Charles Pegge
20-10-2011, 19:32
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/reports--gaddafi-captured-in-sirte.html
Petr Schreiber
20-10-2011, 19:49
Putting aside the consequences of this act, I might be old fashioned, but I start to be really angry for seeing photos like the one at the bottom of the article - it reminds me of posting images of dead animals after "successful hunt".
This is nothing against you Charles, I am just fascinated how media degenerates in this direction.
Some media, to be correct. I like the approach present at boston.com - the photos of very shocking content are accessible (so no information filtering), but initially there is warning over whole image displayed + text description. Please see here this gallery for example how is it done in image 25 (I did not clicked that image, and I don't usually recommend to do so):
Afghanistan, September 2011 (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/09/afghanistan_september_2011.html#photo25)
Petr
I was quite surprised that during the Evening News the BBC showed the Cellphone Footage of his dead body being loaded onto the back of a truck. I get the impression that the competition between the different media agencies is so fierce they have to show the most graphic footage because if they don't one of their competitors will.
ErosOlmi
20-10-2011, 21:08
I start to suspect that all recent dictators are too dangerous if they remain alive after capture so they are killed as soon as possible.
Can you imagine how many "stories" such a man could tell about ... well about many other situations, other countries, other delicate connections, ...
Better to kill him as soon as possible, isn't it?
In any case, such a start is not a good start for the future of that country (read democracy).
danbaron
20-10-2011, 23:49
I'm absolutely against killing animals. It bothers me more to see that than it does to see dead people, probably because, in every case the animals are helpless and innocent of all wrongdoing. When I see hunters and how proud they are posing for pictures with their victims, I think, "somehow, these 'people', have not evolved psychologically more than Cro-Magnons". Beyond everything that is wrong about killing a weaker creature for nothing, let me know if and when the killers have the slightest care that they may also be condemning the offspring of their kill, to a tiny life and an awful death. And, do you think animals have no idea of what is coming when they hear shots?
A strong, brave man has no compassion for animals, is it correct? And some of these "Einsteins", try to rationalize their actions by insisting that animals kill each other anyway, so, it's OK to kill them because, it's "nature". On the other hand, when one of these brave hunters is in a car accident, let me know if ever he refuses to be taken to the hospital, because, his death will be, "nature".
It's the same with "sport" fishermen. Their idea of sport, is killing something which was minding its own business, and which they have a tremendous advantage over. A fair fight, never. I think the happier a guy is over having killed an animal by using his superior intellect and technology, the more sadistic he is and the more cowardly he is internally.
Concerning the corporate media's race to show the most grisly images of dead leaders - notice that the ones they show are always leaders who basically opposed the monetary interests of the corporate media. I think they publicly rationalize what they do by propagandizing that, it's OK, because the guy was so bad. And the composite of humanity (whose IQ is, by definition, 100), is childlike enough to believe it, and to be internally vicious enough, to be happy to see the pictures. It's similar to the way that, at least in the United States, the worst offense is murder, and yet, it uses capital punishment against the offenders. Basically, I think the (absolutely stupid) reasoning is, "What we condemn you for, we are now going to do to you - only, in this special circumstance, what we are doing to you, is justified, because, you are so terrible.".
(What an amazing contrast between the funeral for a head of state, and the blood-show for the death of a tyrant - I can only think that one was an angel, and the other, a devil!)
Additionally, with respect to the corporate media, what is acceptable, is always relative. So, the situation that now exists, happened incrementally. Little by little, media outlets began to show more and more sadistic photos. Whatever they do is morally OK, because, morality is relative, it only depends on what everyone else is doing. So, whatever everyone else is doing, becomes the accepted morality. In this way, morality is never static, it always changes, and, in our age, seems to only become worse - the profit of corporate media is decreasing, because of the Internet, so it devolves to the rank of, "tabloid", in a desperate attempt to save itself - only, it will never admit it.
The corporate media knows that the composite human likes to see blood, and it uses that knowledge to benefit itself, yes or no?
What is the difference between hunters happily posing with dead animals, and, people, happily posing with the slaughtered body of someone they hated? The people are too primitive and dumb to know or care, and the media is too fraudulent to ask.
In my opinion, Saddam Hussein's trial was a total fraud, they wouldn't let him say almost anything. And, they (I guess, Bush) condemned and executed him amazingly fast (wasn't he hanged on or close to Christmas Day?). Then, of course, they had to publish the pictures of his execution. And, if you remember, the Iraqis got bad publicity for taunting him during the execution. So, when, I think it was his brother-in-law, was hanged a short time later, they didn't taunt tim. Instead, they "accidentally" made the rope so long, that it ripped his head off.
Obama tried to tell Americans that the reason bin Laden was killed instead of captured, was because he resisted. What person, with even one brain cell, believes it? They probably had 50 guys with guns inside that house. Then, after they killed him, those guys were glorified as brave heroes. That's how the heads of state get away with making the most idiotic statements; every person with access, will solemnly shake his head in agreement. Anyone who would yell, "The king has no clothes!", has no access. It's not quantum mechanics, it's simple.
I don't know any of the details about Gaddafi's killing, and, I don't want to know. I have zero trust for what governments say, and for what the corporate media propagandizes. Governments do what is best for the officials comprising them and for the rich funding them, and, the same is true for the corporate media.
-----------------------------------------
Here, in the US, the state even executes people who are mentally less than 10 years old, and people, as a whole, are happy about it.
Notice how, little kids, will torture bugs without giving it a second thought.
I think a vary large percentage of people do not advance beyond that stage of development.
In my opinion, you can always measure how stunted and malformed someone's psychological development is, by the degree of his bloodlust.
(Adolf Eichmann was hanged in 1962. I remember being awfully amazed at the public bloodlust, which the media engorged itself upon. (If a guy is really bad, then, the public gets a, "holiday"; during which it is free to express its barbarism, am I wrong?))
Gaddafi resembles and should be a circus actor than a president just a bad luck for libia for 42 years, i am sure many presidents in the world feel better because many of them gaddafi gives him a personal money. look why the africans leaders ellected him as the king of the kings of africa. but now the circus player erased, still there are the worst, the bad and the ugly a true serial killer: bashar alasad the presedent of syria, almost every day about 10 to 20 persons killed.
don't forget that today is the virtual end of the world.
danbaron
21-10-2011, 07:15
Would you feel comfortable shaking hands with this guy?
7548
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary thinks Gadaffi's killing is great fun.
(We're supposed to think that because Obama is not visibly gleeful, he is less bloodthirsty than she demonstrates herself to be - actually, maybe he is - without feeling, like a snake.)
7549
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/20/for-us-gadhafis-death-a-laughing-matter/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It's sickening, tediously the same as always, and, seemingly unstoppable.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/10/20/moammar-gadhafi-r-i-p/
(http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/20/gadhafis-death-prompts-pro-arab-spring-lie-from-obama/)http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/20/gadhafis-death-prompts-pro-arab-spring-lie-from-obama/
http://original.antiwar.com/pilger/2011/10/20/the-son-of-africa-claims-a-continents-crown-jewels/
http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/10/20/is-the-national-security-complex-too-big-to-fail/
danbaron
24-10-2011, 05:43
7552
Speaking to us, from beyond the grave!
They can't escape!
They can't escape!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
http://galacticchannelings.com/english/montague23-10-11.html (http://galacticchannelings.com/english/montague23-10-11.html)
danbaron
24-10-2011, 21:35
On May 21, the French said, "Gaddafi 'not targeted' by strikes".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12802939
But, on Oct 20, he was targeted and killed by a French air strike.
(If you want to quibble about whether he was still alive after the strike, go ahead.)
I guess it is impolite to bring up such seeming contradictions.
yesterday i heard the latest scenario:
in 4 oct his daughter aisha gaddafi telephoned a tv station in syria from algeria using a satellite mobile phone, the spy agencies determined the brand of the phone used. now they make a full electromagnetic survey for the Sirte city (the Gaddafil city), they detect signals with the same stamp as the phone used by aisha gaddafi before, so the spies said "the father and the daughter", of course he will have the same sat mobile phone brand, so they continue to monitor that singnals, and there was a special british small group active in the area for monitoring, even the phone was closed but it still send signals. now when he decide to escape from sirte within motorcade of 70 cars, a drone airplane used to track the motorcade using the signals from the sat mobile phone and because they want to stop the cars the airplane send two rockets to the motorcade, also a french airplane throw a bomb so the 70 cars dispersed, and it happened that Gaddafi car was near a big pipe under a road used to discharge the rain water (and ironically he described the libia people as RATS so he escape to a place in which rats normally hide). now according to one of the army leader he said that Gaddafi was alive inside the pipe and he was holding a golden pistol and a sat mobile phone so they capture him alive , after that by 30 to 60 minutes he killed by a bullet in his head. this is the true story.
now remains the imagination part: who killed him, of course the officers of the soldiers who captured him, why?? because this is arranged before by one of a two groups with those soldiers leaders : first the group who have a billions of dollars deposited using their names and don't want to be disclosed. the second group is his friends who supported him during the 42 years and they don't want to be attached to the crimes comitted by gaddafi
this is the real story collected from the different tv stations.
read here about his billions , villas in the western world (poor me):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051912/Gaddafis-death-Governments-hand-dead-Libyan-tyrants-frozen-assets.html
danbaron
25-10-2011, 08:37
$168,000,000,000!
Gaddafi was bad, and, everyone knew it.
Assad is bad, and, everyone knows it.
I'm wondering if the world leaders responsible for killing them (Assad too?), are better.
I know the the corporate media portrays them as better.
But, how much credibility does the corporate media have left?
In other words, who can we believe?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your theory makes sense to me - when he's dead it's easier for his associates with portions of his stolen money, to remain hidden; and, it's harder to prosecute his subordinates.
I guess they did it then, because, it was their first opportunity.