CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
They deserved to take justice in their own hands. It was their own issue, and they solved it their own way. We were right to not stick our noses in their business and put that dictator through an international trial.
I don't think we should have pressured them into telling us they'd repay us in the first place. Us helping their cause lightly shouldn't require repayment.
I don't think that we did pressure them into it but I could be wrong. I thought that they said they would when they asked for the help?
Anyway, Qatar and UAE are helping them get their oil production back up and we already have a lot of money frozen so they should be able to pay NATO back. I think if they did it would help give them legitimacy and they would have no reason to feel indebted to the west.
The real events of Pan Am 103 have never fully been disclosed, the man Al Ma Grahi always protested his innocence, i don't know at lot about it myself, there was definitely Libyan involvement but i don't think its as cut and dry as the US media made it out to be, and what you're repeating here now.
Gaddafi was more likely than not behind the bombing and that's what the families of the victims believe... I suspect his death brings them some closure and that's all I was saying, although I'm sure you don't view them as "victims" since a majority of them were American.
Of course i view then as victims jesus what kind of opinoin of me do you have, do you think i derive joy from the killing of innocent civilians, thats the whole reason i rant on about the US so much ause im sorry to tell your military is responsible for more deaths of innocents than any other in the world.
well your not the only bull, and soon there'll be a new bull (i.e. China) ill probably be eating all the words i wroite about america here cause something tells me they could be even worse.
Moammar, or Mo (as his friends knew him), has been asking for someone to open up a can on of whup ass on him for quite a long time and it finally happened ;)
You aren't going to gain a soul back after killing him. Is it possible to wipe out every mman on this planet that is responsible for odds? Well... Then every politician of India must be killed. My college President must be killed.
I don't say he was God. But. who the hell are we to decide how wrecking and torturous one's life must end? Who is pure enough and has the right justification against oneself or others to make.
It is sad to see Inhumanity... Reminds me of Yeats' ''Second Coming.''
Killing a killer doesn't make you not a killer yourself.
Why you killed a killer is the same reason why the killer killed. What I mean is that the forces or the reasons that led you to kill him are the reasons that made him a killer.
We revile people who murder, sometimes without reason, and then we celebrate the fact that we've killed someone who was supposedly an evil killer?
Assumed motives mean nothing. Actions are what hold meaning.
We are not much farther away from the dictators we bring to justice. I wish we were better then to think on our feelings instead of everyone's feelings.
the fact that we've killed someone who was supposedly an evil killer?
What evil is, is often misunderstood. The most evil are those who lay behind the masks. And the victims are then victimized again. People who justify power often misuse, disregard or let it be instead.
I know what evil is. I'm just stating that there's a fine line in between killing for evil and killing for justice. A line I don't like seeing crossed in real life. It's fun seeing it in movies and books, but it's only in stories that evil is so evil that there's no reason to not destroy it.
In real life, we're all people, not monsters, as much as we want to believe that some people are monsters just because they have done some extremely inhumane things.
"Assumed motives mean nothing. Actions are what hold meaning."
So we should treat vehicular manslaughter the same as serial killing? It is quite ignorant of you to ignore intention considering how an immense portion of our legal system is based on intent.
The action of vehicular manslaugher involves a car. The action was different then a mere serial killer, since a serial killer does not kill with a car. The actions are diferent. Therefore their true motives were different.
I said 'assumed' motives, meaning you shouldn't assume anything. Actions, on the other hand, portray actual motives. That's why they matter more then whatever you think.
Since when can a serial killer not kill with a car? The point of vehicular manslaughter is that the deaths were unintentional. Of course, since the deaths were caused by negligence, there is still punishment, but were one able to prove intent/motive for killing using a car, the punishment is far more severe.
"The actions are diferent. Therefore their true motives were different."
That's logical leap if I ever saw one. Both are using a car, both killed with a car, the victims were killed, but the motives of the one committing vehicular manslaughter versus the serial killer (legally, vehicular manslaughter progresses usually only up to second degree murder whereas the serial killer commits "aggravated" killing and is thus murder in the first degree) are quite starkly different. If anything, the actions are the same, but the true motives are different.
"Actions, on the other hand, portray actual motives."
Clearly, they do not.
Now, to bring this back to the debate topic rather than just be a discussion of degrees of murder, one may clearly prove that Gadhafi committed war crimes. Some may have been due to negligence, but he also ordered the deaths of peaceful protesters (initially before the war), and therefore for all intents and purposes, he was guilty of murder in the first degree, and is therefore execution is justifiable in our legal system. Secondly, he was killed by Libyan soldiers, and therefore his well-being is entirely the responsibility of the Libyan government/society and it is not in outside government's jurisdiction to enforce their/our legal practices. Thirdly, Gadhafi died from bullet wounds received during the firefight leading to his initial capture. He was being taken to a hospital but died en route, therefore, Gadhafi's death is not evidence of rebels' "unneeded killing" but rather the inevitable results of a deadly firefight, as in any war. Indeed, it could be seen as much more humane on the part of the rebels since they attempted to bring him to a hospital, presumably to save his life.
I have a certain amount of respect for man after finding out he stuck it out to the bitter end, don't misunderstand me, i think the man was a tyrant, and he deserved to go although nato was dcompletely illegal in what it did and now they have installed a nice puppet government, but he said he would die fighting and it looks like he did, i think this war would have ended months and months ago had it not been for him staying on and leading the line, that is admirable even though i know many will disagree.
Take for example George W Bush, or Tony Blair, they're willing to fight to last frop of everyone else's blood, Gaddafi may have been crazy but he clearly had principles that he stuck to until the bitter end.
Also, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that this man was for long time a great enemy of the west, a dipsied dictator that wa used to scare the general population and thus justify the west (mainly US) carrying out hanus actions. But then he gave up his WMD and Nuclear programme, and he was the wests darling, Tony Blair even embraced and kissed him, my piont is what kind of impression are we giving to Iran and North Korea, oy yeah don't maike WMD, get rid of the nuclear programme, then we'll pretend to be your friend and then we'll invade. Fucking hypocrisy, how people can buy into this bullshit i will never know, even though i suppose people always have to have a nad guy and a good guy, and there not going to make themselves the bad guy, maybe thats the source of western hypocrisy, doublethink and bias. Peace out, im in a stoic mood.
It's pointless to kill him. It'd only be reinforcing the loyalist image. And besides, would you prefer a quick, painless death, or a long, grueling, terrible life in prison? Don't let Moammar take the easy way out, make 'em suffer.