|
Killer robot posted:Not really. There's been ample time and money to build some manufacturing base, but I think any momentum that way crashed in the "now let's nationalize all the other businesses" phase of Gaddafi's economic plan followed by a lack of interest from government managers. A side effect of this has been the economy being totally tied to current oil prices, and pretty much sunk whenever it starts to run out. $200 billion probably could have made a lot of difference in all of this over the years, too. Amazing that they haven't even built a tourist industry. I know there's a shitload of desert in Libya, but there must also be some spectacular coastline that would pull in big money. Also, your avatar has inspired me to eat an egg sandwich.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2025 05:53 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Amazing that they haven't even built a tourist industry. I know there's a shitload of desert in Libya, but there must also be some spectacular coastline that would pull in big money. Well they were under sanctions for.. a bit. That also has an effect on local industry. Certainly it developed, but it served to answer local needs only. this isn't terrible, but if you consider the consequence of that with the opening of trade relations it seems likely you'll rapidly encounter what has been called "Dutch disease" considering how obviously non competitive and small scale any non oil based industry in Libya was. The increase of the governmental sector to provide jobs is great, but Ghaddafi intentionally decentralized Libya, what exactly where government jobs doing? This isn't that social safety nets are bad, it's that you just create jobs which are then distributed through regime ties that are effectively just paychecks. Sure that works, but what do you do when you're facing an increasing youth bulge for which there is little to no private sector? Expand the public sector? It's already full of blatant sinecures based on cronyism. To do so would require a reduction of the blatant corruption in the form of increased redistribution. That apparently never happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
farraday posted:Well they were under sanctions for.. a bit. That also has an effect on local industry. Certainly it developed, but it served to answer local needs only. this isn't terrible, but if you consider the consequence of that with the opening of trade relations it seems likely you'll rapidly encounter what has been called "Dutch disease" considering how obviously non competitive and small scale any non oil based industry in Libya was. Luckily, the new government has plenty of cash and national reconstruction to take care of unemployment woes for the next year or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Amazing that they haven't even built a tourist industry. I know there's a shitload of desert in Libya, but there must also be some spectacular coastline that would pull in big money. There's only one of the best-preserved Roman ruins in the Mediterranean - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptis_Magna According to reports, both sides took care to make sure Leptis Magna was unharmed. If the beaches are anything like Tunisia, yeah, there's going to be some excellent tourism opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Gaddaffi's Libya really should be compared with its fellow petrostates when it comes to what he actually did for the people. Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait all have higher Human Development Indexes while Libya is comparable to Saudi Arabia. It's doing better than Iran and Iraq but that's saying next to nothing in the big scheme of things. In terms of inequality, Libya's Gini coefficient is going to be obscene simply because Gaddaffi was skimming something on the order of 4% of the GDP for his own personal use. Libya has a state-run national healthcare system but then again so does Saudi Arabia and nobody in a million years could say with a straight face that they're Socialist. If you're looking for some sort of evidence as to how Gaddaffi stood defiant against the West, the CIA would rather you not read this article pointing out how he was willing to torture suspected terrorists for them. He was on very good personal terms with Silvio Berlusconi and had massive contracts with several Western oil companies. Taken altogether Gaddaffi deserves about as much praise from the left as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:
Yeah Gaddafi was willing to do anything to shed the pariah state status with the West and it's not surprising that he was willing to hop onboard with the Bush war on terror to score some goodie points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
That whole "humanitarian bombs" thing really chaps my hide. I spoke prior to the NATO mission about my concerns that, even if they managed a 99% success rate with their airstrikes, it was inevitable that some strike would go astray and kill civilians and that instantly, certain observers would latch on to that and insist that the NATO mission was therefore evil. I think, based on carefully following all the news and information we've been able to garner over the last six months, that Libyan rebels on the ground are likely to have inflicted something above 90% of the "collateral damage" (hate that term) in this particular war. And the large majority of that has probably been in Sirte. By comparison, the vast majority of NATO targets were clearly military ones: for months, the Ghaddafi regime went to ridiculous lengths to try to scrape together a handful of extremely unconvincing "civilian casualties" caused by NATO; if there had actually been tons of errant airstrikes, the Ghaddafi media-handlers would have had a lot less cognitive dissonance in their daily jobs. That's not to discount, of course, the value of the lives of Ghaddafi's military forces. No doubt many of them would have preferred not to be fighting, had they a real choice, and I am not one to insist that the life of a soldier is somehow cheaper than that of a civilian. But I am convinced that, on balance NATO has managed easily the cleanest, lowest-civilian-casualty extended airstrike campaign in history, and they deserve credit for it. There's no question in my mind that by destroying artillery, armor, and transports being used by the loyalist forces besieging Benghazi, Misurata, Nafusa, and various other places, NATO is directly responsible for saving the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of non-combatant Libyans. If we preferred an ideologically pure rebellion, I guess we're supposed to assume a totally nonviolent one can succeed against a well-armed dictator who has leveraged tribal lines for decades to create a military that is (demonstratably) willing to fire on civilian protestors. Because the third option: violent rebellion (which I'll remind everyone was not the case until Ghaddafi security and military forces began regularly and systematically murdering unarmed protestors, including attacking injured protestors and the doctors treating them in hospitals!) unsupported by NATO (or a similarly-equipped and motivated partner) either fails by drowning in blood, or - and this is the ultimate point of my tirade here - succeeds by drowning the Loyalists in blood. By every account we've seen, the rebels were far less capable (and perhaps willing) to focus fire on strictly military targets while avoiding civilian casualties. In many cases this wasn't an issue because civilians were evacuated or not present, but whenever the rebels had to fight in urban environments where civilians were still present, there was crossfire, friendly-fire, and at the end (Sirte) deliberate and systematic indiscriminate fire on civilian-occupied areas. This is of course inevitable when you have non-military-trained civilians taking up arms in glorious revolution; they lack the training and experience to use arms in a precise way, and therefore must resort to imprecise use. (As an aside, this is what "well ordered militia" in the 2nd amendment is all about; to preserve the ability of the people to overthrow their government violently if necessary, they need not only to keep and bear arms, but be trained in their use and organized into fighting units.) So the "Leftist" (ugh, hate that, since I consider myself politically leftward on the spectrum) holier-than-though proclamations about the evil imperial NATO and how anyone who supports the Libya intervention believes in "humanitarian bombs" are, essentially, supporting (without saying so) either the bloody crushing of the very glorious revolutions against tyranny their ideology lionizes, or, supporting an ideologically-pure revolution that is necessarily far bloodier than what we actually got. NATO may be the tool of Western Imperialism (whatever that means in today's world), but in this case, it saved a fuckload of Libyan lives, and those Libyans seem to be, on the whole, really loving grateful for it. Who are comfortable ideologues in the West, to disagree with them? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
Well, he had a pretty good reason for trying to get rid of that, because they were throwing around the Axis of Evil Moniker and invading countries at will. Honestly, the comparison with Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait doesn't really compare to much because certainly most of those countries have huge population of transient workers who are treated like absolute poo poo, but aren't citizens. Bahrain is actually a terrible comparison, because you had a large part of the population that had no jobs, was starving, and when they had large protesting groups trying to secure better conditions, they got shot and massacred. They even invited Saudi Arabia soldiers into the country to help put them down. But there is a massive US naval base there, so they didn't make any trouble about those people getting killed. Even though it's a comparatively tiny country and the inequality is on clearly defined religious lines. EDIT: I think the real thing I have to say is I don't hate the fact that NATO intervened. Yes, they influenced actions in a supposedly sovereign state, which is supposed to be a major no-no in global governance, but for me the problem was that they vastly overreached their bounds when they began attacking targets in an attempt to help the rebels win. They might have a moral right to prevent the rebels from getting slaughtered in Benghazi, but they had no right to support the rebels advances into Gaddaffi controlled territory. That is where they attempted to influence the war. If the rebels needed NATO air forces to conquer the whole country, which they did, then perhaps it wasn't as popular as we are led to believe. Ardent Communist fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
Comparatively tiny (but much higher population density) is actually a big part of the problem; one of the reasons an air campaign in Libya was ever considered seriously, is because Libya's geography required Ghaddafi forces to form convoys and traverse unpopulated and barren desert topology where they can be struck from the air without endangering civilians; likewise the distance between cities meant Ghaddafi had to pick and choose where to concentrate forces, leaving some areas free to organize resistance while focusing on others. In Bahrain by comparison, even if there was a clearly-identifiable rebellion that had the slightest credibility in terms of facing off against their government, there simply isn't any plausible way that Western airforce can intervene in a helpful way without massive civilian casualties. And government forces could easily and rapidly shift between neighborhoods if they had to face multiple breakouts of organized resistance, not really giving an air power time to identify and coordinate strikes while those forces are in transit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Comparatively tiny (but much higher population density) is actually a big part of the problem; one of the reasons an air campaign in Libya was ever considered seriously, is because Libya's geography required Ghaddafi forces to form convoys and traverse unpopulated and barren desert topology where they can be struck from the air without endangering civilians; likewise the distance between cities meant Ghaddafi had to pick and choose where to concentrate forces, leaving some areas free to organize resistance while focusing on others. Ghaddafi was also crippled by applying his divide and conquer mentality to the military with a big range in quality plus spreading them out over the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:If the rebels needed NATO air forces to conquer the whole country, which they did, then perhaps it wasn't as popular as we are led to believe. That, or when a dictator doesn't give a gently caress what people think and the military stays with him, modern weapons make the populace fairly irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you outnumber the soldiers a thousand to one, they can fire that many bullets a second directly into your face. What do you do in the face of that, pray they don't feel like killing you today? You do know that technology is something that continues to progress while some ideology stands still, right? Popular uprisings increasingly require external support, simply because the weapons dictators and tyrants can use are increasingly more powerful. If the international community won't actually take a stand against you killing your own civilians, you can very much kill an arbitrary number of them. Doesn't matter how many of them turn against you. That *is* something your beliefs account for, right? The stark reality of power imbalance between even a solid third world military and random civilians, yes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
Cross-posting these insightful works of art from the political cartoons thread That's what Pulitzers are made of!  That guy's actually pretty  but I suppose he stands for 'Islamic extremism' and/or 'radicalism'. Still cuter than rats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
I'm really enjoying the idea that a University of Washington Econ professor who writes about how banks need greater regulation is now being characterized as the new puppet of Eeeeeevil NATO imperialists. Looks like Ettakol and CPR did better than expected in Tunisia. Are they further to the left than the PDP? I'm hoping the PCOT does well and sends Fox News into a freakout about Islamofascicommunist Unions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:EDIT: I think the real thing I have to say is I don't hate the fact that NATO intervened. Yes, they influenced actions in a supposedly sovereign state, which is supposed to be a major no-no in global governance, but for me the problem was that they vastly overreached their bounds when they began attacking targets in an attempt to help the rebels win. They might have a moral right to prevent the rebels from getting slaughtered in Benghazi, but they had no right to support the rebels advances into Gaddaffi controlled territory. That is where they attempted to influence the war. If the rebels needed NATO air forces to conquer the whole country, which they did, then perhaps it wasn't as popular as we are led to believe. Boogaleeboo posted:That, or when a dictator doesn't give a gently caress what people think and the military stays with him, modern weapons make the populace fairly irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you outnumber the soldiers a thousand to one, they can fire that many bullets a second directly into your face. What do you do in the face of that, pray they don't feel like killing you today? Nenonen posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Apparently, to Ardent Communist, the NATO militaries are a manifestation of Imperialism while the Libyan military is a manifestation of The People's Will. Maybe it's more frightening in French?  Aaah!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 07:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:
Are we supposed to look at the beard and the funny hat and go "Oh noes bin Laden!" or is it trying to highlight the dangers of underground Tunisian florists?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
farraday posted:Maybe it's more frightening in French? Mr. Sunshine posted:Are we supposed to look at the beard and the funny hat and go "Oh noes bin Laden!" or is it trying to highlight the dangers of underground Tunisian florists? Looking up the significance of the flower I found out that the Caliphate was only abolished in 1924 when the French and the British convinced the Arab world to fight for them during WW2. This is apparently the cause of all the woes of Muslims today, so perhaps I'm just not informed enough of past events to be able to decode this magnificent cartoon. The only somewhat tangentially intelligent comment was one warning that Tunisia could potentially go the same way as Iran after the revolution. Hopefully the liberals/socialists are a bit more aware of the fundamentalist forces that I'm sure are there in some form, so they don't get surprised in the way they did in Iran. Would also help if the West stays out of it completely, otherwise we'll probably screw everything up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 08:23
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:Well, he had a pretty good reason for trying to get rid of that, because they were throwing around the Axis of Evil Moniker and invading countries at will. Honestly, the comparison with Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait doesn't really compare to much because certainly most of those countries have huge population of transient workers who are treated like absolute poo poo, but aren't citizens. Bahrain is actually a terrible comparison, because you had a large part of the population that had no jobs, was starving, and when they had large protesting groups trying to secure better conditions, they got shot and massacred. They even invited Saudi Arabia soldiers into the country to help put them down. You haven't made the slightest case that they're not comparable. This includes the populations of the countries of interest on page 185. The populations listed are what would be used in the computation of the overall HDI, and lo and behold, they've included the transient workers. It's almost like someone thought that excluding the poorest two thirds of the population of Kuwait would give inaccurate numbers. I'm not claiming that they're not treated like poo poo. They're treated like poo poo, included in the HDI and the countries still somehow manage to come out better than Libya. When they're blowing away protestors with live ammunition, Libya grits its teeth, whips out the ZSU-23-4s and gives its all to win the gold in the Repressive Shithole Olympiad. Trash talk them as much as you want; I'm not going to defend any of them. I'm just saying that Libya manages to be worse than a bunch of capitalist monarchies on measures that they don't even give a gently caress about and you're still defending Gaddaffi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 09:27
|
|
|
The revolution will not be the way my dogmatic little reptile brain wants it to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 09:46
|
|
|
http://www.tunisia-live.net/2011/10/25/tunisian-elections-live-updates-results/ Its looking like Ennahda will actually win the election and have a majority in the constitutional assembly based on them getting 45% of the popular vote and the implicit local hurdle rate (no constituency returning more than 10 delegates). Looks like the liberals CPR (15%) and the social democrats Ettakatol (10%) will form the serious opposition if Ennahda renegs on their pre-count promise to form a unity government with both; a party called Petition Populaire / Aridha Chaabia, run by Hakimi Hamdi who the Guardian and Tunisia Live seem to be describing as a possible Berlusconi type media mogul are surpising with 10%. Pre-election polling had the old opposition PDP running second at about 16%, but they are getting wiped out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:The revolution will not be the way my dogmatic little reptile brain wants it to be. It's like the thread a while ago where self professed leftists were arguing against the loving DREAM Act because it contain a provision that made citizenship easier for immigrants who served in the military. That was the only time I've actually gotten mad about something over the internet. There's something uniquely paternalistic in thinking that the oppressed need to stick to your ideals to be truly liberated, and that they should prefer ideological purity over victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 11:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:
He does look pretty I believe that means he is from one of those strange religious sects, obviously they wear flowerpots on their heads and hide in voting boxes, for too long were they repressed by dictatorship and unable to engage in those rituals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 11:39
|
|
|
Bad news you guys - Ennadha just won 3 out of the 4 seats from Tataouine. http://www.tunisia-live.net/2011/10/24/tunisian-election-results-tables/ (scroll down) What's their position on Droid Rights? Will they finally end the ban on droids in cantinas? Edit:What's the background on Aridha Chaabia? They currently have as many votes as Ettakol. Are they left, right, ex-Ben Ali? The X-man cometh fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 13:12
|
|
|
farraday posted:Maybe it's more frightening in French? It's actually even cuter!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
el samayo grande posted:Bad news you guys - Ennadha just won 3 out of the 4 seats from Tataouine. edit: nope... got it the other way round. quote:Tataouine's name became famous when George Lucas, who filmed the original Star Wars film in various locations of Tunisia (for example, the Lars Homestead, filmed at the Hotel Sidi Driss in Matmata), named Luke Skywalker's fictional home planet Tatooine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
What makes me laugh is pretty much all of us are glad that he is gone and yet you still get threads here that think Vladimir Putin is an amazingly cool guy, just because he poses for photos of him with tigers and poo poo. Still he ain't hurting us, just his own peoples freedom of speech so I guess it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 13:45
|
|
|
HRW - Libya: Transitional Council Failing to Secure Weaponsquote:Vast amounts of unsecured explosive weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, remain unguarded in the area around Sirte, Libya, Human Rights Watch said today. The National Transitional Council (NTC), Libya’s transitional government, has promised for months that it would secure weapons facilities. CS Monitor - In Qaddafi's hometown, signs of trouble for Libya quote:The flatbed trucks are the first sign of trouble. They are empty going from Misrata to Sirte; in the opposite direction they are loaded with cars, stacked sideways to fit as many as possible. Euronews video - Many dead in Sirte fuel depot blast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFsSQzUs_2I Reuters video - Sirte residents return home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15GWX7RWNhU
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
I liked this Rolling Stone story about Libya and how the US got involved. Very neat to see all the people behind the scenes, especially the NTC's involvement. (Hint: NTC hires a freaking PR firm.) Honestly, the US pretty much owned this one. Think of all the poo poo that could have happened. drat. samizdat fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 14:53
|
|
|
Everybody hires western PR firms. Qaddafi and Assad both had PR firms to reform their images.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
PR is literally a euphemism for propaganda keep in mind.1337JiveTurkey posted:whips out the ZSU-23-4s and gives its all to win the gold in the Repressive Shithole Olympiad I don't think this ever happened, its already been challenged in this thread with absolutely nothing supporting it posted. The AA guns on protestors seems to go hand in hand with the "giving out condoms and orders to rape" as things-that-were-reported-but-turned-out-to-be-bullshit. The fact that the media has reported things that turn out to be blatantly false fuels a lot of distrust in this whole affair, its very hard to take them at their word when you know they've already been lying to you right there in the present, never mind historical complacency by the media in western assisted regime change and other imperialist efforts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
This feels like it takes a slice from the Bosnian war. Were there not claims of "ethnic cleansing" (does not feel like the right term but Genocide is a word I shy away from) very early in the conflict from a western Libyan city that started with Z? (Couldn't find anything on google) I'm not saying that the "ethnic cleansing" in Sirte is or was justified. But if it is justified to the rebels that's all they need. Is it more human to take the high road or get even? I can understand why this would happen in Sirte. With Misrata looking like it would have certainly held the same fate as the western city I mentioned earlier (if the reports are true, this was several months ago and I haven't heard anything since), I can blame them, but I can't tell you I wouldn't have reacted the exact same way they have. But that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
RonaldResin posted:This feels like it takes a slice from the Bosnian war. Were there not claims of "ethnic cleansing" (does not feel like the right term but Genocide is a word I shy away from) very early in the conflict from a western Libyan city that started with Z? (Couldn't find anything on google) I'm not saying that the "ethnic cleansing" in Sirte is or was justified. But if it is justified to the rebels that's all they need. Is it more human to take the high road or get even? I can understand why this would happen in Sirte. With Misrata looking like it would have certainly held the same fate as the western city I mentioned earlier (if the reports are true, this was several months ago and I haven't heard anything since), I can blame them, but I can't tell you I wouldn't have reacted the exact same way they have. But that's just me. Maybe you're thing of Zintan or Zawiya? I'm not sure about ethnic cleansing, but in Zawiya there was definitely a lot of fighting, and reports make it sound like ordinary people were being shot in the street.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
samizdat posted:I liked this Rolling Stone story about Libya and how the US got involved. Very neat to see all the people behind the scenes, especially the NTC's involvement. (Hint: NTC hires a freaking PR firm.) Here is an article with a nice infographic about the early days of the intervention. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Honestly, I think you and you and your ilk are just upset that you were robbed of another failed revolution to lionize. From the Paris Commune to today, the far left has loved loved loved failed revolutions. Valiant heroes dying in glorious defiance to tyranny is your pornography, you need that "If only the people of X listened to glorious leader Y before he was subdued by reactionary tyrant Z." Failed revolutionaries enact no programs and never deal with the moral ambiguity of governance, leaving you with safely dead martyrs to lionize. You just can't accept that the Libyan Revolutionaries cooperated with the global powers that be and triumphed with their assistance. Rather than having Jibril and company safely dead where they could exist as figures of legend, they "sullied" themselves and won. How dare they not martyr themselves and choose to live and win? Please dont lump all the far left into one group cheers. I'm far left and respect the Libyan right to self determination. Pragmatically they had to get help, and despite the few good things Gaddafi did for his country I recognise that those did not offset the monstorious things he did. This revolution was never a marxist revolution, and frankly I'm glad, as there is no way in hell this world is ready for Communism. Also hero worship happens across political beliefs, its stupid and it should stop, it pisses me off as much as it does you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
I've been trying to find something solid on the last of the children of gaddafi - they were last headed out/south in Africa. Do they matter anymore? Is there enough substance in those who fought against the new regime to make out something meaningful in the time to come, or has it just crumbled like a house of cards? There are bits and pieces, but I haven't found/have overlooked anything on it from something reputable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Narmi posted:Maybe you're thing of Zintan or Zawiya? I'm not sure about ethnic cleansing, but in Zawiya there was definitely a lot of fighting, and reports make it sound like ordinary people were being shot in the street. Zawiya sounds like the right time and place, and the reports of cleansing could have easily been over hyped reports. I distinctly remember the claim being something of wiping out every male in the city, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
Hanibal Gaddafi, Saadi Gaddafi, Aisha Gaddafi, and Saif al Islam Gaddafi are left alive. Moatissim Gaddafi is confirmed dead, Khamis Gaddafi and Saif al Arab are assumed to be dead. Out of the remaining surviving children the only one who is any real threat is Saif al Islam, the others were too busy benifiting from the spoils of their fathers greed, and Khamis and Moatissim were the only real military minds. Even then, without massive amounts of money they are going to find it difficult to get backing for any revenge plans that are of any significant military scale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Hanibal Gaddafi, Saadi Gaddafi, Aisha Gaddafi, and Saif al Islam Gaddafi are left alive. Moatissim Gaddafi is confirmed dead, Khamis Gaddafi and Saif al Arab are assumed to be dead. Isn't Saadi in Niger? There's this big question mark on whether or not the government is going to hand him over to Interpol or let him stay there. Aisha, from what I remember, is in Belarus or Tunisia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Wonder what sort of pro-Kaddafi forces remain. There are reports out the rebels only control the coast, the interior tribal region is very pro-regime still. John McCain was on talk shows and wants a no fly zone over Syria now. I am very glad this jerk is not president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2025 05:53 |
|
|
Apparently Aisha Gaddafi called up Gaddafi's Sat Phone when he was captured and killed, and a rebel fighter answered and told her he was dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 17:23
|
|