Opinion of Qaddafi's Death

[Keystone Phil]

me, an upper-middle class white college kid from Long Island?

Thank you for reminding us all why your behavior is especially hilarious. Some of us might have forgotten between now and yesterday.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It was nasty, brutish, violent, and cruel.  He died the way he lived.

[Insula Dei]

disappointing to see the Forum's limited non-liberal left quietly celebrate a lynching.

What would you have done with Qaddafi?

me, an upper-middle class white college kid from Long Island?

Well, it seems a lot right now like you're the sort of white upper-middle class college kid who'd put on a disapproving face and speak in a stern voice about human rights while watching how arab working class rebels deal with their former dictator.

I do have the idea that's not who you really are. So what is your position?

[© tweed]

I'm not reacting to what the rebels did, as that was inevitable.  I'm reacting to the reactions of others here in the West, many of them white, some as well-off as I am, and so on.  the white liberals, like BRTD with his signature and inane "we got them!" mantra, we can't expect much better of them.  but left non-liberals like you, Al, etc. I hold to a different standard.

[Insula Dei]

I think my reaction is fairly defensible, I can't really see the problem with it. Maybe there'd be a contradiction if I was dogmatically anti-violence (, which would be more of a liberal position to hold anyway). But I'm no such thing, and I don't disapprove of legitimate violence against an enemy of his own people. Also, I don't really see how it would be possible to think that an action was okay to be performed by Lybians, yet not okay to be approved of by those who sympathize with them in the West. That seems almost paternalistic, as far as I can see.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think my reaction is fairly defensible, I can't really see the problem with it. Maybe there'd be a contradiction if I was dogmatically anti-violence (, which would be more of a liberal position to hold anyway). But I'm no such thing, and I don't disapprove of legitimate violence against an enemy of his own people. Also, I don't really see how it would be possible to think that an action was okay to be performed by Lybians, yet not okay to be approved of by those who sympathize with them in the West. That seems almost paternalistic, as far as I can see.

Hell, I am dogmatically anti-violence and this is one of those situations where even I really don't feel that it's fair to judge the perpetrators of the violence considering the circumstances.

[TJ in Oregon]

It's never good to see that anyone died, but the real tragedy here wasn't his death; the real tragedy was his life.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's not about relativism for me...

The guy was a monster, that's for sure - he tortured and tormented his own people...

But it doesn't matter, his death was a convenience for the NTC who needed a Gaddafi trial like ... well, they needed a hole in head.

Putting him on trial was the right thing to do in my mind.

[Хahar 🤔]

You just can't be "fine" with it, because if you think lynching is bad, it means it's universally bad, and equally bad whoever the victim is. Whether it is a black person murdered because he dared to vote or a murderous tyrant.

Why must I think that it's universally bad? The reason that the lynching of blacks in the South was bad was because it was unjust. Certainly this was not unjust.

[© tweed]

Also, I don't really see how it would be possible to think that an action was okay to be performed by Lybians, yet not okay to be approved of by those who sympathize with them in the West. That seems almost paternalistic, as far as I can see.

I didn't take a position on whether or not it was 'okay' (I even contemplated including this disclaimer in my previous post, but decided it was sufficiently implicit).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's never good to see that anyone died, but the real tragedy here wasn't his death; the real tragedy was his life.

That says it very well.

Really no different than bin Laden's death. I mean the circumstances were pretty much the same, except bin Laden was killed by an invading force instead of the countrymen of where he was.

And any trial of Gaddafi would've been kind of a joke trial anyway with the outcome never in doubt. Not that a fair trial would have any chance of acquitting him anyway making the whole thing kind of moot, think of the trial of Saddam.

I should also note that there will most likely be trials of other regime figures and possibly his surviving sons too.

[© tweed]

It's never good to see that anyone died, but the real tragedy here wasn't his death; the real tragedy was his life.

That says it very well.

Really no different than bin Laden's death. I mean the circumstances were pretty much the same, except bin Laden was killed by an invading force instead of the countrymen of where he was.

And any trial of Gaddafi would've been kind of a joke trial anyway with the outcome never in doubt. Not that a fair trial would have any chance of acquitting him anyway making the whole thing kind of moot, think of the trial of Saddam.

ah, there's a bit of a jump from paragraph one to two.  you are correct, a Qaddafi trial would have been a foregone conclusion.  as was Saddam: such is why the US/West were willing to allow Qaddafi to turn himself over.  but remember, this was NOT the case with bin Laden. when the US was offered on the eve of the invasion of Afghanistan to see bin Laden handed over to a neutral party for trial, the offer was refused.  because that trial would have not been a foregone conclusion.  such is why he was assassinated despite being defenseless at the point of capture, and further such is why there is a distinction to be drawn between UBL and Qaddafi.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You just can't be "fine" with it, because if you think lynching is bad, it means it's universally bad, and equally bad whoever the victim is. Whether it is a black person murdered because he dared to vote or a murderous tyrant.

Why must I think that it's universally bad? The reason that the lynching of blacks in the South was bad was because it was unjust. Certainly this was not unjust.

Killing people without a trial is never just. You can't say it's all right to lynch bad people and wrong to lynch good people.

[The Mikado]

You just can't be "fine" with it, because if you think lynching is bad, it means it's universally bad, and equally bad whoever the victim is. Whether it is a black person murdered because he dared to vote or a murderous tyrant.

Why must I think that it's universally bad? The reason that the lynching of blacks in the South was bad was because it was unjust. Certainly this was not unjust.

Killing people without a trial is never just. You can't say it's all right to lynch bad people and wrong to lynch good people.

Extrajudicial killing is like everything else: context dependent.  I don't know where you're getting this "Thou shalt not lynch," but morality has to be dependent on situational judgments rather than brand universal ethical pronouncements.

[Хahar 🤔]

You just can't be "fine" with it, because if you think lynching is bad, it means it's universally bad, and equally bad whoever the victim is. Whether it is a black person murdered because he dared to vote or a murderous tyrant.

Why must I think that it's universally bad? The reason that the lynching of blacks in the South was bad was because it was unjust. Certainly this was not unjust.

Killing people without a trial is never just. You can't say it's all right to lynch bad people and wrong to lynch good people.

Why can't I?

[Vosem]

Horrible Death. Not the method of dying itself (anyone really as awful as Gaddafi has been painted deserves that), but the circumstances surrounding it.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Wasn't he molested or something before he was shot?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Extrajudicial killing is like everything else: context dependent. 

I agree somehow, yet the only acceptable situation I can think of is self-defense. Obviously, if "bad man" is pointing a loaded gun at me, and I have chance to take him down first, I wouldn't hesitate. Also, if someone is about, for example, to blown up a hall full of people (or similar act on larger scale), it's totally justified to take him down.

Otherwise, call me naive, but I believe in some standards. While I can understand emotions and reactions of Libyans, who lived for over four decades under his regime, as of some who joined bloodthirsty bandwagon here: keep waving with your plastic guns from your safe and comfortable rooms.

Massive props to Antonio for staying principal on this subject. Respect, man.

Killing people without a trial is never just. You can't say it's all right to lynch bad people and wrong to lynch good people.

Why can't I?

Go play "self-appointed executioner" with your friends. It will make you such a grown and brave man.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Horrible death because it happened about forty years too late.

Back then it could have done more good than it does now.

[Politico]

He got what was coming to him. It was long overdue. I am somewhat surprised he did not flee for Venezuela.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just had another thought based on more recent coverage of Libya.

Gaddafi did not leave Libya because he did not want to face the ICC. He had ample opportunity to flee the country, but because he feared capture and did not want to face a trial he stayed and hid.

This doesn't make his death less brutal. But I'd hesitate to label it horrible.

I think plenty of countries could have hosted him (Venezuela indeed, or some African country he's been giving money to). I'd heard talks right after the fall of Tripoli saying he could be in Niger.

[BugsBunny]

I voted Horrible Death, but only due to the method by which he was killed. His death in itself was a good thing.