News Libyan forces have captured Muammar Gaddafi

[Acetone]

Can you stop labeling the dude as psychotic. I know psychosis, it ain't what people think it is, and the guy clearly is not psychotic (if you could ever tell from a distance). If the guy would be psychotic, he would be sitting in a corner somewhere not talking and suffer. Self-deluded, power-hungry, anything, but psychotic is BS.

Well, given the information known, I too would not classify Gaddafi as psychotic. However, psychotic is a poor descriptor anyway. I feel much better using the actual disease terms than calling a person psychotic (psychosis isn't actually a disease, it's just certain symptoms of many diseases)

So, DevilsAvocado, from the perceived psychotic state of Gaddafi which symptom would you suggest he has and perhaps, which disease does he have?

I'll do the easy part of getting ICD open (ICD-10 of course) and go to the relevant section and provide you with a link:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F20-F29

 

[rootX]

Well, it ain't right, but on the great stack of war crimes committed in any -and this- war, I am not going to get squishy over this crime.

Failing justice, a clean assassination, like with Bin Laden, is a manner for this country to progress forward while not being hindered with endless discussions looking back and figuring out what to do with this criminal.

They are still doing "endless discussions looking back and figuring out what to do with this criminal" dead body

Under Islamic tradition burial should have taken place as soon as possible. But Libya's oil minister said the remains may be kept "for a few days".

 

[WhoWee]

They are still doing "endless discussions looking back and figuring out what to do with this criminal" dead body

As long as the freezer (at the supermarket) is working properly - they have a time to work it out.

 

[MarcoD]

They are still doing "endless discussions looking back and figuring out what to do with this criminal" dead body

Yeah well, apparently dozens, or hundreds, are -or have been- killed outright [after capture]. In this particular case, they seemed to have kicked him and shot him several times through the legs while shoving a cane inside his behind.

It isn't right, but I am rather more concerned about others getting murdered, and I am somewhat inclined towards that the guy who shot him through the temple has given him a mercy shot.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Can you stop labeling the dude as psychotic.

The dude? Is this a joke? In case you have missed it; Muammar Gaddafi is dead, not dude.

Are you labeling other criminal despots and genocide mass murderers "the dude" as well? Saddam "the dude" Hussein? Idi "the dude" Amin? Adolf "the dude" Hitler?

Das Führer Dude

I know psychosis

Looks like you may have a point.

If the guy would be psychotic, he would be sitting in a corner somewhere not talking and suffer.

Sounds like the first page in Psychology for Dummies.

it ain't what people think it is, and the guy clearly is not psychotic (if you could ever tell from a distance)

You are mixing apples and oranges, diagnosis and symptom. Psychotic = a mental state involving a loss of contact with reality.

Don’t know if you have been studying The Big Lebowski and Dudeism 24/7 the last six months, but if you did turn on your telly, to watch the news, you would get close enough to easily conclude (in agreement with basically the rest of the humanity) that Muammar Gaddafi had lost contact with reality:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69wBG6ULNzQ

If you’re interested, I recommend reading the analysis of this nutcase speech by a person who has ten years experience in working in mental health:

http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/02/psychology-of-deluded-dictator.html"
...
Psychopathic leaders need their followers and as long as there remain some devotees, his delusions will be reinforced and he will not appreciate the weak position he is in. But any resistance will ultimately be futile and I can see no way back for Gaddafi. He’s lost control of his country as well as his grip on reality. However, he’s unlikely to go as peacefully as either Ali or Mubarak and the fear is that he may indulge in one final campaign of bloodshed.

If I may ask, what is your professional experience in psychology?

I get the impression that you make the assumption that this "labeling" and "diagnosis" (misconception) is something that I made up on my own. Nothing could be more erroneous; on PF we are not allowed to spread personal speculations, without external sources, as some form of fact.

On the same day as the psychotic nutcase speech http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/christiane-amanpours-exclusive-gadhafi-interview-libya-strongman-politics-13024275" , where delusions and madness was amplified into something that will be noted in the history books.

Later the same day, in a press conference, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/ambassador-un-dr-susan-rice-moammar-gadhafi-interview-christiane-amanpour-delusional-13022145" and Dr. Susan Rice stated:

"It sound just frankly delusional, and when he can laugh in talking to American and international journalists, while he is slaughtering his own people, it only underscores how unfit he is to lead and how disconnected he is from reality."​

I can go on and on with high international officials and creditable senior journalists, both in the west and Arabic world, saying the same thing. Here’s just a small excerpt:

British Foreign Secretary William Hague: Gaddafi position is 'delusional'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14699187

Sen. John McCain Calls Gadhafi "Insane"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f_DdTmXWwk

CNN's Jonathan Mann – Gaddafi: The strange dictator who hated democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yp4QpucCto

Gaddafi's Sanity in Question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEw0IVUFN0
NBN = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadcasting_Network_(Lebanon)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry" on Twitter:

"Gaddafi appears to have separated himself from any semblance of reality, which would be funny if it didn't mean slaughter, pain and horror"​

I don’t know if you understand the significance of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1970" ?

It’s the first time in history that a united Security Council marked a country (Libya) as referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Why do you think they did that? The Security Council did not like Gaddafi’s outfit? No, of course not, they knew that Gaddafi was mad enough to bomb his own civilian protesters, and someone had to stop it.

Self-deluded, power-hungry, anything, but psychotic is BS.

Really? That’s some deep analysis you’ve got there Marco, or should I call you Dr. Marco?

Just one question: Since you’re disqualifying "my diagnosis", based on the fact this is not something "you could ever tell from a distance" – Did you meet Muammar Gaddafi in person when you completed your exceedingly advanced diagnosis?

I’m afraid that if you can’t support your personal speculations with something substantial, like external references, I have to return your ridiculous Bad Attitude quote:

Shut up, fool. - BA Baracus.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... (psychosis isn't actually a disease, it's just certain symptoms of many diseases)

Yup "apples & oranges", I hope you’ll find the answers you need in my previous post.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah well, apparently dozens, or hundreds, are -or have been- killed outright [after capture]. In this particular case, they seemed to have kicked him and shot him several times through the legs while shoving a cane inside his behind.

It isn't right, but I am rather more concerned about others getting murdered, and I am somewhat inclined towards that the guy who shot him through the temple has given him a mercy shot.

We all know people act differently in a mob situation. Does anyone remember the truck driver who was beat on the street after the Rodney King verdict? The "Libyan Strongman" (unlike the truck driver) was known to all and they had reason not to like him. Maybe he should have treated his people better - or fled the country when he had the opportunity?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Maybe he should have treated his people better - or fled the country when he had the opportunity?

That’s a very good point WW, and if I don’t remember wrong, at one stage in the process he was offered safe passage to another country, if he stepped down.

But he didn’t, and this caused a lot of unnecessary death and suffering.

He had it coming.

 

[Dotini]

He had it coming.

When someone unquestionably "has it coming", like the Libyan dictator, is it generally okay that they be summarily executed by a vengeful mob, or only in certain cases like this one?

Would it be very wrong to think or say that no one should ever be summarily executed by a vengeful mob, no matter how bad they are?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[DevilsAvocado]

When someone unquestionably "has it coming", like the Libyan dictator, is it generally okay that they be summarily executed by a vengeful mob, or only in certain cases like this one?

Would it be very wrong to think or say that no one should ever be summarily executed by a vengeful mob, no matter how bad they are?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Thanks Steve, of course you are right and if you check the thread you will see that this is also my 'default position' – it’s never right to lynch anyone no matter how bad that person is.

The strongest argument (that you’ll never get around), is that you can’t condemn a criminal despot and his horrific and inhumane methods, if you at the same time are utilizing exactly the same madness. It just doesn’t work; you become a hypocrite and criminal murderer yourself, IMHO.

But as I also stated; it’s a crazy world, and it can be difficult for us in "the free world" even to imagine the horror that the people of Libya had to go thru for 40+ years. We just don’t know how this kind of life in tyranny affects you.

For example, imagine that one of the men in the NTC forces that captured Gaddafi had a son that was executed without trial, by hanging in public, because of an "illegal demonstration" (or some other horrific event in the past).

I don’t know... I regard myself as a pacifist, I don’t believe in solving conflicts by violence (because very soon the "reptile brain" will take over and we’re back to "medieval conflict solving")... but in this chaos with some very traumatic memories in the luggage... I don’t know... I just can’t guarantee that I had not done something similar... which I of course would have regretted badly afterwards...

Maybe the best thing is to admit that there is good and bad in everyone and to do everything possible to stop the bad from 'taking over', before it’s too late (which is very easy for me to say that have never experienced anything like Libya)...

I don’t know... it’s a crazy world.

Cheers
DA


P.S. But I still think that Gaddafi had a choice to avoid this. If he was too delusional to understand this; his sons should have accepted the offered safe passage to another country, and brought the crazy dictator with them.

 

[DoggerDan]

They are still doing "endless discussions looking back and figuring out what to do with this criminal" dead body

If they don't figure it out soon, natural processes will make their decision for them.

 

[DoggerDan]

Das Führer Dude

It hurts to laugh! I went cycling this afternoon and my allergies are flaring...

That just looks so rad, man, I had to laugh anyway. :)

 

[MarcoD]

Just one question: Since you’re disqualifying "my diagnosis", based on the fact this is not something "you could ever tell from a distance" – Did you meet Muammar Gaddafi in person when you completed your exceedingly advanced diagnosis?

I’m afraid that if you can’t support your personal speculations with something substantial, like external references, I have to return your ridiculous Bad Attitude quote:

Ah, get off your high horse. I am disqualifying your diagnosis since there hasn't been any formal one.

Moreover, detached from reality? You ever watched North-Korean state television? Or the last messages of the former Iraq regime? Heck, half the world is detached from reality, and certainly most dictatorial regimes.

Moreover, you insulted me, and a lot of people who ever had a mental illness, drug-induced or not, by playing the "social stigma" card. In essence, relating mental illness to criminality, whereas the facts are that if there were any relation, -despite the hollywood movies- most mentally ill are either victims, or victimized.

What makes it more heinous than that is that most repressive regimes even abuse that stigma, or others, to get rid of their opponents. Like the Stasi, or Stalin, or even Gaddafi in his green book.

I know the stigma sells, but the stigma ain't true.

 

[WhoWee]

If they don't figure it out soon, natural processes will make their decision for them.

Again, he's stored in a local super market freezer - no worries.

 

[MarcoD]

The strongest argument (that you’ll never get around), is that you can’t condemn a criminal despot and his horrific and inhumane methods, if you at the same time are utilizing exactly the same madness. It just doesn’t work; you become a hypocrite and criminal murderer yourself, IMHO.

Well, it looks like a criminal murder to me. I wonder, should the 'soldiers' go to court (most of Libya seems to disagree)? What would their defense be? "We were just having fun, but it went a bit too far?" "It was our moral obligation?" "I was wrong but he murdered my friends?" "Temporal insanity because 'stuff' got overheated?" Should they go to trial?

At the same time, I am a bit more worried about the political 'euphemisms' coming out of Libya. The response was a bit too predictable: Wait a few days before declaring independence. (Was that just too tie up some 'loose ends' in a similar manner in Sirte?) Declare that it is now time for peace. (We just tied up the 'loose ends'?) Declare a thank-you to NATO and progress with Sharia law? (Thank you 'kafirs' for implementing an Islamist state?) Maybe I am just a cynic.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, it looks like a criminal murder to me. I wonder, should the 'soldiers' go to court (most of Libya seems to disagree)? What would their defense be? "We were just having fun, but it went a bit too far?" "It was our moral obligation?" "I was wrong but he murdered my friends?" "Temporal insanity because 'stuff' got overheated?" Should they go to trial?

At the same time, I am a bit more worried about the political 'euphemisms' coming out of Libya. The response was a bit too predictable: Wait a few days before declaring independence. (Was that just too tie up some 'loose ends' in a similar manner in Sirte?) Declare that it is now time for peace. (We just tied up the 'loose ends'?) Declare a thank-you to NATO and progress with Sharia law? (Thank you 'kafirs' for implementing an Islamist state?) Maybe I am just a cynic.

Actually...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ays-legislation-based-Islamic-Sharia-law.html

"Islamic Sharia law will be the 'basic source' of legislation in the new Libya, says new leader "

 

[MarcoD]

Yah. But why respond a few days later instead of immediately (or even, before)? They had months to figure out what to do with him in case of a capture. But I guess the pragmatics of politics, and that country, are such that in this case too late was better than too early, and I think it implies that a 'certain amount' of war crimes were just allowed (like in Sirte).

Then there is the case what to do with the 'idiot' murderers. This is not the first dictator being end up shot (Mussolini and girlfriend was one, Ceauşescu too). Guess the murderers usually walk free?

Then there is the Sharia law. I don't like Sharia, but I don't mind when Libya wants to go that direction, but I do mind that the NTC decides for the rest of the populace that that's the way to go. It's undemocratic.

In Tunisia, they did it right. First elections, then a new constitution. If the majority of the people decides on Islamic law, who am I to decide? But the NTC, IMO, just doesn't have a mandate except for bringing forth democracy (or a decentralized democracy with 'city states,' I might see that working too.)

[Then again, Gaddafi himself wrote that the will of the people will always emerge, and they studied that. Guess he was proven right.]

 

[DevilsAvocado]

It hurts to laugh! I went cycling this afternoon and my allergies are flaring...

That just looks so rad, man, I had to laugh anyway. :)

Of course the real El Duderino is much more sympathetic, "If we all brought more Dude into our life’s the world would be a better place":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUD6vs0pg4

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Ah, get off your high horse. I am disqualifying your diagnosis since there hasn't been any formal one.

With all dude respect, it’s impossible to continue this discussion since you seem unable to tell the difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis" , apples & oranges.

Moreover, detached from reality? You ever watched North-Korean state television? Or the last messages of the former Iraq regime? Heck, half the world is detached from reality, and certainly most dictatorial regimes.

Half the world seems like a 'slight' exaggeration, but sure there are a lot of wackos out there, but AFAICT no one but Gaddafi has threatened to drop bombs on his own people.

Moreover, you insulted me

Please Marco, you accused me for talking BS, and naturally I defended my position, and now you are complaining about being hurt? What am I missing...??

and a lot of people who ever had a mental illness, drug-induced or not, by playing the "social stigma" card. In essence, relating mental illness to criminality, whereas the facts are that if there were any relation, -despite the hollywood movies- most mentally ill are either victims, or victimized.

Could you please quote me where I'm "relating mental illness to criminality" in general, preferably before doing false accusations?

This is ridicules, welcome to the future, people are chewing SSRIs like candy, and almost everyone has a close friend or relative with some form of 'diagnosis', or personal experience, "social stigma" belongs to the past century.

And the 'logic' is limping, to say at least. These are the diseases that Adolf Hitler suffered from; irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, Parkinson's disease, syphilis, tinnitus, Asperger syndrome, sinus infection, bad teeth, gums infection, Monorchism (only one testicle).

With your 'logic' one could say: – Aha! This guy has Parkinson's and only one testicle! He must be a Nazi and guilty of genocide!

It doesn’t work, does it?

 

[WhoWee]

Yah. But why respond a few days later instead of immediately (or even, before)? They had months to figure out what to do with him in case of a capture. But I guess the pragmatics of politics, and that country, are such that in this case too late was better than too early, and I think it implies that a 'certain amount' of war crimes were just allowed (like in Sirte).

Then there is the case what to do with the 'idiot' murderers. This is not the first dictator being end up shot (Mussolini and girlfriend was one, Ceauşescu too). Guess the murderers usually walk free?

Then there is the Sharia law. I don't like Sharia, but I don't mind when Libya wants to go that direction, but I do mind that the NTC decides for the rest of the populace that that's the way to go. It's undemocratic.

In Tunisia, they did it right. First elections, then a new constitution. If the majority of the people decides on Islamic law, who am I to decide? But the NTC, IMO, just doesn't have a mandate except for bringing forth democracy (or a decentralized democracy with 'city states,' I might see that working too.)

[Then again, Gaddafi himself wrote that the will of the people will always emerge, and they studied that. Guess he was proven right.]

Invoking Sharia might be more pragmatic in the short term than any other process? It's a known quantity - everyone understands the rules.

 

[Proton Soup]

...
Then there is the Sharia law. I don't like Sharia, but I don't mind when Libya wants to go that direction, but I do mind that the NTC decides for the rest of the populace that that's the way to go. It's undemocratic.

In Tunisia, they did it right. First elections, then a new constitution. If the majority of the people decides on Islamic law, who am I to decide? But the NTC, IMO, just doesn't have a mandate except for bringing forth democracy (or a decentralized democracy with 'city states,' I might see that working too.)

[Then again, Gaddafi himself wrote that the will of the people will always emerge, and they studied that. Guess he was proven right.]

the people of libya didn't win the war, NATO did.

 

[mheslep]

That's a disservice to the Libyan fighters. NATO provided air support and supplies, not boots on the ground where people were getting killed.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's a disservice to the Libyan fighters. NATO provided air support and supplies, not boots on the ground where people were getting killed.

no it isn't. i paid attention to it as it was being waged. the rebels were inept, good at getting themselves killed. NATO would clear an area, and the rebels would ride in unopposed to claim victory.

if you want to say they're brave or whatever, then fine. but they didn't win this war.

i realize it's not politically correct and that it doesn't match the photo-ops for the media, but i don't give a hoot what the public's impression is supposed to be.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... if you want to say they're brave or whatever, then fine. but they didn't win this war.

I think you’re right, there’s no chance in h*ll these untrained "Mad Max Warriors" could have withstand an intact Gaddafi army, with a crazy leader who would not have hesitated to bomb anything and all, that was not on his side.

But I wonder... could NATO have done this alone? Who would have put boots on the ground? This was not sanctioned by the UN resolution, what would Russia have said? Could US have afforded another full-scale war in this economy? And what would Michele Bachmann have said about that? ()

Maybe we can say that they did it together...?

 

[MarcoD]

I think the one thing to conclude out of it for NATO was that it was a successful intervention, so far.

 

[mheslep]

But I wonder... could NATO have done this alone?

Though I agree of course that the rebels would not have beaten Gaddafi alone, conventional air power by itself never wins anything alone.

 

[mheslep]

no it isn't. i paid attention to it as it was being waged.

Good. Then it should be easy to demonstrate the following with a source:

... NATO would clear an area, and the rebels would ride in unopposed to claim victory.

Can you source one example? A completely unopposed victory thanks only to NATO air power?

if you want to say they're brave or whatever, then fine. but they didn't win this war.

I did not and do not say the Libyans won by themselves. I'm calling into question your claim that "NATO did" with the implication that NATO "won" by themselves.

 

[Proton Soup]

Good. Then it should be easy to demonstrate the following with a source:
Can you source one example? A completely unopposed victory thanks only to NATO air power?
I did not and do not say the Libyans won by themselves. I'm calling into question your claim that "NATO did" with the implication that NATO "won" by themselves.

there is another thread on it in this forum. go find it.

 

[Evo]

I think you’re right, there’s no chance in h*ll these untrained "Mad Max Warriors" could have withstand an intact Gaddafi army, with a crazy leader who would not have hesitated to bomb anything and all, that was not on his side.

But I wonder... could NATO have done this alone? Who would have put boots on the ground? This was not sanctioned by the UN resolution, what would Russia have said? Could US have afforded another full-scale war in this economy? And what would Michele Bachmann have said about that? ()

Maybe we can say that they did it together...?

This article has information. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/with-starring-nato-role-in-libya-french-and-british-boost-europes-military-image/2011/10/21/gIQADlop3L_story.html

And this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ain-creating-path-to-the-fall-of-Tripoli.html

In all fairness, yes, the rebels were slaughtered in large numbers, but NATO did as much as possible to protect them as they cleared the way for them since they were not capable of such a war on their own.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

This article has information. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/with-starring-nato-role-in-libya-french-and-british-boost-europes-military-image/2011/10/21/gIQADlop3L_story.html

And this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ain-creating-path-to-the-fall-of-Tripoli.html

In all fairness, yes, the rebels were slaughtered in large numbers, but NATO did as much as possible to protect them as they cleared they way for them since they were not capable of such a war on their own.

Thanks Evo, interesting articles.

I absolutely agree; the 'real' work was done by NATO.

And thinking more about it, the question "... could NATO have done this alone?" is maybe dumb and purely hypothetic. This war wouldn’t have happened the way it did if there were no NTC forces on the ground.

It would have been a completely different scenario...

 

[MarcoD]

Thanks Evo, interesting articles.

I absolutely agree; the 'real' work was done by NATO.

And thinking more about it, the question "... could NATO have done this alone?" is maybe dumb and purely hypothetic. This war wouldn’t have happened the way it did if there were no NTC forces on the ground.

It would have been a completely different scenario...

Depends on your definition of 'real' work. From the press pictures I get the idea that the total NTC forces (though I doubt all of them would like to fall under the NTC) is: one remodeled bulldozer, less than a hundred remodeled pickups with medium-weight artillery, a few thousand fighters.

From Evo's sources it looks like NATO must have destroyed all the airplanes, (heavy) artillery, radar, telecommunications, and spend some time destroying supply lines, and played a big part in planning the ground operations. I have the feeling NATO forces must have a lot of 'fun' employing the latest military techniques (urban war fare) and hardware in it. There was virtually no army left, if there was ever any.

But the ground forces did the real 'dirty' work. Man-to-man combat is different from dropping a bomb from a few thousand feet. And I don't think NATO forces could have done the 'dirty' work. Most people don't like foreigners from any country, unless for removing other foreigners, otherwise you mostly end up fighting the local population.

Military, it was pretty clean, despite some war crimes. I would call it a complete success.

[ Then again. I guess NATO already won the moment they said they were coming. It's a completely undefendable country, and I doubt troop morale was high, certainly if they had Iraq in the back of their minds. ]