The ethics of a revolution
 

I'm not really sure where I come out on this one. Sometimes writing helps me think, so I might know by the end of this post.

The news reports seem to have rebutted the official Libyan announcement of the circumstances causing Ghadaffi's end. Unlike the official account - that he was killed in crossfire - it appears that he was captured hiding in a drainage ditch. He was apparently beaten, and still alive when one of the captors held his bloody face up by his hair. He is quoted as pleading with his captors telling them that they were wrong and that they were violating Muslim law. Shortly thereafter, he had a bullet in the head.

Some have said that the conduct of the rebels amounts to a summary execution in violation of International law. I don't approve of what was done, but it is hard to conjure up any sympathy when a brutal dictator pleads for mercy. He didn't have much moral authority to tell the rebels that what they were doing was wrong. They probably would not have even had the chance to make the suggestion.

Nevertheless, when one puts a bullet through the head of one who is unarmed and restrained it is far from an heroic act. The way the rebels ended Khadaffi's life brought them a bit closer to his character instead of establishing a new way of running the country.

From a purely pragmatic, standpoint, the immediate elimination of the Libyan butcher might have ended up saving some lives. The old establishment forces no longer have a figurehead to fight for. It is quite likely that the immediate demise of Khadaffi will diminish further resistance against the new government. Can the brutal death of a brutal dictator be justified as advancing the common good?

I don't know. :confused:

Regards,

D-Ray

Just a little something to think about... Mr. Laden wasn't armed when he got shot in the head by a US military member.... Neither was his wife that was in the room with him from everything I've read... and she got shot too...

I have no issues with it. Italian partisans summarily executed Mussolini and strung him up from a meat hook in Milan. We were good with it at the time. WTF is the difference between us (not engaged in a formal war with Libya, BTW) killing him with a missile and the Libyan rebels killing him? With their lack of a formal government, a trial would have been nothing other than a kangaroo court anyway. No biggie, I say.

One butcher kills another...

It's bad karma, baby.

I ain't losing no sleep over it.

Besides, killing is the natural order of things. Look at what animals do to one another.

And even if we've eaten from the tree of knowledge, we're animals too. Even we have to kill to survive.

Whether it is a plant, a fish, another animal, or another 6-pak (my favorite form of killing), something has to die in order for us to sustain ourselves.

Chas

PS: The great thing about killing a 6-pak is you shoot it AFTER it's dead.

He knew he would be executed like Sadam and made the decision to go out in a blaze of glory.
Why he wasn't carrying a sub or something instead of just that gold P-35 is odd. :confused:

What I am curious about is where was the UN Humanitarian outfit when he was shelling hospitals and generally murdering his people?

A defense made on the basis of "the bastard deserved to die" has from time to time been successful.

Regards,

D-Ray

One ugly sidearm.

I'd rather have a parkerized finish.

Chas

Bingo!

Makes religion stick out as fools gold doesn't it?