Absolutely Shocking(Libya)

[Luciratus]

Why not utilize basic ethics and discourse to mitigate any requirement for bellicouse undertakings? A compromise can certainly be reached in such a manner, and I see no reason for one party to "beat a point" into the other unless clear abuses are occuring or unless they refuse to see sense. Granted, there are gray areas, but that shouldn't mean war is the only option.

That is the entire point of war.

War is the last option, not the only option. When words fail, you use force, I even said that

Why would anybody need to reach the last option? My pragmatic side agrees with you, but my ethical side can hardly be persuaded to accept war as an alternative in cases where both sides are first willing to negotiate.

[Luciratus]

Right, because its not like other countries have shitty governments that are not only tuned a blind eye to, but even armed.

I certainly support revolutions when the people are oppressed by a government and not allowed any representation what so ever. China, North Korea, and other states where the government would be ripped to shreds in certain parts of the country (or the entire country) should consider their policies in order to avoid a revolution. The reasons for doing so can be very pragmatic.

[L3 Communications]

That is the entire point of war.

War is the last option, not the only option. When words fail, you use force, I even said that

Why would anybody need to reach the last option? My pragmatic side agrees with you, but my ethical side can hardly be persuaded to accept war as an alternative in cases where both sides are first willing to negotiate.

If you are willing to negotiate and no side can reach consensus, one side must use force in order to reach an agreement. It's a face thing. Either stand up for what you're arguing for, or look like a pussy in front of everyone. No one wants to look like a pussy, and states have a lot more force behind their punches than individuals.

[French Union]

Right, because its not like other countries have shitty governments that are not only tuned a blind eye to, but even armed.

I certainly support revolutions when the people are oppressed by a government and not allowed any representation what so ever. China, North Korea, and other states where the government would be ripped to shreds in certain parts of the country (or the entire country) should consider their policies in order to avoid a revolution. The reasons for doing so can be very pragmatic.

I don't. If China or Saudi Arabia have these revolutions, the global economy is going to be hit very hard.

[RCRF]

The thing about gadhaffi is that a no fly zone won't stop him

[Novograd IV]

Wouldn't they have SHOT her if she ran in the first place?

This reeks of over-played Libya hate and butthurt reporters. I think any security team would try and detain her, and the media can easily say that story is true without the proof that it was from his men. In the end they have to keep ridiculous news from being believed somehow, especially when every citizen in the UK at least is glued to a TV waiting for horrifying shock drama news

[French Union]

Wouldn't they have SHOT her if she ran?

If they smart, they're plenty of stupid people though.

[Luciratus]

The thing about gadhaffi is that a no fly zone won't stop him

It might restrain bombings, though. I am still uncertain if the revolutionary forces are strong enough to win in a ground-based engagement. Hopefully, Europe could give them some support. Although, I must wonder what kind of government they would establish.

[Luciratus]

Wouldn't they have SHOT her if she ran?

If they smart, they're plenty of stupid people though.

It wouldn't be a very good choice to shoot her, actually. If you support Qaddafi, do you really want to make him look worse on a world stage?

[Novograd IV]

If they smart, they're plenty of stupid people though.

It wouldn't be a very good choice to shoot her, actually. If you support Qaddafi, do you really want to make him look worse on a world stage?

and rape video making the west rage isn't worse than 'a death from an unconfirmed side'?

[RCRF]

The thing about gadhaffi is that a no fly zone won't stop him

It might restrain bombings, though. I am still uncertain if the revolutionary forces are strong enough to win in a ground-based engagement. Hopefully, Europe could give them some support. Although, I must wonder what kind of government they would establish.

I was thinking the exact same thing. From what I've heard even if we do cripple his air force, and other heavy weapons I don't think rebel troops can win without further intervention.

[Luciratus]

I certainly support revolutions when the people are oppressed by a government and not allowed any representation what so ever. China, North Korea, and other states where the government would be ripped to shreds in certain parts of the country (or the entire country) should consider their policies in order to avoid a revolution. The reasons for doing so can be very pragmatic.

I don't. If China or Saudi Arabia have these revolutions, the global economy is going to be hit very hard.

The United States, Russia, Norway, Iran, the UAE, Kuwait, and Brazil could offer oil products if a revolution occured in Saudi Arabia. Although, a revolution in China would possibly damage the economy for a number of years- at least on the demand side. The economic power vacuum could be filled by countries such as Japan, Taiwan, India, and even revitalize the industrial capacity of the United States and Europe. The prices of the market would increase, but I assume demand would remain fairly stable- at least for necessary goods such as clothing, food, and consumables. The problem is in garnering enough supply to accomodate the now unfullfilled demand.

[Luciratus]

It wouldn't be a very good choice to shoot her, actually. If you support Qaddafi, do you really want to make him look worse on a world stage?

and rape video making the west rage isn't worse than 'a death from an unconfirmed side'?

If you can actually see somebody being shot by forces loyal to the government, it would have a substantial impact on the perception of the West. Shooting her would only confirm her statements. Seriously, you would be a bad dictator. They just shoot her in some dark ally where nobody from the West can see.

[Risottia]

... should be hung from a fish-hook like Mussolini...

Actually Mussolini was first shot near Lake Como, then his corpse was carried to Milan and hanged by his feet to a pole (with a rope, not a fish-hook) for public display.
Let's get our facts straight.

[Luciratus]

... should be hung from a fish-hook like Mussolini...

Actually Mussolini was first shot near Lake Como, then his corpse was carried to Milan and hanged by his feet to a pole (with a rope, not a fish-hook) for public display.
Let's get our facts straight.

Blame the American education system and the Australian printing industry. Thanks for the information, though.

[Novograd IV]

and rape video making the west rage isn't worse than 'a death from an unconfirmed side'?

If you can actually see somebody being shot by forces loyal to the government, it would have a substantial impact on the perception of the West. Shooting her would only confirm her statements. Seriously, you would be a bad dictator. They just shoot her in some dark ally where nobody from the West can see.

I mean BEFORE she escaped, and have this whole time (which is why I edited my post while you guys replied)

[Luciratus]

If you can actually see somebody being shot by forces loyal to the government, it would have a substantial impact on the perception of the West. Shooting her would only confirm her statements. Seriously, you would be a bad dictator. They just shoot her in some dark ally where nobody from the West can see.

I mean BEFORE she escaped.

Were they actively trying to restrain her before then? I thought they released her after the rape and then she rushed into the hotel before they could stop her.

[Novograd IV]

I mean BEFORE she escaped.

Were they actively trying to restrain her before then? I thought they released her after the rape and then she rushed into the hotel before they could stop her.

they should have either killed her, or killed her.

That or it was the rebels trying to defame Gadaffi again, interesting point, is there a glowering sign that says 'NEWS AGENCIES HERE' on that building? She obviously knew where it was.

[Luciratus]

Why would anybody need to reach the last option? My pragmatic side agrees with you, but my ethical side can hardly be persuaded to accept war as an alternative in cases where both sides are first willing to negotiate.

If you are willing to negotiate and no side can reach consensus, one side must use force in order to reach an agreement. It's a face thing. Either stand up for what you're arguing for, or look like a pussy in front of everyone. No one wants to look like a pussy, and states have a lot more force behind their punches than individuals.

So it is look like a pussy or look like a dick in front of everyone?

[Luciratus]

Were they actively trying to restrain her before then? I thought they released her after the rape and then she rushed into the hotel before they could stop her.

they should have either killed her, or killed her.

That or it was the rebels trying to defame Gadaffi again, interesting point, is there a glowering sign that says 'NEWS AGENCIES HERE' on that building? She obviously knew where it was.

Well, I presume the woman would have wanted to defame Qaddafi if the incident is true or if she was a supporter of the rebels. However, the reactions of Qaddafi supporters seem rather incriminating. Likewise, it seems as though the incident took place in Tripoli and I don't believe the rebels have advanced that far yet- which would rule out the rebels framing such crimes on Qaddafi's men.

[Novograd IV]

they should have either killed her, or killed her.

That or it was the rebels trying to defame Gadaffi again, interesting point, is there a glowering sign that says 'NEWS AGENCIES HERE' on that building? She obviously knew where it was.

Well, I presume the woman would have wanted to defame Qaddafi if the incident is true or if she was a supporter of the rebels. However, the reactions of Qaddafi supporters seem rather incriminating. Likewise, it seems as though the incident took place in Tripoli and I don't believe the rebels have advanced that far yet- which would rule out the rebels framing such crimes on Qaddafi's men.

Just like they encouraged the west by bitching to them about revealing super-secret (but public knowledge?) information on lockerbie (and of course, Gadaffi being put in the firing line by saying they can prove their links... I'm guessing they're the pictures the west flew about a few years back of them greeting after he got off a plane.)

[Greater Somalia]

In the Arab world, you don't have to look hard for someone who is more than willing to tell you what you want to hear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ib6wL55 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kB2LOmo ... re=related

Why don't these Western journalists do some research on how the Black African migrants are treated in rebel-controlled cities. Al-Jazeera did a piece and that channel is owned by Arabs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA8z5G-Xmk

[Mosasauria]

And this is why we call them dick-tators, kids...

[Angleter]

I'm sure there have been atrocities committed by both sides to a certain extent. It doesn't change the fundamental issue that Gaddafi, the oppressive dictator, is in the wrong.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

How is this shocking? What is even remotely odd about this story other than the publicity of it?