Gadhafi has been killed

[Necron]

I found this

 

[Ace]

I found this

xDDDDDDDDDD

jeez, that's so wrong. That's almost EOF material right there...

 

[Hop2089]

It's an end of an era for tyrants

It's good news since they don't deserve to walk the Earth.

Awaits the next round of tyrants to fall by NATO or local hands.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

It's good news, I heard about this in my journalism.

Also, don't be posting any images of Gadhafi postmortem, spoilered or not. It's graphic imagery. If you want to see them, use Google. It's not that hard to find.

 

[Youkai]

Well its a good thing he is gone BUT i think its completely inhuman to celebrate this so much.
Its still a live that was taken out and even thaught he was someone bad we still should not talk bad about the dead.

I am not some church maniac but still its not good that everyone is so happy about the dead of a human being

 

[Foxi4]

...the riots and all in libya started without outside help.
he was killed by National Transitional Council of Libya troops, not by "our troops"

its a revolution just like any other revolution and as with most revolutions, something good might come out of it, even if its just another revolution until the dictators/military government understands that they wont bbe able to stay

Y'know - like in Cuba! 3 times already if I'm not mistaken.

And don't tell me it wasn't caused by us - it was. Interventions in neighbouring countries spurced the innitial fire - the revolutionaries believed that the moment they start rioting, we'll hop in to help, and we have.

Without outside help, Libya would still be in Gadaffi's grasp.

 

[shakirmoledina]

hmm first saddam then qazzafi... who's next!!?
it seems that all govts are failing and ppl are looking for trustworthy government or else, it revo time

PS - even shaun's lion is smiling

 

[flaboy909]

Lmao the op's name does say it all. What a fucking coincidence .

 

[notmeanymore]

Gaddafi dies of wounds

(Reuters) - Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi died of wounds suffered in his capture near his hometown of Sirte on Thursday, a senior NTC military official said.

National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta told Reuters earlier that Gaddafi was captured and wounded in both legs at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked.

"He was also hit in his head," the official said. "There was a lot of firing against his group and he died."

There was no independent confirmation of his remarks.

I have a feeling this was a cover story. I bet he was killed after capture.

 

[hkz8000]

so much for him being sent to the hague

 

[Satangel]

Kind of a shame he died, and couldn't be punished for his deeds. Would rather see him rot in cell....

 

[Gahars]

And he's outta here!

Well, this is some good news. Now Libya can fully focus (hopefully) on creating a better government for its people.

 

[Skelletonike]

Heh... Once a tyrant dies another one will appear.

 

[insidexdeath]

.

 

[Ace]

It's hard to imagine what must be going on in Libya at this very moment for everyone.
Lets just hope that history does not repeat like this again.

 

[Valwin]

YEA now alqaeda can take over yay o wait ...........

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Bush-0 Obama-2.

 

[Clydefrosch]

...the riots and all in libya started without outside help.
he was killed by National Transitional Council of Libya troops, not by "our troops"

its a revolution just like any other revolution and as with most revolutions, something good might come out of it, even if its just another revolution until the dictators/military government understands that they wont bbe able to stay

Y'know - like in Cuba! 3 times already if I'm not mistaken.

And don't tell me it wasn't caused by us - it was. Interventions in neighbouring countries spurced the innitial fire - the revolutionaries believed that the moment they start rioting, we'll hop in to help, and we have.

Without outside help, Libya would still be in Gadaffi's grasp.

but think of this, in todays world, a civil revolution is basically bound to fail without the intervention of armed forces like nato's.
the people arent up against swords and maces, or single shot muskets. 2 clubs and a pitchfork might have been able to bring down a sword, but one soldier carrying one machine gun could stop a whole field of angry people.
even if they have weapons of their own, often, they lack military training to use them, and they are in a tactical disadvantage. in addition to having older weapons and probably limited supplies, compared to actual armed forces.

sadly... soldiers dont put down their weapons at the thought of having to kill a few thousand civilians these days

 

[Deleted member 186944]

Bush-0 Obama-2.

Obama didn't do shit which is why the Arab spring worked so well, Bush thought that by invading Iraq who couldn't spur a revolution around other countries but all it did was make America look like a big fucking bully. This was a revolution of the people done without help from America [Libya maybe but that was NATO, states wanted nothing to do with it.]

...the riots and all in libya started without outside help.
he was killed by National Transitional Council of Libya troops, not by "our troops"

its a revolution just like any other revolution and as with most revolutions, something good might come out of it, even if its just another revolution until the dictators/military government understands that they wont bbe able to stay

Y'know - like in Cuba! 3 times already if I'm not mistaken.

And don't tell me it wasn't caused by us - it was. Interventions in neighbouring countries spurced the innitial fire - the revolutionaries believed that the moment they start rioting, we'll hop in to help, and we have.

Without outside help, Libya would still be in Gadaffi's grasp.

but think of this, in todays world, a civil revolution is basically bound to fail without the intervention of armed forces like nato's.
the people arent up against swords and maces, or single shot muskets. 2 clubs and a pitchfork might have been able to bring down a sword, but one soldier carrying one machine gun could stop a whole field of angry people.
even if they have weapons of their own, often, they lack military training to use them, and they are in a tactical disadvantage. in addition to having older weapons and probably limited supplies, compared to actual armed forces.

sadly... soldiers dont put down their weapons at the thought of having to kill a few thousand civilians these days

Uh Tunisia and Egypt overturned their Government with little violence [compared to Libya and other surrounding countries] and no help from the outside. Libya was a special case as their leader was a fucking madman. Also the advent of guns actually makes revolts easier as you can't give someone a sword and tell them to go kill trained soldiers as it takes training and skill use one effectively. With guns you can give one to anyone will instantly know how to use it, maybe not effectively but well enough that in numbers they could defeat any army.

 

[TeddyPain]

Good riddance.