You are here
Home > News > Headlines > Execution of anti-Western al-Gaddafi suggests he wasn’t strongman enough

Execution of anti-Western al-Gaddafi suggests he wasn’t strongman enough

Gaddafi, Qadhafi, Zenga Zenga, dead deadI know very little about the dark side of Colonel Gaddafi. I’ve never seen him outside the filter of Western media. For all I know he emptied baby incubators, hid WMDs and ran rape camps. He wasn’t responsible for Lockerbie, the CIA knows that much. The deposed leader’s execution yesterday was nothing to celebrate. It was sad, brutal and shrouded in mystery. Hugo Chavez hailed Gaddafi as a fallen hero, and I’ve never had occasion to disagree with Chavez. Nor have I ever taken issue with George Galloway and he hated Gaddafi. Probably the aging revolutionary was both heroic and corrupt, eccentric and lunatic. Gaddafi was the most powerful protector of Africa, and the only leader to have apologized for Arab role in African slave trade. Naturally he had to be booted from the club.

Is the US only ever up against evil strongmen? Isn’t it obvious that any leader who opposes US hegemony has to be a strongman? Putin is as formidable as any former Soviet foe, and by comparison, Gaddafi was fey. He let down his guard, thought he could sell out to the New World Order and keep his nationalized oil. But the Capitalist jackals do not respect ideologues and will exploit it as weakness.

Captured alive, Gaddafi was brutally mobbed, although the predominant Arabic voices urged keeping him alive. Multiple video angles contradict the official statement that Gaddafi succumbed to crossfire. Video images seem to show special uniformed soldiers heading against the flow of Libyan fighters converging on Gaddafi after the fatal shots.

Was this a Mussolini moment? Hardly. To the last moment Gaddafi seemed incredulous that his people would betray him. I’m not really sure they did. He railed against the CIA and al-Qaeda backed “rebels” who were tearing Libya asunder. NATO’s strength undoubtedly tipped the balance, and Gaddafi’s demilitarization of Libya left him with insufficient defenses.

Looking at a video still of the final moments of Libya’s deposed leader, I’m reminded of the picture we once posted of Silvio Berlusconi’s bloodied face. We took it down I believe because it celebrated violence I suppose. I regret caving to whatever bastards took offense. Their timid sensibilities keep fascists like Berlusconi in power. Since that one glorious grasp at justice populi the Italian despot has stayed out of the public grasp, the Prince of Wales nearly didn’t it.

The Western press is pitching Gaddafi’s undignified death as a warning to all leaders who challenge white rule. I think it’s significance reaches much further. Summary execution at the hands of a mob. Could happen to the highest of the well heeled.

2 thoughts on “Execution of anti-Western al-Gaddafi suggests he wasn’t strongman enough

  1. Where is your proof that Gaddafi was uninvolved with the Lockerbie bombing? And if he was not, and you are actually correct–why was he shielding the bomber?

  2. Ooo… White Rule.
    What proof did YOU have that he was involved?
    As to why would one not bow down before the “White Rule” fascists like Reagan and Thatcher and the Bush cartel, with or without being guilty, why would Saddam Hussein not back down to them even though he didn’t have the WMDs, wasn’t hiding Osama, wasn’t involved in 9/11?

    What goes around comes back around, if Bush could start wars that murdered millions of mostly civilians in dozens of countries based on the the “1% chance that they MIGHT be guilty” rule, then why shouldn’t we judge THEIR murderous Bush/Blair/Brown/Thatcher/Reagan Imperialist Thugs by an equal rule?

    It was up to the Prosecution to prove guilt in every legal system since the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses, why The Accused have to prove that we’re not guilty now? Is it a case of Might Makes Right or is it WHITE makes right or a combination of the two?

    If the British PIGS and American PIGS couldn’t get the evidence proving it why are we supposed to dig up the evidence disproving it?

    I mean, they had all the resources of two of the wealthiest Ruling Classes in the world to draw upon, White? I mean Right?

    There’s a shitload of proof that both the British Monarchy and the U.S. Corporate Dictatorship has a long history of wanting the natural resources of any other country, say, the Canal Zone and control of the (then) yet to be built canal, Colombia was about to sell the rights to the French so the Colombians were declared to be a dictatorship, a “popular grassroots” revolution was staged and the U.S., ever only the Kindly Big Brother, stepped in to make sure the poor, poor “panamanian” people weren’t over-run and then simply stayed.

    Same in Iraq, same in Afghanistan, same in the Philippines, same in Libya. If American Corporations weren’t swooping down on the Libyan resources like buzzards on a dead cow, as soon as the resources were “liberated” then your demand for proof of innocence would still be in the wrong, legally and morally.

    Instead, since American Taxpayers have paid for the “liberation” of those resources the Corporate Empire has now claimed the “right and duty to protect, at the cost of the majority of the profits reaped from those resources” Just Like The Rich Bitch Elitists Did In Iraq that leaves a lot more proof lacking on YOUR side that you were right to overthrow anybody, doesn’t it?

    Especially since your tame Fascist press is convicting a man posthumously with no more proof than “well, he could have done it”.

    Where’s your proof that he WAS guilty? Hiding in some closet in one of Saddam’s closets with the WMDs?

    Face it, those accusing people after they’re dead simply Do Not Have The Moral High Ground.

Leave a Reply

Top