This sort of thing really warms the heart:
Muammar Gaddafi’s ‘trophy’ body on show in Misrata meat store
Gaddafi’s body is now a Libya tourist attraction:
Bloodied, wearing just a pair of khaki trousers, and dumped on a cheap mattress, Muammar Gaddafi’s body has become a gruesome tourist attraction and a macabre symbol of the new Libya’s problems.
Hundreds of ordinary Libyans queued up outside a refrigerated meat store in Misrata, where the dead dictator was being stored as a trophy. A guard allowed small groups into the room to celebrate next to Gaddafi’s body. They posed for photos, flashing victory signs, and burst into jubilant cries of “God is great.”
Gadaffi was most definitely murdered while in custody.
Wounds on Gaddafi’s body appeared to confirm that he was indeed killed in cold blood in the chaotic minutes following his capture on Thursday. He was found in the town of Sirte, hiding in a drainage pipe. There was a close-range bullet wound on the left side of his head. Blood stains showed another bullet wound to his thorax.
They made a hood ornament of Gadaffi’s body and drove it around town:
His body, subsequently driven to Misrata and publicly paraded, was barefoot and stripped to the waist.
The leader of the National Transitional Council is already proving to be a phony.
The NTC faces questions from international rights organisations. On Thursday, Jibril claimed that Gaddafi had been killed from a bullet to the head received in crossfire between rebel fighters and his supporters. He was dragged alive on to a truck, but died “when the car was moving”, Jibril said, citing forensic reports.
Gruesome mobile phone footage obtained by the Global Post undermines this account. It records the minutes after Gaddafi’s capture, when his convoy came under Nato and rebel attack. He is dragged out of a tunnel where he had been hiding. Blood is already pouring out of a wound on the left side of his head.
A group of fighters then frogmarch him towards a pick-up truck. There are shouts of “God is great” and the rattle of gunfire. At one point Gaddafi keels over; a fighter kicks him and scuffs dirt over his bloodstained clothing. The rebels prop Gaddafi back on his feet and propel him onwards.
Gaddafi is clearly dazed and wounded – but is alive, conscious, and pleading feebly with his captors. Fighters at the scene said that he was injured in the shoulder and leg when he was found. Fresh blood is also flowing from a head injury.
Obama made the argument that Gaddafi was removed because he did not respect basic human rights. This is obviously much better.
Murder, street justice, desecration of remains. The face of the new and improved Libya.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
In Islam such brutality is supposed to not be tolerated.
SO….
Islam has slowly evolved a whole set of moving the goalposts so as to allow all sorts of brutality.
For instance, a Muslim like Gaddafi should be TRIED then found guilty then sentenced then sentence carried out.
His body might be buried in an unknown place IF he was going against Islamic Law and tried and found guilty of such.
Now, I have heard, Gaddafi was labeled an apostate from Islam.
This label allows everything that was done to him from capture, to torture, to killing, to burial in an unmarked grave.
Apostates are treated better, under Sharia, than infidels, just so you know.
This sterling foriegn policy success will be the hallmark of obamas 2012 campaign. Why is it again that he failed to support the popular uprising in Iran? May it have been concern for the safety of Ahmadinejad?
Drive it home, drj… drive it home.
@MataHarley:
HAHAHAHAHA! No one, but you bleeding hearts, cares about the death of an American-killing thug.
And yet another gracious example of your “it’s them, Ms. Bees, not *me*!” victim acts, Herr Ivan’ski?
Gaddafi was killed at the hands of his own countrymen. I do not think there is any question that would not have been the case had the event happened on American soil. But in the Middle East, it is no holds barred. It is not the job of the United States to be the world police. I think that in one sense, there was a lot of money saved by this vigilante killing. Is this Sharia law in action? We would have kept him alive for years, spent millions on him, then probably had a mistrial due to us not Mirandizing properly… lol.
Dallas Houston, is the US now paying for Libyan incarceration and trial?
Don’t think that the demonstration of any form of “free” and democratic justice would have cost the US a dime. Unless, or course, we wanted a piece of him… assuming there was anything left after a Libyan trial.
“Live by the sword,………………………….”
@MataHarley: You wanna know how to get Mata? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way! And that’s how you get Mata. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I’m offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?
I see you need the reality check twice, Ivan… no problem. Cut/paste is easy… But I’m sure that Aye will be crushed you left him out this time, and only went after me.
I believe, Herr Ivan’ski, that you just proved you don’t need to see a knife in order to pull a gun. LOL
To quote the inimitable Aye, “thanks for playing”
Nostradamus #8 Concur
BTW What were TOTAL American casualties in this action that brought the brutal demise of this cold blooded killer of American civilians?
@rich wheeler:
We could take out Agmedinejad without a single casualty as well.
And we should.
Rich Wheeler #11: What you’re forgetting is that WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every serviceman and woman KIA VOLUNTEERED for the task of serving in the Armed Forces.
And WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every one of them that gave their lives on duty AFTER 2005 VOLUNTEERED KNOWING THE WAR WAS ON, and THEY WERE IN LINE TO GO INTO THAT HOT ZONE.
Every one of them. So did I, decades ago.
“SOLDIER” is a very dangerous profession.
“WARTIME” means little in recent history when it pertains to “number of deaths per year.”
I saw one guy snap his neck rappelling down an obstacle course, 6 die in a chopper crash during training, one drowned in my camp while I was there and two died in a tank that fell into a pond when the bank they were driving on collapsed.
In battle, I SAW ONE FATALITY, and Randy Cline (Grenada, 1983) almost made it out of the jungle. How do I know?
BECAUSE I WAS CARRYING HIM!
Now, DIGEST THIS:
US Military Deaths for past twenty years
The following information is very informative and something I had not seen before.
The figures are found in a publication by the Congressional Research Service and was prepared for Congress in 2007.
The figures are extremely interesting when compared to general public opinions we many have.
MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS
Bet you didn’t know the following! I surely was not fully aware of all these facts.
Military losses for 20 years
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan , the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents.
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 ……… 2,392
1981 …….. 2,380
1984 ……… 1,999
1988 ……… 1,819
1989 ……… 1,636
1990 …….. 1,508
1991 ……… 1,787 ……………………………………
1992 ……… 1,293
1993 ……… 1,213
1994 ……… 1,075
1995 ……….2,465
1996 …….. 2,318 Clinton years @ 13,417 deaths
1997 ……… 817
1998 …….. 2,252
1999 ……… 1,984 ……………………………………
2000 ……….1,983
2001 ……… 890
2002 ………. 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
2003 ………. 1,410
2004 ……… 1,887
2005 …….. 919
2006………. 920
——————————————————————
If you are confused when you look at these figures…so was I
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton’s presidency; when America wasn’t even involved in a war?
And, I was even more impressed; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians pick and choose. They present only those “facts” which support their agenda-driven reporting.
N.D. To politicise military deaths is spurious!
FYI Bush years 2001-2008. 1980 Ford was Pres.
I served 13 months as a Marine Officer in V.N. Different than Granada but thanks for your service.
Semper Fi and God Bless America
@rich wheeler, not to nitpik, but I have to nitpick. Don’t know what country you lived in when serving as a Marine, but all those serving in the America where I lived in 1980 had Jimmah Carter as the CiC. I’m thinking you have your dates and POTUS mixed up, since the US exited VN circa 1975.
Mata CORRECT 1980 Carter’s last year as POTUS.Reagan’s first year higher than 7 of 8 of Clinton’s.So what! Do the stats quoted by ND mean anything to you??
Well, Rich, first of all I don’t believe that Nostradamus was “politicizing” American deaths. So I find it odd that you, a former military service personnel, would simply go after Nostradamus, another military veteran, over posting the stats.
I don’t believe I was commenting on any point you were trying to make… tho I saw none, save for the “politicizing” charge, with which I disagree… and that I was wondering if you actually knew when you served, where you served, and who was the POTUS at the time.
Warfare always has many measures, not the least of which is the price paid in American blood, along with American dollars. When most assess whether the results are worth the price, we weigh the import of the conflict. Which brings me to your question:
Why yes, they do. My first thought is that the US doesn’t need to be involved in a formal war (i.e. Vietnam, Korea and Iraq both times) for us to lose valued blood in our military personnel…. or to experience the cost of such a “non war”.
Using the states Nostradamus provided:
The casualty rate for all of Reagan’s terms was 6,198. Maybe my memory is coming up short, but our only conflicts (other than a “cold war) during that era was Grenada in 1983. The US sent about 7600 to 8000 some odd troops for that very short military event, with 19 casualties. US forces remained there until the end of the year while a new government was formed. Yet there are no 1983 casualties on the records above. So I don’t know the source, or if it was simply a number that was not registered on the source’s research. But all in all, with just Grenada in the Reagan history of conflict, I actually wonder where these deaths did occur.
Under Bush the elder’s Gulf Wars, the numbers were low for having both air and ground conflict… altho even one is a number that is hard to bear.
Clinton had his sundry conflicts… Sudan etal. Surprisingly high number of deaths, 14,107, during that period since we had not even one formal non war in the making.
Bush the younger was, of course, commander for troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq… high profile conflicts. Yet his total was 8,843 by these records.
Without commenting as to the accuracy of the stats Nostradamus provided, by reaction to the numbers is two-fold…
1: We don’t need formal, or even informal declared/undeclared wars to pay a price in valued American blood.. and
2: At least modern warfare is lessening the amount of that price in blood paid.
As far as the original post topic, I might say that it is you who decided to “politicize” the deaths of warriors when you decided to not-so-innocently post a snide comment that not one US warrior lost their lives in Libya. I don’t know why that would be validation for interfering in a civil war in a place where we had no vested national security interest.. and in fact, lessened what aid and cooperation (the abandoned WMD program) we were currently receiving.
Well thank heavens for that number of zero, since we had no business meddling in that nation’s civil war anyway. But we paid a hefty price in cash… and time will tell what diplomatic price was also paid for Obama (and you) being on the wrong side of history.
2011 (so far) 426.*
2010 559*
2009 459*
*Only includes those who fought and died in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn
Suicides outnumber deaths in action in some years (2009 for instance) .
Accidents are another huge cause of death in the military.
I had a doctor who served on an aircraft carrier.
He said it was the most dangerous place he had even been.
His accident patients’ injuries were horrific.
Many did not survive.
You know, Rich… I had an afterthought here, as it relates to cost of wars in blood and $s.
What may be interesting to note is that, using these stats (assuming some degree of accuracy), Reagan inherited a gutted military and had to start building it back up. Certainly the cost of blood/lives lessened as the military build up was commencing, based on the numbers.
On the flip side, Clinton was busy gutting the military, along with a cooperative GOP Congress, during his years. Conversely, the price of blood was going up as the military gutting was commencing.
Bush built up the military considerably and, with his 8,843 casualties over two wars in his term, that may also be a factor that the cost of blood could have been higher. In fact, it took Congress so long to appropriate the funds for that armoring.. remember the bill Kerry was for, before he was against?… that had the money been available and allocated sooner, lives and injuries may have been minimized.
So what may also be noted is that there is a very distinct correlation between these numbers, and the budget/size/efficient/preparedness of of military. When gutted, the lives lost are higher. When strong, the casualty rate is lower.
Ponder on that one for a moment or two, eh?
Mata C’mon ND made a point of totalling Clinton casualties and snidely knocking(“Nobel Prize Winning”) Carter.B.S. Good question you ponder where these non major conflict casualties were incurred.I served with the 3rd MarDiv. R.V.N. Nov.67-Nov.68 2 Thanksgivings.
What is snide about pointing out the deaths were higher under Clinton and the gutted military, sans the longer term wars under Bush, or even Reagan’s high death tolls, sans explanation, Rich? It’s simply an interesting fact.
So you don’t think he should have pointed out those extraordinarily high death tolls?
I believe the only snide remark I caught was yours, about politicizing the deaths.
While you may focus on Reagan’s death tolls, and why, I’m more curious as to the relationship between the military’s readiness/budget and the death toll. Seems to me when the military is gutted, the deaths go up. Care to argue that point?
Mata Only 3 Reagan years shown but as you suggest his 8 year total PROBABLY slightly higher than Clinton or any two term Pres post V.N. Are you suggesting this is because Carter “gutted” the military?
What years were the military “gutted” and for what reasons?
There are a lot of assumptions in your response, rich. All incorrect, and some that are somewhat forgivable. Others are not.
First, I never “suggested” that Reagan’s two tern total was “PROBABLY” slightly higher than Clinton or any two term Pres post VN”. One of the “not forgivable” assumptions. That is something you decided to take liberties on, and based on what.. I have no idea.
But what I will say is that since the source data was not provided with a link, we have no idea what they based it on, or their accuracy. Since there were no conflicts, other than Grenada, during the Reagan years, it may be that the missing years are because there were no casualties those years. But as I said, without seeing the source and the referenced database, no clue.
But no where did I even suggest that Reagan’s years would be higher than Clinton’s. That is strictly partisan wishful thinking on your part.
Secondly, Reagan inherited a gutted military and built it up. Clinton inherited a healthy military and spent his terms gutting it, with the assistance of Newt’s GOP Congress. The reasons? A whole different debate and certainly can’t be capsulized here for your convenience..
Lastly, what I suggested you notice is that there are two realities…. Reagan did inherit a gutted military, and Clinton gutted the military. Both had high casualty rates, sans any undeclared or active war. You asked me what those numbers meant to me. Once I pondered them, what I came up with is there may, indeed, be a correlation to a gutted military and the amount of US warrior casualties.
Your point?
MATA I took Reagan 3 year average multiplied by 8 and—-Voila. My point is ND’S post is flawed,irrelevant and not worthy of our discussion.
Who’s gonna get Repub. nom?
What up with huge stock market rally?
Any plans for Marine Corps Ball?
Semper Fi and Anchors Aweigh
Why are you making up casualties that are not documented, rich? Just because it’s convenient to your argument?
As I said, perhaps there were no casualties in the years during Reagan’s terms to be reported. You don’t know. And we don’t know ND’s source for the data. Therefore you are leaping to conclusions for some bizarre reason, and still ignoring that the two highest documented stats under Reagan and Clinton happened to occur during times when our military was gutted.
Stock rally is because of yet another Greece bail out. Figured you’d know that. Happy that pensioners and investors aren’t losing their shirts in stocks, since they are losing them everywhere else… most especially in the housing market. Is it a permanent rally that will stick? Not according to the financial talking heads I hear. But any good day in the market is a good day for the huge amount of Americans who are “Wall Street”.
Mata says ” maybe no casualties during Reagan years not quoted” That’s the ticket.
Market rally may indicate the resilient American economy not as bad as Repubs with ODS and the clueless talking heads prognosticate.
Real estate bubble created through pure greed. I saw it first hand at ground zero, Irvine Cal 2000-06.
rich… without knowing the source of the data, aren’t you making great assumptions? Aren’t you also making a fool of yourself by taking what is there, and then adding casualties to substantiate and an argument with no substance?
The Reagan years did not have wars of convenience going on, so there was Grenada and the cold war. Clinton’s years had lots of conflicts that were wars of convenience.
And you *still* ignore that the highest casualties rates fall under terms where the military was gutted.
Now why is that, I wonder?
Your other two financial comments deserve second and devoted treatment.
To the market rally… nope…. not related. Flush with taxpayers money, the markets operate separately from the economy. And there is no housing or unemployment improvement of consequence on the economic radar. But nice try…
The real estate bubble started years before 2000-2006. And don’t assume you are the only person that witnessed it. However if you only became aware of it when the inflation of the price of homes was finally in-your-face big, I’d suggest you get a financial consultant to help guide you thru the coming years. Because apparently, you just aren’t aware enough.
Mata I’d suggest you the fool to say “perhaps there were NO casualties in Reagan years not quoted”.
Actually 1982-2311
1983-2465
1985-2252
1986-1984
1987-1983
Statistics provided by Congressional Research Service 5/14/2008
btw Casualties higher under “w” than Clinton. So what.
I’ll match my knowledge of the stock market and real estate market against yours anytime. First suggestion;Disregard the paid talking heads.
You fill in blanks by just multiplying, and *I’m* the fool? LOL That’s “rich”, rich….
Still dodging the high casualty rates under a gutted military, right? ’nuff said.
And if your matching of RE/market knowledge is so wonderful, you might want to explain your math calculations of “casualties higher under “w” than Clinton”. Or did you forget how election years vs inauguration dates run?
When you’re done re’adding, then you might explain to all of us how the economy will recovered with continued high unemployment, and a housing market not slated to recover to mid 2000 levels until mid 2020s.
Mata Same CRS report says casualties under “w” 2001-2008 higher than those under Clinton 1993-2000. Again I say SO WHAT. A “fool” would suggest there may have been “no casualties” in 82,83,85,86, and 87.
“Recovery of economy” is subjective and many stats indicate it is underway.My problem is those rooting for failure merely to dump BHO.Chickenshit for sure.
BTW You haven’t indicated your “Great white(or black) hope” to save us.
“gutted military” PLS. define and include reasoning behind reduction in troop levels.
rich, how many times have I said I have no clue to the accuracy of the report since the link was not provided. Now you come up and say the “same CRS report” says something…. and you don’t provide a link either.
Why don’t you provide links when you discuss something? This isn’t much to ask.
I haven’t been excited about any GOP candidate yet, thus I haven’t weighed in. Besides, by the time the primaries hit Oregon, the fat lady has already sung her encore. I have no say in the choice.
On the other off tangent subject:
I have no idea what indicators you believe support any sort of stable recovery, rich. There is no recovery without housing. Unemployment has no indication of significant improvement for quite some time. So there’ll be a “recovery” with housing tanked and unemployment? In what universe?
Again with this BS about “rooting for failure”. Been thru this already. Would you be “rooting for success” for a policy with which you disagree? Or would you be rooting for that policy to fail to pass? pfffft…
@Rich Wheeler:
What stats would those be rich? Elucidate please.
Maybe THIS one? (PDF file)
Try here or here if you can’t open that one.
Aye Consumer spending up in 3rd quarter. Stock market up this year and dramatically so in last 30 days though Mata and I have disagreed on whether this is a “leading indicator” Very few now believe a “double dip” will occur.Good news stats show “rich are getting richer”—and the poor?—well you know. Best to you and yours
Since it appears that rich doesn’t like to provide links, I did a fast search using the title from ND’s post about, “Military Deaths for Twenty Years”. Oddly enough, the first thing that came up was an Urban Legends link… that piqued the curiosity.
My observation and note has never been comparing Clinton vs Bush military casualties, nor was that ever my point. Since we had both Iraq and Afghanistan as active large scale wars, and Clinton just did a few bombing escapades here and there (meddling in Somalia, Sudan and Kosovo), I would fully expect our casualty rates to be higher under Bush.
If you go back and look at my comments #17, 19,21 and 23, where is it that I, MataHarley, am arguing about Clinton vs Bush? Or insisting that the Clinton numbers are higher (except in those stats that were provided… without the link).
Let me repeat my initial answer to your question… “what do these stats mean” to me?
So what the hell are you arguing with me about with this Clinton vs Bush crap?
I’ve zero’ed in on the surprising high casualty rate under Reagan’s terms, and also the surprisingly high rate under Clinton… considering both of those were years with no active wars the scale of Vietnam, the first Gulf War under Bush the elder, and both Iraq/Afghanistan under Bush the younger.
Yet both of those POTUS had high rates in what we would consider mostly a time of peace (save the “Cold War” under Reagan). Why?
Both of those POTUS were were working with gutted military. Reagan inheriting one, and building it back up. Clinton, inheriting a built up military from the Gulf War, and slashing both it, and intel. Did this play into the casualty numbers?
We are now at comment #35 and counting… and you, rich, still dodge any reflection that that reality… that two peace time POTUS have very high casualty rates. Now why is that, you think?
Oddly enough, since I have to do your homework for you, even the CRS report vaguely referred to doesn’t have any major conflicts listed for either the Reagan or Clinton years on pgs 5-6 in the beginning of the 30 pg report.
For the two smaller conflicts… Reagan’s Grenada (19), and Clinton’s Somalia (43) and Haiti (4)… these numbers are far too small to explain the other thousands of deaths that occurred under these two CiCs.
So now we come to the real truth.. and the answer to the question you won’t answer, and mine… via pg 11 of the CRS report. The manner of deaths of the active duty warriors.
REAGAN YEARS
Hostile action: 58
Homicide: 860
Illness: 3147
Suicide: 2027
Terrorist attacks: 293
Undetermined: 164
Accident: 10,650
CLINTON YEARS
Hostile action: 1
Homicide: 428
Illness: 1411
Suicide: 1531
Terrorist attacks: 75
Undetermined: 99
Accident: 3955
BUSH 43 YRS
Hostile action: 3811
Homicide: 380
Illness: 1903
Suicide: 1531
Terrorist attacks: 55
Undetermined: 180
Accident: 4400
Pending: 130
What seems to be the bulk of Reagan’s deaths is two types of casualties… suicides and accidents. I have to assume that accidents is not necessarily confined to military accidents, but includes personal activities…car, sporting accidents, etc.
More than twice as many warriors were the victims of homicide in the Reagan years than under either Clinton or Bush 43. However more warriors were killed by others under Clinton than Bush.
And Reagan years are the highest of the three for our military, dying at the hands of terrorists. Interesting… You can see why Reagan was busy building up the military, and it sure makes you scratch your head that, considering those numbers, Clinton decided that the terrorist era was over, and started gutting both it, and intel, in the 90s. (yes, along with a GOP Congress…)
Also ironic is that the suicide deaths were identical between Clinton and Bush years… putting to bed that the GWOT was notably increasing the military suicide rate. Reagan’s suicide rate was extraordinarily high. Remember, these stats are for “active duty” military only. I’d be really curious about that. My first thought is that it is likely due to Vietnam era military that remained active duty, and it got the best of them.
So when looking at all these, what we do know is that in relative peace times under Reagan and Clinton, the casualty rates for hostile actions were very low when compared to war. Despite that, those that died during the Bush 43 years via hostile actions is still below what constitutes a generic accident.
I’d say what we’ve learned the most is that they hype about suicides increasing in the military, as a result of the ME conflicts, is pretty much bunk….
LOL! Which one, rich? Believe those “very few” who don’t think about a double dip, or disregard them?
Gee.. the last time I remember the market riding high on consumer spending was back in 2008, not long before the crash”. But details details. Yes, you and I disagree on a yoyo market being any indicator in these times. And, in fact, since the market has been kept healthy by infusing government money and non stop printing presses in Treasury basement, as well as a no risk, low interest way to make cash, it’s hardly a surprise that it never tanked. And that’s good since almost half of all US American non-farm workers are “wall street” and vested in the market.
Oh wait… I guess that makes them part of those evil “rich” who are enjoying at least one aspect of their investments doing well.
So rich… do ya care if it’s a double dip, or a second recession? Of course, the only difference in that is if you want to declare the first one at an end to start the new one, or just consider it a continuation.
So I’m still waiting, rich…. how is it you expect a recovery with high unemployment and a continued tanked housing market? Just how does that economic miracle happen? Inquiring minds wanna know…
ADDED:
Speaking of tanked housing… CNN Money reports on Fiserv’s triple dip in housing prices..
How’s that “indicator” working for ya, rich?
This is the face of the violent removal of a tyrant who refused to relinquish control and leave. Anyone who believes that any war is completely free of such morally base episodes is naive.
The face of the new, post-revolutionary Libya has yet to be seen.
@Greg: The face of the new, post-revolutionary Libya has yet to be seen.
Oh, I think we are getting a look at that face of the new, post-revolutionary Libya, Greg…..
The wait is over as the interim leader has announced that Sharia Law would be the main source of legislation in a post-Gadaffi era and we see the al-Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Bengahzi.
An American diplomat well-experienced in how reality is in Islamic countries coined the phrase:
“One Man, One Vote, One Time,” to describe how democracy usually works when Islam is involved.
Egypt is going that route.
Tunisia, too.
Libya going to be an exception?
We’ll see.
Nan G’s already corrected you here, and has done so for others on another thread. But maybe pictures work better for you, Greg.
Yup… that’s the trademark AQ flag up there with the Libyan flag, Greg. Can’t miss it…. “the face” has been shown.
Is the WH surprised? Nope…
Which brings me back to the Bush SOFA, Obama following Bush’s withdrawal timelime, which screws them up since his admin wanted what Bush didn’t… a permanent base in Iraq.
In post, I pointed out that the GOP was getting sucker punched, allowing Bush’s Iraq success and withdrawal timeline to be hijacked by Obama. Also that the WH was actually pushing for extended presence and wanted bases because of the Arab uprisings… they aren’t liking what they are seeing.
Seems that since Obama can’t get his base in Iraq, he’s moving them to Kuwait instead…
So that “new face” you think hasn’t popped up yet, Greg? I guess even the Obama admin can see what you are missing….
Libyans can run a jihadi flag up a pole now without being summarily put up against a wall and shot. That doesn’t necessarily mean that al Qaeda has wide popular support.
I think it will be a while before anyone can say with any degree of certainty where Libya is headed. That won’t keep some conservatives from making pronouncements for domestic political purposes. It’s all part of selling their “Obama is a Failure” campaign package–a product they need to vigorously promote, given the sad array of alternatives that they so far have to offer.
Now there’s a hoot of an observation, Greg. Everything’s better because AQ and terrorists can run a flag up on government buildings, and no one will be shot?? LOL
Tell me, Greg… do most moderate Muslims fear speaking out against jihad since the jihad movements kill more Muslims than they do infidels? So who do you think would protest AQ claiming victory by raising their flag?
The “old face” wouldn’t allow that. The “new face” evidently does… either they, too, are afraid, or they are beholding. Take your pick… neither bodes well for that “face” you think has yet to be seen.
Pity that you can see what’s in front of your face, and you still refuse to look. At least even our idiot CiC admits it from the WH closet. I even tried to make it easy by giving you the picture version, but no. And your continued response?
Seriously, guy… these stretches into partisan dementia truly get old. What is obvious in Libya, and you leap into something completely unrelated to avoid admitting to your tunnel vision blinders? Taking a cue from rich, who’s been steering it to finances to avoid the main topic as well?
Greg, the Obama is a Failure campaign has two realities… it was focused on his domestic policies and they have proven to be exactly the failures predicted. Even to those whiners called the OWS. Were they out in the streets, overtly whining, when the richer had even more of the wealth under Clinton? But no… because they were, in their opinion, living high off the hog then themselves. But when the going get’s tough, the weak start whining instead of putting their nose down to the grindstone.
Nope… That Obama/Failure job is done… [wipes hands].
@Greg: @Greg:
A Libyan reporter, Sherif Elhelwa, posted pictures of the flag at the courthouse, and also quoted a guard threatening him. “Whomever speaks ill of this flag, we will cut off his tongue.”
Oct. 22, the head of Libya’s Transitional National Council, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, abruptly announced that Islamic law, or Sharia, would provide the “basic source” of Libyan law. “This revolution was looked after by Allah to achieve victory,” he said to a celebratory crowd in Benghazi.
The Oct. 22 announcement by the transitional Libyan leader proclaimed that the country would discard current divorce laws in favor of archaic Islamic laws that allow polygamy for men and easy divorce for men.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/31/libyas-turmoil-al-qaida-presence-no-surprise-says-white-house/#ixzz1cOi05qow
Mata, I have no doubt that even Greg knows what he says is hooey, that he’s just pushing his leftwing faith.
It seems he is more interested in being a “human microphone” of the left than engaging in honest debate. Yes I could be wrong, but I just cannot believe he is sooooo far gone as to believe the things he posts.
@MataHarley:
Ummm…we don’t know for sure if rich has a “glandularly challenged” wife so we shouldn’t be using this commonly used non-offensive term.
LOL, Aye! Oh, that’s right… the brilliant Tom didn’t appear to know the meaning of “not over until the fat lady sings”, did he? Well, my guess is he had led a sheltered life. I think I give
Greg.. oops, rich… more credit for being out and about than that.Aye #46 What a stupid comment. She’s 5’4 120 and HOT.
BTW The fat lady ain’t sung for Obama yet and with foot in mouth disease rampant among Repub. pretenters er contenders she may just remain behind those opera curtains.
@Rich Wheeler:
That was a joke between Mata and I and was in no way intended to disparage your 5’4″, 120lb “HOT” wife.
Perhaps you’d like to catch yourself up. Start with comment 84, then move on to 85, 87, 89, and 91.
As to Obie’s re-election bid, well, the smart voters have realized the error of their ways and will avoid making the same mistake again.
Mata #37 Well researched as always. Pls re-read N.D. 13 and his debunked #’s. He neglected to cite the fact Reagan and W #’s were as high or higher than Clinton and Carter. That was my singular point.
Re the economic recovery.Complete agreement R.E. in the tank with many years and pain before return to 07 highs.Repubs and Dems, lenders and borrowers share blame for this debacle. Agree unemployment rate will show little movement over next 2 years.
On the other hand corporate profits up,and the large majority of our citizenry living well.I believe the excessess of 90’s-2007 will lead to a leaner YET STRONGER America by decade’s end whether govt.led by Repubs Dems or 3rd Party.
As stated, my concern has always been to not lose our hard earned gains re social and environmental issues
Aye Catch up on what comments?.
@Rich Wheeler:
The link is in #49 above. All you have to do is click on it to get to the other thread and then read the comments I specified.
OMG! I guess I gave rich undue credit, eh, Aye? LOL Is there anyone else here that doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase “it ain’t over until the fat lady sings!”?? Or must we spell it out for those that, somehow assume this is a personal affront to some female they know?
yeeeaaaash….
I understand your “singular point”, rich. However that wasn’t really your singular point, as you decided to get huffy and called it “politicizing” soldiers death. Kinda silly when you think of it. After all, CRS did an entire study of it, and those figures do relate to not only who was CiC at the time, but the wartime events. So if you think ND was “politicizing it”, then so was the CRS.
As far as his conclusions… well, it’s really not unexpected. Unless you pull up the original CRS document, and one assumes that the figures quoted reflect what is there, then his surprise at the numbers was justified. But it’s not politicizing. Were those numbers accurate, it would be yet another reason supporting my observation that, as we advance into modern warfare, our casualties go down. The joy of video game bombing from the air, and unmanned drones, I guess.
Even at that, you asked “do the stats quoted by ND mean anything to you”. And as I said, why yes.. they do. We sure have a high rate of casualties for our warriors whether it’s peace time, or during war. And if you stop and think of it, we’ve only lost 1/3rd to hostile action during Iraq/Afghanistan than we did to “accidents” during the Reagan years. Actually kind of surprising. And I’m not aware of any road/vehicle statistics that would support such a huge drop in accidents since that time. Just mind boggling.
As to the economy. My argument with your rosy view of the economy is that, while the stock market wigs out like a bobble head doll daily/weekly (it’s down another almost 300 today due to the failure of the hoped for government bail out of Greece…), there is no economic recovery without employment improving, and the housing market recovering. This economy doesn’t live by the market alone.
You thought that the indicator was good because of consumer spending Q3. I not only reminded you that, just prior to the 2008 crash and according to those indicators, consumer spending was also good enough to fool the market.
But what was Q3 spending? Driven first, and mostly, by car sales. Also inventory was being replaced. Add that it’s the summer season… can you say family vacations?… followed by back to school shopping? Likely the highest shopping/spending of the year, other than Christmas. Even at that, a 2.5% isn’t much to crow about, and annual forecasts for 2011 are still expected to be under 2%. That’s a far cry short of what it will take to actually recover. What you might say is that the double dip… or new recession… isn’t happening today. That’s good, but you won’t find me breathing any sighs of relief for what is still coming down the road.
Now… about that “inventory” being beefed up. Evidently that happened at the first part of Q3, since manufacturing again started slacking off in October.
It seems that what we have going are businesses that stock up… wait until it sells before they order more. It’s not a steady order anymore, because few share your confidence that the economy can recover with the easily predictable future of housing and unemployment.
So like everything financial these days, there will be good days and months, and bad. Watching the market can give one motion sickness, fer heavens sake… But there isn’t a single indicator that gives one hope for a move to a sustainable recovery. Instead, with one of the big investment brokers going down (MF Global), Europe in the tank with Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland (at the least)… not to mention the amount of toxic real estate assets still in the global system… we’ve got major ugliness on the horizon.
Sorry… don’t buy into the “it’s getting better” line.
@Rich Wheeler:
Yep, consumer prices are up too. September means back to school sales so, yeah, there’s going to be some shopping going on. The alarming thing is that incomes have not changed more than .1% in either direction over the last several months.
How about that stellar stock market performance from today, eh? It was down what… 297?
As Mata says, there are many great economic minds who are still warning of this risk. And, of course, Mata’s link to the “housing triple dip” isn’t good news for your prognostication either.
Actually, the statistics show that the gap between rich and poor has been flat since 1994.
Mata It’s clear in #48 I understand “fat lady sings” I’m thinking in #46 Aye was confusing me with someone else. Otherwise comment was just stupid.
rich, like Aye said…. his comment was a joke between he and I, since Tom… dodo that he was… took personal offense when Aye used a comment “I hear a fat lady singing” as to Wordsmith’s document proving Tom’s position incorrect. So he was jokingly pointing out to me that using such a phrase could be construed as unPC. Of course, you didn’t help when you decided to come back and mention your wife’s framing… which set us off again.