toldailytopic: Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi is dead, discuss.

[The Barbarian]

Our little troll was certainly in his manic phase last night. Anyway, since several people have pointed out his dishonesty in faking what I said, we'll let it go for now.

 

[some other dude]

barbie - any chance you could answer post #110 without being dishonest?

 

[WizardofOz]

From what I've read online and seen in youtube clips, it appears that he died of injuries sustained in his capture exacerbated by rough handling and delayed medical treatment.

If that's what happened, fine. Seems spurious to me. Video

That's our ethic, yes.

That ethic is what I'm defending.

To the South Vietnamese, General Loan's actions were unremarkable.
Catch an enemy in the act of killing your soldiers, drag him to the boss and let him decide.

OK with it? No. But I understand where it comes from. I think it's remarkable that we were able to keep Saddam Hussein alive for trial. I think it's unsurprising that the Libyan rebels, fresh from battle, tired, sore, hot, sweaty, hungry, dehydrated, emotionally drained from days of watching their comrades fall were happy to see Gaddafi die, regardless of the manner in which it happened.

The morality or immorality of such acts are relative, then? :think:

"Accepted as a prisoner". You make it sound as if there has been an orderly transfer of paperwork.

Surrender does not have to be accepted.

 

[some other dude]

That ethic is what I'm defending.
The morality or immorality of such acts are relative, then? :think:

Could be.

If the South Vietnamese code of conduct allowed for battlefield executions, then they were acting according to their law.

Surrender does not have to be accepted.

And if the enemy brought before Loan was not considered to be a surrendered prisoner, but a combatant to be processed?

 

[WizardofOz]

Could be.

If the South Vietnamese code of conduct allowed for battlefield executions, then they were acting according to their law.

By extension, if the North Vietnamese code of conduct allowed for civilians to be executed, then Lem was acting according to their law. Relativism is a waste of time because it has nothing to do with how this discussion began.

My stance: prisoners who have their hands tied behind their back should not be shot in the head.

My stance: if Qaddafi was captured alive, he should not then be intentionally killed by his captors moments later.

My original statements were "Someone who has laid down arms, surrendered, and begged for their life should not be murdered. I don't care who that someone is or what they've done. It's really indefensible. Say what you will about Qaddafi. The people who murdered him and cheered when he was murdered are no better."

You either agree or disagree. If you disagree feel free to explain why you do.

And if the enemy brought before Loan was not considered to be a surrendered prisoner, but a combatant to be processed?

That his hands were tied behind his back is a good sign that his surrender was accepted.

 

[rexlunae]

From what I've read online and seen in youtube clips, it appears that he died of injuries sustained in his capture exacerbated by rough handling and delayed medical treatment.

From what I've read, he was killed by a shot to the temple which he didn't have when he was captured. His body is now being displayed publicly as a final act of desecration.

I'm not losing any sleep of Ghaddafi's dignity. But I do not entirely like what it says about how he's being handled by the new authorities in Libya.

 

[some other dude]

From what I've read, he was killed by a shot to the temple which he didn't have when he was captured.

The youtube clip I've seen shows him bleeding profusely from the head, from the area where the fatal shot was said to have been, pleading for his life.