Dead before March. EXTERMINATE 06:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Stopped clock/mad dictator/kicking US and GB bases out
- I removed it because there was no need for editorializing on that topic, especially given that Gaddafi opposed the bases for roughly the same reason that an Evil Capitalist Pig opposes government regulation of business. ListenerXTalkerX 04:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It says rather a lot that despite Gaddafi being big news at the moment, Conservapedia have scarcely mentioned him. Their article on the bastard contains little more than a few sentences. They're too busy ranting on the main page about how rubbish atheism is despite the fact that religion has absolutely nothing to do with modern Conservatism which is concerned with free market, capitalism and right-of-centre politics. Pathetic. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- What's this "Conservapedia" to which you refer? P-Foster (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Pan-Am 103 and the ICC
While he might end up at the ICC for his recent crimes, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over events that occurred before the court was constituted, so they can't do anything re: that crime. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 22:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The Conservapedia article
.., Ungrammatically seems to think Gaddafi was a good egg (and says nowt about his death).
Successive editions of the quatrains of Nostradamus are always edited and reinterpreted to reflect 'recent history' (WWII, 9/11, JFK etc
- In the land with a climate opposite to Babylon
- there will be great shedding of blood.
- Heaven will seem unjust both on land and sea and in the air.
- Sects, famine, kingdoms, plagues, confusion.
- Sooner and later you will see great changes made,
- dreadful horrors and vengeances.
- For as the moon is thus led by its angel
- the heavens draw near to the Balance.
- The trumpet shakes with great discord.
- An agreement broken: lifting the face to heaven:
- the bloody mouth will swim with blood;
- the face anointed with milk and honey lies on the ground.
- The 122 BoN's claims are only sourced with very biased media. RT is Russia's state-controlled international station, as Russia supported Gaddafi, it is not exactly trustworthy. The AllAfrica.com source is taken from The Herald a newspaper from Zimbabwe, were freedom of press is a pipe-dream and even government-owned. Therefor it not a reputable source. The Telegraph source states that the NTC rebels had links to al-queada, not are al-queada fighters. Therefor it is a flat out lie. The Mathaba source is pretty much the opposite of a respected source, it is heavily biased and a nutjob center. Pretty much every word written by this BoN is propaganda horseshit.
- The 50 BoN doesn't give sources, but it's edits widely reflect the facts known to the Western World. It should be extremely easy to find repubtable sources for this stuff. --Raga Man (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- But the information which has been given here is completely lie and unsourced, if you are going to find out mistakes in each and every reliable source the article won't be worked..
Fact remains that he wasn't a 'dictator' in any kind of sense, because he himself opposed dictatorship or communism it, in his book, dictator means someone who has highest political position like prime minister, president, through a illegal/unconstitutional way, he had no political position. There's nothing like Gaddafi supporting any terrorism acts, in those days the freedom movements like "Iran revolution", "Palestine movement" etc were regarded as one, but no more. The line "bombing in West Berlin in 1986 which killed 60 American nationals" is wrong, because it wasn't 60, but 2.
It's a known fact that libya is a debt free country, egypt's war was a draw neither egypt won or libya won as both of them had military retreat. Gaddafi never hired any mercenaries because it has been proved already that Libya's enough of population was black, no proof that he fired or ordered firing any protestors, hell these things are admitted by the US defense officials, proved to be false by Amnesty international, Human rights watch, etc. It's also proved that west only helped al-qaeda to take over libya, since there own commander admits to be al-qaeda and the activities like, raising flag of al-qaeda easily speaks the whole story.
- It is really hard to take you seriously when you say things like Gaddafi couldn't be a dictator because he said he didn't like dictators in a book. Or that he was not ruling the country because he rejected typical titles for state leaders. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, according to the true definition of dictator, he wasn't one, but a freedom fighter so the term 'leader' fits here, using the media's word 'dictator' just makes our page look immature. — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
- Are we seriously debating whether Muammar fucking Gaddafi is a dictator or not? Seriously? Are we calling terrorists "freedom fighters"? Are we really resorting to conspiracy? Al-Qaida tried to exploit the revolution, but NATO coalitions stopped them from gaining power. I'm busy with finals but somebody please take down this guy's claims. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any source of your information?? How can NATO stop?? When they already moved on after the death news and sources about alqaeda dates after the departure of NATO, palentine/iran/south africa movements and more were regarded as terrorism act by media in those days, but not anymore as they are freedom movements. Stop believing on fail propaganda and stop being a nonsense maker, it's over 1.5 year now, story is clear.
- K, the source about rebels killing black people appears based on anecdotal evidence and does not give hard figures to back it up. The incidents appear to be isolated.
- The source on air strikes is talking about independant confirmation; there is certainly evidence of the strikes as reported by Libyan protesters themselves (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/air-raids-gaddafi-tripoli). Mr. Anon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, rebels were really killing blacks for no reason, given sources are reliable, there are even videos given.
It's been investigated for so many months, and everytime there's no proof against gaddafi, we seriously can't deny official reports of Amnesty International, Human ri ghts Watch, Pentagon reports, Russian intelligence, French investigators, etc. As well as libyans, cause it was soon considered after investigation, that government only targeted alqaeda or mobs who were killing civilians.220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wha?il'Dictator Mikal 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I gave sources that counter your claims. Your source about killing blacks even concedes that it is pretty much isolated incidents, and not confirmed. I have videos that show the results of the air strikes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyF2QLqz3-s yes that is the "Russian Intelligence" you cite). No terrorists there either. I find it sickening that you defend a man who ruthlessly ruled a country for over 40 years, a man who sponsored terrorism across the globe. A man so insane before his death that he called Barack Obama his "son" and an "African Kenyan". A man who (according to the very human rights group you cite) arrested women who were raped.
- By the way, let's look at the definition of a dictator: " a ruler with total power over a country". Gaddafi fits that definition. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- More sources: http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/13/libya-end-violent-crackdown-tripoli
- Stop buying into a dictator's propaganda. Next you'll be defending the Taliban and Al-Qaida. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- No i am not like you.
First of all, remembering that you have been frequently telling wrong and made up stuff, you are still just using the false dead rumors which born in feb 22 2011 and proved to be wrong in feb 2011 as well, you have no backup for any of the claim... You are just digging the dead propaganda.. See these:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYesnOD6_gQ
The video you sent was just speaking about the reports which were given by Al-jazeera and other media, it's no where said that he actually did it, and it was 'reporting' not 'Russian intelligence', and how can you deny the words of US Defense Secretary?? As well as Navy Admiral??
They were all Al-qaeda self admitted terrorists, how can you deny the claim of the commander himself? Sorry but the 'terrorism' term is no where directing to what you are thinking, it's only saying that supporting such freedom movements(Iran revolution, Palestine movement etc) were regarded as terrorism act.
I have to put the same link again where Human rights have called the same claims absurd :- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html
Stop buying the propaganda, which is already proved to be lie.. Dictator is someone who has absolute power, but it's only possible in this world when he has the highest political position, For Example, the queen of england doesn't have absolute power or any political position. So they are not dictator, it's common sense.18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- ... ... I... What's that got to do with the price of fish? --il'Dictator Mikal 04:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your claim "they were all Al-Qaida self-admitted terrorists" has no backing. Furthermore your own source, Amnesty international says differently. Given that this article was written months after Gibb's statement (which only specifically applied to air strikes), that disproves much of your claim. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, you are giving the source which actually dates very before there report, where they are admitting any such thing that you said? you see the word "accused", by opposition? In the source from May 6 they are only reporting the allegations, and telling that if they are true, what can be done. One more source backing my words:-
Here are few sources, might help in "al-qaeda" regard:-
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27232.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meZSJu-yYaU http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/16/us-recognizes-al-qaeda-war-criminals-as-libya%E2%80%99s-official-government/ 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Off-topic: Seymour's natterings seem hilarious in retrospect, rather like the claims that Castro was not, in fact, a Red. ListenerXTalkerX 05:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page, but page should reverted back to the recent changes i had made, because they are sourced and redirects to the story that really happened. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- "You locked the wrong version!" Sophiebecause liberals 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Heh...I never knew meta-wiki had its own "funspace".
- As for BON#122, you're now bickering over the word "losing", which is apparently exactly what happened: Gaddafi marched troops toward Egypt to "protest" something, made no progress, and eventually agreed to stop trying. Your random 1977 newspaper article just says they declared a cease-fire at some point. This is also incredibly pointless (except as part of your attempt to paint Gaddafi as a hero, which was rejected by at least 3 other people). Gah. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- We don't care about your fantasies, and made up thought, can you backup instead of showing off your dreams??? 'loosing' is wrong term because not all wars were lost.
- That newspaper is again far more credible than the made up unsourced BS here. It's a proved fact that they had military retreat.184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Military retreat" and "losing" are not mutually exclusive terms. This whole issue is a matter of interpretation and phrasing, not "fact". The newspaper doesn't say anything relevant to this phrasing issue, and thus its "credibility" doesn't matter. To be honest, I think you should let it go, because you seem to have a few problems with English grammar. Also, don't take Gaddafi's pariah status personally. And put more than one : after each paragraph in your comments, not just the first. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just because you hate the content of a reliable source, doesn't means it's not relevant, 'loosing' is still the bad term, since not every war was lost, one more source:-
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/lay/libya/flibyaegypt1977.htm BTW, i still see no proof from you regarding any claims you made.. You still seem to be full of hatred, but we want contributions. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh shut up already. Christ. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm out, this is going in circles. The latest random link just mentions that Egypt and Libya fought, saying nothing about why, which is the basis of the "Gaddafi lost" bit. Just drop it.
- While we're here, though..."Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi (1943-), Libya's head of state". #122, you were also arguing that he wasn't a dictator because he had no political position (which makes no sense anyway, but hey). Be careful with your "reliable sources", they're contradicting each other. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh shut up already. Christ. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can you do better job than making up fantasies??126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- . . . Says the guy who told us that "the political system was democratic and gaddafi had no political position." WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ofcourse he had no political position and system was direct democracy.. If you think different then back it up.
Mad dog of the Middle East
Those were Saint Ronnie's canonical words. Saying otherwise would be heresy. For a brief time in the 1950s, the mid east officially included Libya and Pakistan, according to Middle East, but the US State Department redefined the area to exclude them, while keeping a corner of North Africa in, namely Egypt. SmartFeller (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)