Death of Gaddafi: A Lesson but not for Dictators

[Saalax]

Mintid Farayar;753165 wrote:

Typical Diaspora Somalis. Waar, dhulkiinii iyo dadkiinii baa gubanaya, idinkuna Qadafi iyo NATO baa maskaxdiina la weynaadey!

 

While the mutilation, humiliation, and murder of Qadafi, regardless of his crimes, has been shocking to say the least, far more shocking is the amount of Somalis currently expiring from war, starvation, thirst, disease, and every other calamity known to mankind.

 

Come back to reality and concentrate on home.

 

co-sign.

[NGONGE]

Brilliant! One video clip of one man being mistreated and killed cancels out 42 years of oppression and dictatorship. A&T (and those agreeing with him) are as volatile as an alasation outside its own house.

 

Still, though I found the clips tasteless, I wasn't that moved by them. You see, I'm SOMALI and unlike spoilt western kid who is not used to such things, I have seen my own people dragging dead bodies in the streets, digging out the long dead from their graves and causing great famines. Therefore, though it was vulgar and not the done thing, I can still see beyond the (oh so) horrid pictures and know that the death of this latest dictator, though might serve some western interests was also a timely and (some might say fitting) wished for end for all those Liybians that began the protests on the 17th of Feb and carried them through right to the end.

 

And, again, unlike my tempremental friend here, I still don't place my faith on the man that's taken over just because he "has a kind face". Get a grip boys & girls, you are SOMALI.

 

p.s.

Brother president Ali Abdullah Saalix is next and I don't expect the King of Bahrin to get away with it for long either.

[AYOUB]

A&T, where do Hugo and Fidel fit in with your theory? The West want these gents out of power too but what's the missing ingredient?

[Abtigiis]

I know what you are alluding to. Short of open external aggression, nothing (internally) would have removed Gaddafi from power. Hugo Chavez, as much as popular he is among the poor, has powerful adversaries in his own country and millions have fled from Cuba. In the case of Castro, the fact that the world was bi-polar during the cold war saved him from open US aggression. And when it happened, it was dealth with with the full might of the soviet. In the case of Chavez, if US and Nato decide to attack him today, we will be reading about his death or flight on this pages. So, it is not by being popular with your people that you can stay on power, necessarily. In every country, the US included, there are always enough disgruntled people who will only be happy to assist anyone who is to get rid of a leader they despise.

 

Ngonge, enough of what you said is said about Gaddafi and his 42 years rule. I was merely trying to present few disturbing issues that occured in the last couple of days. We haven't seen Gaddafi's men kicking dead bodies when they were ransacking Misrata (I am sure they did though), and therefore we get upset about what we see not what we imagine. The moral decay in Libya is evident to all and I am sure Gaddafi's men might have done the same or have done the same to be more accurate. We condemn that too, but for now, it is the NTC who have allowed their victory to be sullied by their mistreatment of the dead. It is how you treat the vanquished that defines your victory and the NTC lost it. You cannot defend this blatant savagery by catalouging the vices of Gaddafi. We are not living in the age of an eye for an eye doctrine.

[NGONGE]

Abtigiis;753225 wrote:

Ngonge, enough of what you said is said about Gaddafi and his 42 years rule. I was merely trying to present few disturbing issues that occured in the last couple of days. We haven't seen Gaddafi's men kicking dead bodies when they were ransacking Misrata (I am sure they did though), and therefore we get upset about what we see not what we imagine. The moral decay in Libya is evident to all and I am sure Gaddafi's men might have done the same or have done the same to be more accurate. We condemn that too, but for now, it is the NTC who have allowed their victory to be sullied by their mistreatment of the dead. It is how you treat the vanquished that defines your victory and the NTC lost it. You cannot defend this blatant savagery by catalouging the vices of Gaddafi. We are not living in the age of an eye for an eye doctrine.

The scales of justice that you are using are very faulty, saaxib. You get riled by images and incidental actions rather than the actual problems. What is it that you are protesting about now? That a dictator was killed or the manner of his death?

 

In the time of the Mamalik of Egypt, Shajarat Al Dur (Tree of precious stones) who was the queen at the time was pummelled to death with shoes. During the same period, Qutuz, the new Sultan, beheaded the messengers of the Mongols and hung their severed heads in the squares of Cairo. Further forward in history, Mussolini had a similar end to that of your beloved Qaddafi. In fact, some would argue it was a worse death for he was shot, his body taken to Milan to be thrown in a public square where people would kick it and spit on it. Finally, it was hung upside down for everyone to stone from below!

The stories depicting the ends of tyrants are plenty and they are all testaments to how suppressed rage can manifest itself once it’s allowed out in the open. When Brutus stabbed Caesar and shouted Sic semper tyrannis (thus always to tyrants), he was witty enough to at least coin a phrase for an occasion that will repeat itself for as long as humans live. The Libyans on the other hand could only shout “die dog, die”.

 

But yours is not about the death of tyrants, yours (as your title suggests) is about lessons to be learnt from such a death. Well, the lesson is for you saaxib. It is one that tells you to (for this once) ignore the devil in the detail and look at the big picture instead. Libya has got rid of a tyrant (a proven and evil one at that) and a bad man has met his end. The lesson, if it were lessons that you are looking for here is that whatever goes up must eventually come down. It’s that evil never prospers. It’s that justice always prevails, etc..etc..etc..

 

p.s.

When Ali Abdullah Salax was blown up while praying in a mosque, do you know why you didn’t protest too much about the manner of that cowardly attack? No, it’s not because of politics warya. It’s because you didn’t see a video clip of the bombing.

[Abtigiis]

NG, I think I pre-empted some of the stories you gave here (about the tree man and Ceasar) be saying we are not living in the ages of eye-for-an-eye doctrine! Things evolve and what was acceptable at one time becomes unacceptable at another time. Anyway, the lesson I spoke of is not about that justice prevails (which i strongly disagree with). It is not about what goes up will come down. it is actually that justice will only prevail in today's world when it has the West's blessing. That what goes up can only come down with the power of NATO. That the Tamils are a living example of how justice could actually be defeated.

 

The moral of this article is that all dictators need not be concerned by the wrath of their people, they need to be worried about the wrath of Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron and all the big names of modern day imperialism.

[NGONGE]

Abtigiis;753373 wrote:

NG, I think I pre-empted some of the stories you gave here (about the tree man and Ceasar) be saying we are not living in the ages of eye-for-an-eye doctrine! Things evolve and what was acceptable at one time becomes unacceptable at another time. Anyway, the lesson I spoke of is not about that justice prevails (which i strongly disagree with). It is not about what goes up will come down. it is actually that justice will only prevail in today's world when it has the West's blessing. That what goes up can only come down with the power of NATO. That the Tamils are a living example of how justice could actually be defeated.

 

The moral of this article is that all dictators need not be concerned by the wrath of their people, they need to be worried about the wrath of Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron and all the big names of modern day imperialism.

You mean the rebels of Benghazi were not real? Were they flown in by Nato planes or something?

 

The West plays a part and you are stating the obvious here, saaxib. But the West can not (on its own) turn a people against its leader, not unless that leader is a dictator that spent decades oppressing said people. Look at Bahrin, the West & Arabs are all taking the side of the king but didn't stop the people from protesting and trying to overthrow the government? How about Yemen? Did the West want to get rid of Mubarak or Zain Al Caabidin to begin with?

 

p.s.

We do live in the age of an-eye-for-an-eye warya. Or else what was Osama, Al Shabab, Bush or Qaddafi? What do your ONLF fighters do to oil workers in the desert? War is yeel yeelka jooji dee (wrong it is but it takes place and exists).

[Abtigiis]

The rebels of Benghazi were real, but they wouldn't have meant anything beyond bedouins running for dear life without NATO.

 

The ONLF attacked Obolle, heavy fighting took place and many people died. You earlier asked me if I am against the killing of Gaddafi or the manner of the killing. I am against the manner of the killing. And nothing you said so far changes my mind about my feelings about this savage killing.

[NGONGE]

^^ Nor should it. It was a bad end. But your problem is with the images themsevles and not the action. Ha la ii sheego lakin yaan la i tusin baad leedahay, which is why I mentioned the Yemeni guy who got blown up in a MOSQUE! Sawirkiisa marki ba hadii lago tusi laha mabaad aamusin.

 

Priorities ya saaxibi. We live in the time of "collateral damage", "extraordinary rendition" and the million other phrases that make countless events like Qaddafi's death more acceptable to you and your tempremental comrades but it is all the same and, in the great scheme of things, are nothing but simple footnotes to a bigger problem and struggle. Wax fahan.

[N.O.R.F]

[Abtigiis]

I didn't say I have problem with images only. Anyway,

 

Ngongoow Qaddaafi ma jecli, waana la hubaaye

Waa taan habar-Lover noqdaa, oon nabada diidaayee

Waa taan nac iyo uf ku idhaa, Faysalkii noble'ka ahaayee

Waa taan newspaper'da ku qoraa, naxli aan jirine

 

Hedde waan kuu dhaartaye i aamin.

[NGONGE]

^^ I know you don't dee. War anigu taa kama hadlayo, only "reaction-kaga" ayaan ka hadlaya. Caadifada badan is bad for you.

 

p.s.

Norf can't make his mind up either. His default position is to get moved by the images but because he already made up his mind (re Qaddafi) he's not sure what to do now. Hoos ayuu wax ka habaaraya.

[N.O.R.F]

You're both right (in different ways) laakin this is turning into a Larry Holmes vs George Foreman event

 

Queue Manny?

[NGONGE]

[Qandalawi]

NGONGE;753375 wrote:

You mean the rebels of Benghazi were not real? Were they flown in by Nato planes or something?

 

The West plays a part and you are stating the obvious here, saaxib. But the West can not (on its own) turn a people against its leader, not unless that leader is a dictator that spent decades oppressing said people. Look at Bahrin, the West & Arabs are all taking the side of the king but didn't stop the people from protesting and trying to overthrow the government? How about Yemen? Did the West want to get rid of Mubarak or Zain Al Caabidin to begin with?

 

p.s.

We do live in the age of an-eye-for-an-eye warya. Or else what was Osama, Al Shabab, Bush or Qaddafi? What do your ONLF fighters do to oil workers in the desert? War is yeel yeelka jooji dee (wrong it is but it takes place and exists).

A hypothetical scenario: Let's flip the coin and say NATO starts bombing the NTC for whatever reason and supports Gaddafi loyalists instead, do you think a new rebel against the NTC led by Saif-Al-Islam with his supports from Tripoli, Sirte, Bani Waliid and the rest of Libya wouldn't take control of Bengazi by storm in less than few weeks.

 

Although situations vary from place to place and it would be foolish to apply the same logic/rule in every corner of the world, I agree with A&T on this, that NATO was the deciding factor in Libya. Gadhafi was captured and killed by the rebels from Misrata not because he hadn't had enough supporters in Libya or that he was extremely loathed and hated but of NATO war planes that led to this eventuality.