curious if there really were no US casualties. Does anyone doubt special forces and/or CIA agents were acting in Libya in some capacity? We'll probably never know.

Maya said...

I've tried searching around for information, and I've been reading this blog, but I really don't understand what happened in Libya. I get that Gaddaffi was a dictator, but a lot of governments in the world aren't democratic republics. From what i was able to gather, Gaddafi built cities, schools, complex irrigation systems and hospitals. He created a government that was, pretty much, secular and granted basic human rights to women and minorities. I still wouldn't want to live there, but the country seemed to become a much better place under him. He was brutal with the desert people. However, as horrible as it sounds, they are savages. Anyone would have to use force while dealing with them. Perhaps, the noble thing would be to leave them alone and not include their territory within the borders of any governed nation. But that's not realistic. There are natural resources under that desert, and powers of the world would fight for access. Again, I knew nothing about Libya a year ago, so perhaps I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the bulk of the rebels came from the recent descendants of the savages who grew up in the new cities Gaddafi built for them, educated in his schools, watered with his irrigation systems and nursed in his hospitals. They seemed to be rebelling because: A. Their loyalties are tribal and the region has always had tribal wars in struggles over land and B. Because they are savages.
I know Gaddafi killed a lot of people while subduing the desert, and I'm sure he swept a lot of gold coins under his own bed. I just don't see how he was worse than anyone else on that god forsaken continent. Actually, I don't see how he wasn't the best leader there. Now, I, regularly, turn down offers of $80,000+ to go teach somewhere in Africa/Middle East because that part of the world isn't civilized enough to risk it, in my opinion. But if I had a gun to my head, Gaddafi's Libya wouldn't be my last choice.

Why are we there? Did we just follow France and Britain there on a whim? What does France still want with North Africa? Is it all as simple as the control over natural resources? I'm really confused.

Anon87 said...

Isn't it always about resources or land?

Anonymous said...

the bulk of the rebels came from the recent descendants of the savages who grew up in the new cities Gaddafi built for them, educated in his schools, watered with his irrigation systems and nursed in his hospitals.

Sounds very much like the anti-Shah forces in old Iran.

They seemed to be rebelling because: A. Their loyalties are tribal and the region has always had tribal wars in struggles over land and B. Because they are savages.

C. When they were really poor, they had no energy for revolution and fighting over abstractions.

D. There is no word for "gratitude" in Arabic.

Anonymous said...

Michael Jackson wanted to be a white woman. I think Gaddafi wanted really to be a black woman.