• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gaddafi sodomized: Video shows abuse frame by frame (GRAPHIC)

Why would true liberals not support an attempt to shed a dictator?

Usurping the soveriengty of another nation that has not attacked us is anti-liberal in nature. Instead a true liberal would want open borders and not force their way over another country. (if someone is being picked on by a dictator then come join America)

Anyone that claims to be liberal and supports invading a country that has not attacked us is terribly confused and needs to relinquish their liberal lable.
 
Last edited:
There is absolutely no doubt that Gaddafi was guilty of terrible crimes against humanity. Once he was captured however, the rebels had the chance to show him to the world as an example that Gaddafis way was not the way that a civilized society treats it's people and place him on trial.

Instead they behaved like a pack of barbaric animals on acid and showed the worse traits of humankind. This will do little for the image of their country and cause. A great start for a new Democratic Nation with torture and Summary execution without a trial. He was never made to be held accountable for any of his actions.
 
Usurping the soveriengty of another nation that has not attacked us is anti-liberal in nature. Instead a true liberal would want open borders and not force their way over another country. (if someone is being picked on by a dictator then come join America)

Anyone that claims to be liberal and supports invading a country that has not attacked us is terribly confused and needs to relinquish their liberal lable.

You're telling me I shouldn't support the downing of a dictator because there was foreign involvement?

Am I to take it you prefer the situation in Syria to the one in Libya, that protesters and rebels should be subject to brutal state crackdowns than actually have a chance to install a democracy.
 
I can't imagine that there are 133 things i would rather have done to me than be sodomized with a knife.

20 things, tops

:lol:

Really? I can think of a million things I'd rather have done to me than be sodomized with a knife.
 
There is absolutely no doubt that Gaddafi was guilty of terrible crimes against humanity. Once he was captured however, the rebels had the chance to show him to the world as an example that Gaddafis way was not the way that a civilized society treats it's people and place him on trial.

Instead they behaved like a pack of barbaric animals on acid and showed the worse traits of humankind. This will do little for the image of their country and cause. A great start for a new Democratic Nation with torture and Summary execution without a trial. He was never made to be held accountable for any of his actions.

You can't say he wasn't held accountable, he certainly was, in quite brutal fashion.
 
You're telling me I shouldn't support the downing of a dictator because there was foreign involvement?

Am I to take it you prefer the situation in Syria to the one in Libya, that protesters and rebels should be subject to brutal state crackdowns than actually have a chance to install a democracy.

Of course I dont prefer that. But, it's up to America to be noble. Interfere with no other nation unless they are attacking us and remain nuetral in just about everything. If someoen needs asylum let them into America. Give them a voice and denounce what they are running from. If helicopters and ships picking up asylum seekers come under fire then return fire in self defense. But if we are going to protect civileans then we should NEVER put them in danger. Not one death from collateral damage or obtuse targeting measures. Excuse me if my view is niave.

I thought regime change wasnt a goal in Libya? It seems it was an unstated one all alone. His convoy was struck by American drones. Nation building/political assassinations hardy seems libertarian.
 
So how does this work out for the US? Are we and the world better off if Libya goes hardcore islamofacist? If Bush was a cowboy, what is BO? At least cowboys aim and then fire....BO fires and never even tries to aim?

Reminds us of the way Arabs fire their rifles in battle: hold the rifle pointed in the general direction -not pointing at your own fighters- and hold it over your head so as not to hit the high wall in front of you.
 
Isn't it a little bit odd, though - how this claimed 'sodomy of Gadaffi' is abuse - but what about the blood and the pain he's obviously in otherwise? Isn't that abuse to?

Him with his cursed virgins right now . . .

Usually - when you're spited - you suffer a bit before you die one way or another. Hussein - do you think he was given tea and chocolates before he hanged?
 
These are the people Team BO decided to support. I am pretty certain I will never understand liberalism. You cry over water boarding terrorists but support scumbags that sodomize a human being and then shoot him in the head? It gets better, the rebels are now claiming sharia law will be the foundation of Libya's political and judicial system. Just wondering, how well are women treated under sharia law? Saying liberals have selective moralsm is one of the greatest understatements of all time.


Gaddafi sodomized: Video shows abuse frame by frame



So how does this work out for the US? Are we and the world better off if Libya goes hardcore islamofacist? If Bush was a cowboy, what is BO? At least cowboys aim and then fire....BO fires and never even tries to aim?

first of all, why are you making this post about liberals? this is the Breaking News forum. i'm glad gaddifi is gone, and i think sodomizing him betrays that brutal side of those who participated. and i'm wondering how you felt when saddam was killed, after all, he was quite secular, right? and keeping down the hardcore islamists, right? now, keep in mind that a dictator was disposed of with no loss of american lives. a man who was responsible for many american deaths. so go whine about how he was treated somewhere else. WE didn't rape him, his own people did.
 
first of all, why are you making this post about liberals? this is the Breaking News forum. i'm glad gaddifi is gone, and i think sodomizing him betrays that brutal side of those who participated. and i'm wondering how you felt when saddam was killed, after all, he was quite secular, right? and keeping down the hardcore islamists, right? now, keep in mind that a dictator was disposed of with no loss of american lives. a man who was responsible for many american deaths. so go whine about how he was treated somewhere else. WE didn't rape him, his own people did.

How was he responsible for many American deaths? I'm not doubting you, I just, really, don't know.
 
If the source used in the OP is mainstream media, then so is Truthout, DailyKos, Free Republic, Prison Planet, and the National Enquirer.

Fact is, I do NOT see ANY reputable media organization reporting this. Could the tape have been doctored?
 
If the source used in the OP is mainstream media, then so is Truthout, DailyKos, Free Republic, Prison Planet, and the National Enquirer.

Fact is, I do NOT see ANY reputable media organization reporting this. Could the tape have been doctored?

Reputable as in who?

The only differences I see is that these 'reputable sources' are monitored, controlled and regulated by various things: the FCC and other agencies that dictate what can be discussed and shown. Ethics and decency standards - rating . . . on and on.

I don't doubt the video's 'realness' - but the interpretation of events within the video are in question to me.

But your point does highlight how much of *the world's happenings* people miss out on when they rely only the the 'main and gov-approved media sources' for any information.
 
Last edited:
I've never been in a Saudi discussion here so you didn't miss anything. Any country that practices sharia law is a POS in my book, the Saudis included. I am no fan of the Saudis, they take our money and use it to fund terrorism. All the more reason to see if we can domestically produce 100% of our energy needs.
so, when dubya was president, was this the position you posted, in opposition to his close association with the house of saud?

and regarding your whining about Obama helping an indigenous people to depose a dictator, which opposition brutalized the bastard once apprehended, the presence of US forces might have been able to prevent such thuggish activity, but would we really want to spend American lives and American treasure to possibly thwart such brutality against a brutal dictator?
face it, you simply hate the fact that Obama has a string of foreign policy victories. his cairo 'moment of opportunity' speech which was the prelude to the arab spring. those like you refused to cheer when he took out osama bin laden. you now wimper because Obama's intervention has assisted in the overthrow of a known terrorist supporter ... one you now appear to sympathize with because he was sodomized by the same people he had previously sodomized. i ****ing hate ignorant, hypocritical, unAmerican neocons
 
Isn't it a little bit odd, though - how this claimed 'sodomy of Gadaffi' is abuse - but what about the blood and the pain he's obviously in otherwise? Isn't that abuse to?

Him with his cursed virgins right now . . .

Usually - when you're spited - you suffer a bit before you die one way or another. Hussein - do you think he was given tea and chocolates before he hanged?

I would have been happy to have missed that video. It's gruesome. These Libyian freedom fighters are no better than he was. Absolutely horrendous footage. This is not what our government should be supporting. President Obama should speak out against this kind of torture and murder. Just awful.
 
Of course I dont prefer that. But, it's up to America to be noble. Interfere with no other nation unless they are attacking us and remain nuetral in just about everything. If someoen needs asylum let them into America. Give them a voice and denounce what they are running from. If helicopters and ships picking up asylum seekers come under fire then return fire in self defense. But if we are going to protect civileans then we should NEVER put them in danger. Not one death from collateral damage or obtuse targeting measures. Excuse me if my view is niave.

I thought regime change wasnt a goal in Libya? It seems it was an unstated one all alone. His convoy was struck by American drones. Nation building/political assassinations hardy seems libertarian.

Because we, as Americans, had no help with our Revolution in any way whatsoever, right?

American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It isn't exactly the same, but it is quite hypocritical to say that we should not help any nation out when the people wish to be free and are starting the fight on their own, when we had several nations over 200 years ago help us to gain our independence from Great Britain.
 
so, when dubya was president, was this the position you posted, in opposition to his close association with the house of saud?

and regarding your whining about Obama helping an indigenous people to depose a dictator, which opposition brutalized the bastard once apprehended, the presence of US forces might have been able to prevent such thuggish activity, but would we really want to spend American lives and American treasure to possibly thwart such brutality against a brutal dictator?
face it, you simply hate the fact that Obama has a string of foreign policy victories. his cairo 'moment of opportunity' speech which was the prelude to the arab spring. those like you refused to cheer when he took out osama bin laden. you now wimper because Obama's intervention has assisted in the overthrow of a known terrorist supporter ... one you now appear to sympathize with because he was sodomized by the same people he had previously sodomized. i ****ing hate ignorant, hypocritical, unAmerican neocons
Th US has been in bed with the Saudis long before Bush became president. Implying he had some special relationship is silly.

I have been accused by quite a few posters of lamenting the death of Gadaffy. Those accusations are both unsupportable and off point. The purpose of this thread was to get the very reaction I received from the BO fans here. I have no doubt each of you were screaming about all of the atrocities that happened on Bush's watch, but you are silent on BO's misadventures. in this instance we have BO funding and supporting a rag tag bunch of murdering thugs. We don't know who these thugs are and what they intend to do with the country and it's oil after they kill Gadaffy and his supporters. At this point we know these "honorable" rebels are raping women, killing blacks, filling mass graves with people that were tied up and shot in the head, etc., ...... and now we have this lovely scene with a guy being sodomized and shot in the head. These are the same folks that promise to go "sharia lite" once they are in charge.

What did the liberal icon, Colin Powell, say about Iraq "you break it you own it". How many times did we hear that comment? Yet in this very thread the same people that probably used Powell's comments to bash Bush are washing their hands of the atrocities we are seeing from the very rebels we are supporting.

Bush tried to take out a murdering thug in Iraq and replace him with a democracy......and for that he was scorned by the opposition. BO is sanctioning executions, violent rebellions with people that are just as bad as the dictators they seek to kill, drone bombings in sovereign countries ........ and the liberals rejoice. I wonder if you will have the same level of tolerance for a republican president that may do the same thing as BO.....I doubt it.

It's been a distinct pleasure watching some of you tie yourself into pretzels trying to defend BO.

To the moderator, I called generic liberals hypocrites, and you slapped me with a warning. Did you read the last sentence in the post I quoted?
 
Th US has been in bed with the Saudis long before Bush became president. Implying he had some special relationship is silly.

I have been accused by quite a few posters of lamenting the death of Gadaffy. Those accusations are both unsupportable and off point. The purpose of this thread was to get the very reaction I received from the BO fans here. I have no doubt each of you were screaming about all of the atrocities that happened on Bush's watch, but you are silent on BO's misadventures. in this instance we have BO funding and supporting a rag tag bunch of murdering thugs. We don't know who these thugs are and what they intend to do with the country and it's oil after they kill Gadaffy and his supporters. At this point we know these "honorable" rebels are raping women, killing blacks, filling mass graves with people that were tied up and shot in the head, etc., ...... and now we have this lovely scene with a guy being sodomized and shot in the head. These are the same folks that promise to go "sharia lite" once they are in charge.

What did the liberal icon, Colin Powell, say about Iraq "you break it you own it". How many times did we hear that comment? Yet in this very thread the same people that probably used Powell's comments to bash Bush are washing their hands of the atrocities we are seeing from the very rebels we are supporting.

Bush tried to take out a murdering thug in Iraq and replace him with a democracy......and for that he was scorned by the opposition. BO is sanctioning executions, violent rebellions with people that are just as bad as the dictators they seek to kill, drone bombings in sovereign countries ........ and the liberals rejoice. I wonder if you will have the same level of tolerance for a republican president that may do the same thing as BO.....I doubt it.

It's been a distinct pleasure watching some of you tie yourself into pretzels trying to defend BO.

To the moderator, I called generic liberals hypocrites, and you slapped me with a warning. Did you read the last sentence in the post I quoted?

so you admit you were trolling?
 
I would have been happy to have missed that video. It's gruesome. These Libyian freedom fighters are no better than he was. Absolutely horrendous footage. This is not what our government should be supporting. President Obama should speak out against this kind of torture and murder. Just awful.

You didn't have to look. There's no way to know that it is what it claims to be, or even that it's real. As for your government's atttitude, it has a history of not only supporting such things but encouraging them and teaching it at Fort Benning, in the (since renamed) School of the Americas.
 
You didn't have to look. There's no way to know that it is what it claims to be, or even that it's real. As for your government's atttitude, it has a history of not only supporting such things but encouraging them and teaching it at Fort Benning, in the (since renamed) School of the Americas.

We teach people to sodomize with sticks and knives. No.

Of course you're right that we have no way of knowing if the footage was doctored. But if it wasn't....
 
These are the people Team BO decided to support. I am pretty certain I will never understand liberalism. You cry over water boarding terrorists but support scumbags that sodomize a human being and then shoot him in the head? It gets better, the rebels are now claiming sharia law will be the foundation of Libya's political and judicial system. Just wondering, how well are women treated under sharia law? Saying liberals have selective moralsm is one of the greatest understatements of all time.


Gaddafi sodomized: Video shows abuse frame by frame



So how does this work out for the US? Are we and the world better off if Libya goes hardcore islamofacist? If Bush was a cowboy, what is BO? At least cowboys aim and then fire....BO fires and never even tries to aim?

Beautiful, just beautiful.

If you can't tell that's sarcasm, I can't help you.

Alright, here are my thoughts:

• It's wrong to sodomize any person and then kill him w/o a fair trial.
• Sharia Law is not a good thing for America or American soldiers.
• Women are treated like meat under Sharia.
• Liberalism has always been, well, inconsistent.
• The world will not be better off if Libya goes Islamofascist.
• BO's a peace-making Nobel prize winner. That's what.
 
Bottom line, by following the policy he did, Obama was able to help the Libyan's free themselves of a murderous, anti-democratic sponsor of terror against the U.S. other countries around the world. It cost us about 1/1000th what we paid to get rid of Saddam, not a single U.S. trooper was killed, and we are not on the hook for a protracted bout of nation building.

That's what I call kickin' it liberal style. :cool:

I wish they had a "like for stupidity" button on this forum because I'd have used it for this reply.

How much of a military did Libya have? How much of a military did Saddam have? Saddam was also suspected of having lots of WMD's that hed already used on his own citizens. A revolt by the citizens would have resulted in massive amounts of death by Saddam doing exactly what Daffy duck did. Using their own military on their own citizens. The only difference is Saddams republican guard would have slaughtered everyone. They wouldn't have thrown him out at all. He would have been emboldened by it.
 
There is absolutely no doubt that Gaddafi was guilty of terrible crimes against humanity. Once he was captured however, the rebels had the chance to show him to the world as an example that Gaddafis way was not the way that a civilized society treats it's people and place him on trial.

Trials are used to determine if the defendant is guilty. The whole damn world knows Gaddafi is guilty, unless they are some conspiracy loon. So why waste time and money to try that man? As long as that man was alive there would have been the threat because of loyalists trying to free him.

That lets take the moral high road is nothing more than bull **** in real life.Taking the moral high road might work in the movies and win the bad guys over. In real life people who suffered under a brutal dictator do not want to win the brutal dictator and his loyalists over. In real life your enemies are not going to to give two ****s if you take the moral high ground nor are they going to treat you any different just because you coddle POWs.

Instead they behaved like a pack of barbaric animals on acid and showed the worse traits of humankind. This will do little for the image of their country and cause. A great start for a new Democratic Nation with torture and Summary execution without a trial.

They behaved the way anyone who suffered for decades under a dictator would behave. I am sure that if you were in their shoes you would have done the same thing. If I was in their shoes I probably would be cracking his skull with a bat.

He was never made to be held accountable for any of his actions.
What matters is that he was punished for his actions, he got punished for his actions. A show trial is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
I would like to point out that they didn't need to sodomize ghadaffi. That didn't make much sense. He was a brutal dictator who killed people. Kill him, but why shove something in his ass??
 
Back
Top Bottom