Reports: Muammar al-Qaddafi captured/ Updated: he’s with Saddam Hussein in Hell


Gadhafi is captured, Libya official claims

Unconfirmed reports say ousted dictator has died from his wounds


NBC, msnbc.com and news services
updated 14 minutes ago

SIRTE, Libya — Ousted dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been captured after the apparent fall of his hometown of Sirte, according to reports out of Libya.

National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid told Reuters that Gadhafi has been wounded in both legs. But Reuters later reported that Gadhafi had died of his wounds, citing a senior NTC military official.

Gadhafi was trying to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked, Majid said.

The head of Gadhafi’s armed forces, Abu Bakr Younus Jabr, was killed during the capture of the Libyan ex-leader, he added.

More at the link.
____________________________________________
Update:


‘We have been waiting for this moment’: Libya confirms Gadhafi is dead

SIRTE, Libya — Deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has been killed, the Libyan prime minister confirmed Thursday, following news of his capture and reports of his death.
“We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Moammar Gadhafi has been killed,” Jibril told a news conference.

The ousted dictator died of wounds suffered in his capture near his hometown of Sirte, according to a senior National Transitional Council military official and a government minister.

“He was killed in an attack by the fighters. There is footage of that,” the NTC’s information minister, Mahmoud Shammam, told Reuters.

The military official, Abdel Majid Mlegta, told Reuters that Gadhafi was taken at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy that NATO warplanes had attacked.

“There was a lot of firing against his group and he died,” said Mlegta.

Here is the Official CSPT Tribute to Colonel Qaddafi:

23 Comments

  1. Perry, this was a very brief post, bringing out the breaking news when it happened. Other than the Queen video, there’s no real commentary in the posting at all.

    Nor was there any particular need to mention President Obama’s role in this; I’ve previously supported the President’s decision concerning helping the rebels, though I did say he would have done much better had he acted three weeks earlier than he did.

    However, I do find it interesting that you think it a good thing to “free the people of Libya,” given that you thought it an absolutely horrible one to free the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. But, I’m sure that your apparent inconsistency has absolutely nothing to do with which President took those decisions.

  2. I don’t believe anyone has ever accused Perry of being consistent in his foreign policy positions. Only in his willfully blind and deaf hyper-partisan passive-aggressive dishonest behavior.

  3. However, I do find it interesting that you think it a good thing to “free the people of Libya,” given that you thought it an absolutely horrible one to free the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. But, I’m sure that your apparent inconsistency has absolutely nothing to do with which President took those decisions.

    Game.

    Set.

    Match.

  4. Dana Pico says:
    20 October 2011 at 21:50

    I’d also note that our good friend Henry Whistler is also telling us just how right President Obama was to help free the Libyans, but keeps telling us how terrible it was for us to free the Iraqis.

    The hypocrisy is very easy to understand. If an (R) helps free a country, they’re part of the ugly profiteering Military Industrial Complex. However, if a (D) helps free a country, it was done for the nobelest of causes. It’s just that simple.

  5. “The hypocrisy is very easy to understand. If an (R) helps free a country, they’re part of the ugly profiteering Military Industrial Complex. However, if a (D) helps free a country, it was done for the nobelest of causes. It’s just that simple.”

    And you don’t see the differences on how the two situations were handled, is that it Dana? Your integrity is in the dirt on this one!

  6. “The hypocrisy is very easy to understand. If an (R) helps free a country, they’re part of the ugly profiteering Military Industrial Complex. However, if a (D) helps free a country, it was done for the nobelest of causes. It’s just that simple.”

    No, Yorkshire, what is “just that simple” is the partisanship of you folks on the right, for being unwilling to admit to the big differences between the way Iraq was handled compared to Libya. You know what they are, so acknowledge it, if you have it in you to do so.

  7. No, Yorkshire, what is “just that simple” is the partisanship of you folks on the right, for being unwilling to admit to the big differences between the way Iraq was handled compared to Libya. You know what they are, so acknowledge it, if you have it in you to do so.

    Except that Perry is also on record supporting the ILLEGAL war in Kosovo (Wesley Clark so admitted), so once again consistency is out the window for our passive-aggressive cretin.

  8. No, Yorkshire, what is “just that simple” is the partisanship of you folks on the right, for being unwilling to admit to the big differences between the way Iraq was handled compared to Libya. You know what they are, so acknowledge it, if you have it in you to do so.

    Except that Perry is also on record supporting the ILLEGAL war in Kosovo (Wesley Clark so admitted), so once again consistency is out the window for our passive-aggressive cretin.

    But we are talking here about Libya, Hube, let me remind you, as you appear to have lost focus again, in order to make sure that you introduce another one of your red herrings. You are a master at it, at obfuscating I mean! And like I said before, more ad homs, because that is your style too, actually a sign of character weakness constantly on exhibit here!

  9. Perry wrote:

    “The hypocrisy is very easy to understand. If an (R) helps free a country, they’re part of the ugly profiteering Military Industrial Complex. However, if a (D) helps free a country, it was done for the nobelest of causes. It’s just that simple.”

    And you don’t see the differences on how the two situations were handled, is that it Dana? Your integrity is in the dirt on this one!

    First of all, you were quoting Yorkshire, not me. However, the situations were not identical: one could be handled without American troops on the ground, and the other could not. Apparently, you would have preferred to see over fifty million people in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to live under oppression, though, had President Obama or President Clinton led the effort against those dictators, I’d guess that your approval might have been a bit easier to earn.

    And what do we have here, Hillary Clinton, neocon? :)


    Clinton Pressures Pakistan To Dismantle Taliban

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Obama administration delivered a blunt warning Thursday that the United States will do what it must to go after militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan, whether Pakistan helps or not.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton led an unusually large U.S. delegation for two days of talks with civilian and military leaders who have resisted previous U.S. demands to take a harder tack against militants who attack American soldiers and interests in Afghanistan.

    The large U.S. contingent was meant to display unity among the various U.S. agencies, including the CIA, Pentagon and State Department, with an interest in Pakistan. CIA chief David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey joined Clinton, who said the team would “push Pakistan very hard.”

    There were cordial handshakes and greetings among the large U.S. and Pakistani delegation gathered at the office of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani as the first of two evening meetings began. Pakistan’s foreign minister, Army chief and intelligence head were expected to see their U.S. counterparts Thursday.

    Clinton arrived in Islamabad from Afghanistan, where she told Pakistan it must be part of the solution to the Afghan conflict. She said the U.S. expects the Pakistani government, military and intelligence services to take the lead in fighting Pakistan-based militants and also in encouraging Afghan militants to reconcile.

    “Our message is very clear,” Clinton said. “We’re going to be fighting, we are going to be talking and we are going to be building … and they can either be helping or hindering, but we are not going to stop.”

    President Bush couldn’t have said it better! :)

    More at the link, including a video that can’t be embedded here.

  10. But we are talking here about Libya, Hube, let me remind you, as you appear to have lost focus again, in order to make sure that you introduce another one of your red herrings.

    Is this a semi-new tactic — claiming we’re “not on point” when we refer to your hypocritical inconsistencies? I am a master at pointing this out, yes, but you make it ridiculously easy. But the point is is that such is ENTIRELY relevant. You try to divert because we regularly make you out to look like a 1st grade special ed. student.

    Here’s the facts: You support the Libya action and Kosovo action, bot of which are of dubious legality, yet oppose the Iraq action because ….? I remind you that you referred to Obama’s “efforts to free the people of Libya.” This is precisely what George W. Bush wished to do (in part) with Iraq.

  11. What you fail to realize, let alone understand, Dana, is that the circumstances with Iraq and Pakistan are remarkably different: Iraq was not a threat to us, Pakistan is, since we have troops in Afghanistan who are being attacked by Pakistani based militants! Moreover, Pakistan sheltered bin Laden, who created himself our enemy by attacking us on our soil, and by threatening further attacks. None of this was the case in Iraq, where we wasted American lives and treasure for next to nothing. And you are correct, President Bush could not have said it better, because we had ulterior motives in conquering Iraq, as we now know all too well.

    As I have said many times, we should be focusing our resources on defending and protecting our homeland. I note that we have not been attacked since that terrible Barack Obama took office, but never a word from you Righties about that.

    It continues to strike me as noteworthy and meaningful that you right wing partisans could not find it within yourselves to comment on how well President Obama handled the Libyan situation. We stepped back from the lead, provided support, spent about $2 billion, and put no American boots on the ground, therefore not an American killed or wounded. Contrast that with Iraq, Dana, if you will, where again, we faced no threat. You know the truth, but refuse to admit it.

    All that said about Afghanistan, President Obama’s escalation there has brought us little gain, rather loss of lives and expenditure of treasure. What good has or will come of this, I ask? I don’t see anything other than a continuation of failure, perhaps worse now that we are confronting the Pakistanis, a formidable nuclear power and an unpredictable entity, to what good ending for us? Sorry, I don’t see it, and we can ill afford its continuation on many levels. The only good over there is the bravery of our American troops (and others), who are over there fighting for our country, because that is what they have been asked by their CiC to do. That bravery does not make it a wise thing to do!

  12. Iraq was not a threat to us, Pakistan is

    Libya wasn’t a threat to us either. Neither was Kosovo.

    Perry: Hypocrite to the Nth power.

  13. Right, Hube, as I said, Iraq was not a threat to us, but we spent thousands of American lives, injured, and collateral lives and injuries, and infrastructure damage, plus a trillion dollars on that neocon fantasy. What does that have to say about the sanity of your party leaders, and Dana too?

    In contrast to Iraq, which we invaded in order to occupy that country and build a huge military headquarters and 17 other bases throughout that country, in Kosovo the purpose was to put a stop to a clear case of ethnic cleansing, and in Libya the purpose was to support a revolution against a cruel and greedy dictator.

    So yes, Hube, these are major distinctions, which you would just as soon gloss over in order to make your simplistic points about inconsistencies and your childish personal attacks.

  14. Oh, I see, so despite the fact that Kosovo and most likely Libya were illegal, they were perfectly OK. But to go in and remove a dictator who started two wars, thwarted the UN at every turn, and was dealing with terrorists left and right, that doesn’t matter in your hyperpartisan dogmatic alternate universe.

    At least I am consistent — I opposed all three interventions. You support only those who share your party affiliation, hypocrite.

    You’re sick, Perry. Get help.

  15. “Oh, I see, so despite the fact that Kosovo and most likely Libya were illegal, they were perfectly OK. But to go in and remove a dictator who started two wars, thwarted the UN at every turn, and was dealing with terrorists left and right, that doesn’t matter in your hyperpartisan dogmatic alternate universe.

    At least I am consistent — I opposed all three interventions. You support only those who share your party affiliation, hypocrite.

    You’re sick, Perry. Get help.”

    What was illegal about Kosovo and Libya, Hube?

    And party affiliation has nothing to do with it, except in your mind.

    Finally, I note that you just cannot resist that good old ad hom. In other words, your arguments alone cannot stand on their own merit without your exercising your usual compulsion.

  16. What was illegal about Kosovo and Libya, Hube?

    Here we go. Posted that MANY times here when this has been brought up previously. I am not responsible for your pathetic memory. Google “Wesley Clark Kosovo illegal” and you’ll find out.

    As for Libya, there’s the issue of The Messiah not reporting to Congress via the provisions of the War Powers Act.

    Finally, I note that you just cannot resist that good old ad hom. In other words, your arguments alone cannot stand on their own without your exercising your usual compulsion.

    Just imitating you, Perry.

  17. Ah, one had to wonder what angle you guys were going to take, and it’s using this as justification for your sins, a common approach for you guys. You see, Libya now equals Iraq! Both are, “freeing people,” you see, so x=y.

    Libya: No land invasion, rebel support only, seven months. No American troops dead. A billion dollar operation. A natural revolution with some legitimacy takes over. Minor American involvement.

    Iraq: 100,000+ Iraqis dead, 4,478 American soldiers all dead as a doornail, 33,000 wounded American soldiers, who the hell knows how many Iraqis. $800 billion (including billions and billions in waste and unaccounted-for spending) and counting by conservative estimates that don’t include future costs of caring for soldiers. Seven years. Strategic blundering. No WMDs after a campaign of bu11sh1t and half-truths over the factual and logical objections of millions of protesting Americans.

    But heck, you guys can’t tell the difference between East and West Germany. Or Obama and a Communist. So sure, Iraq=Libya and don’t you KNOW THOSE LBIERALS ARE HYPOCRITES AND THEY JUST PROVED US RIGHT AGAIN!

    Just deal with this: Obama is fighting a better, smarter war than the one Gee Dubya bungled through, and he’s winning it. Not only that, he’s putting much of it to rest, with all troops leaving Iraq this year and Afghanistan expected to wind down. He’s used hard power and he’s used soft power, and it’s resulted in dead terrorists, dead dictators, and democratic Arab revolutions.

    Dana’s given some credit in the past to Obama for this, but trying to get revenge with this dimwitted comparison really spoils the integrity.

  18. So, what are you saying here, that you approve of liberating the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you simply don’t think that President Bush led a particularly good effort at doing so? Or was it wrong to liberate those people, but right to liberate those in Libya?

  19. Dana: You’re arguing with straw men. I’ve never heard anybody argue that the Iraqi people escaping the tyranny of Hussein was not good. Of course it was.

    What we’re talking about here is the difference between two entirely different approaches to war in the middle east. George Bush Sr. had an opportunity to overthrow Iraq in 1991, and all he had to do was provide support to the rebels. He literally betrayed them and allowed them to be slaughtered by Saddam. That’s the kind of effort I also supported in 2003, the empowerment of the Iraqi people. And that’s the same kind of effort Obama employed in Libya, resulting in the kind of outcome I’ve been talking about for the past twelve years since I’ve learned the full history of the Gulf War.

    So it’s really easy to figure out what I’m saying here, Dana, if you’re actually interested in listening.

  20. Perry says:
    20 October 2011 at 23:52 (Edit)

    “The hypocrisy is very easy to understand. If an (R) helps free a country, they’re part of the ugly profiteering Military Industrial Complex. However, if a (D) helps free a country, it was done for the nobelest of causes. It’s just that simple.”

    No, Yorkshire, what is “just that simple” is the partisanship of you folks on the right, for being unwilling to admit to the big differences between the way Iraq was handled compared to Libya. You know what they are, so acknowledge it, if you have it in you to do so.

    It’s just that simple Perry. How about when the Progressives said 9/11 was Bush’s fault, and we could drag up dozens of comments about the Irag/Afghanistan wars. Now your idol has negotiated us out of Iraq. You’ll say how great, we’ll say another dumbass mistake.

  21. Apparently, you would have preferred to see over fifty million people in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to live under oppression,

    As has been shown, those 50 million people are still living under regimes THAT TORTURE CIVILIANS. Apparently, to wingnuts, when it’s a government they like, rape rooms, cattle prods and drilling people’s kneecaps isn’t “oppression”.

    What a bunch of foul-minded ass-kissers you cretins are.

Comments are closed.