dune Posted 21 October, 2011 Author Posted 21 October, 2011 B*ll*cks. Hes been lucky so far (right short-term result and no casualties). Lets see what sort of goverment Libya ends up with. Oi. I gave you a toppa in the tree huggers thread. Some gratitude would be in order.
Minty Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Oi. I gave you a toppa in the tree huggers thread. Some gratitude would be in order. lol - this may come as a shock dune, but people can have different opinions on different subjects.
badgerx16 Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Rhodesia if it was down to me. Now that would be a popular war. Presumably you would want a return to minority, apartheid style, Government ?
dune Posted 21 October, 2011 Author Posted 21 October, 2011 Presumably you would want a return to minority, apartheid style, Government ? Apartheid was never adopted in Rhodesia. Please refrain from further contribution until you have educated yourself on the subject.
badgerx16 Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Apartheid was never adopted in Rhodesia. Please refrain from further contribution until you have educated yourself on the subject. I said 'apartheid style', I suggest you try to improve your cognitive abilities. If you believe that the black majority had any sort of say in how that country was run then you are deluded. "In the colony of Rhodesia the native Africans were ruled by an all-white government in which they were not allowed to participate. Only whites were granted the right to vote and elect the leaders governing their land. Laws were passed which prohibited the presence of Africans in many public places. Ordinances allowed for inequitable distribution the land that provided Zimbabwe's large population of farmers with sustenance. Under these ordinances, 6000 whites seized the best half of the land while the worst half was left to the 600,000 black peasant farmers (Chung 211). During the colonial rule that extended from 1890 to 1979, the white minority dominated and oppressed the native population and divested them of their land." ( http://english.emory.edu/Bahri/Zimb.html )
moonraker Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Apartheid was never adopted in Rhodesia. Please refrain from further contribution until you have educated yourself on the subject. Heres a bit of edumacation for ya "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" or in case your edumacation is truly as limited and selective as your numerous posts would indictae "if it looks like aparthied and acts like aparthied it is F**cking aparthied"
alpine_saint Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 but on the issue of Libya can we agree that he has shown that a Conservative Government is better at managing global affairs. Yeah, so long as it doesnt require a f**king Navy.........
dune Posted 21 October, 2011 Author Posted 21 October, 2011 Yeah, so long as it doesnt require a f**king Navy......... Blame Labour for the mess they left this time around and for giving away our Empire before that. We don't have the finances or the requirements we once had.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 First Bin Laden and now Gaddafi, and British politicans lining up to rejoice. Funny that because is it was Huntley, Fred West or Hindly they'd bang on about the death penalty having no place in a civilised society.
ecuk268 Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Rhodesia if it was down to me. Now that would be a popular war. They haven't got any oil so nobody gives a toss
View From The Top Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 First Bin Laden and now Gaddafi, and British politicans lining up to rejoice. Funny that because is it was Huntley, Fred West or Hindly they'd bang on about the death penalty having no place in a civilised society. Gaddafi was shot by the opposing side in a civil war so hardly the same as the Bin Laden operation.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Gaddafi was shot by the opposing side in a civil war so hardly the same as the Bin Laden operation. Shot, instead of being put on trial. The Israelis would have been condemned by Leftie's everywhere had they done the same thing.
View From The Top Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 (edited) Shot, instead of being put on trial. The Israelis would have been condemned by Leftie's everywhere had they done the same thing. Were they supposed to ask him nicely if he'd mind coming along to the gallows? It's not like a movie where the principal is left standing unscathed in a firefight whilst those around him are struck down. He was shot in a fire fight, he died. It was nothing like the Bin Laden incident and you're going all Daily Mail over a non issue. Edited 21 October, 2011 by View From The Top
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Were they supposed to ask him nicely if he'd mind coming along to the gallows? It's not like a movie where the principal is left standing unscathed in a firefight whilst those around him are struck down. He was shot in a fire fight, he died. It was nothing like the Bin Laden incident and you're going all Daily Mail over a non issue. You dont seriously believe he wasn't executed do you? Eye witness' are claiming that his son was captured alive, but he then turned up dead a few minutes later. I'm all for the death penalty, all for mass murderers being exacuted and filmed on mobile phones, but I'm not selective about it. If some hairy grunt did for Huntley during an "incident" in prison, Cameron and the rest of the two faced bastards would be condemning it.
Thedelldays Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 You dont seriously believe he wasn't executed do you? Eye witness' are claiming that his son was captured alive, but he then turned up dead a few minutes later. I'm all for the death penalty, all for mass murderers being exacuted and filmed on mobile phones, but I'm not selective about it. If some hairy grunt did for Huntley during an "incident" in prison, Cameron and the rest of the two faced bastards would be condemning it. it is because of the absolute outrage the liberals would make of it he did said...meh
View From The Top Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 If he'd been seized by Western troops and shot you'd have something to get hysterical about. He wasn't, he was shot by his own people, during a civil war whilst at the center of a firefight. Very, very different to Bin Laden and one could argue a better end than Saddam.
View From The Top Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 it is because of the absolute outrage the liberals would make of it he did said...meh Don't be such a co ck. Left or right couldn't give a shiny sh*t if he got a 9mm behind the ear on his knees by the side of a jeep.
Thedelldays Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Don't be such a co ck. Left or right couldn't give a shiny sh*t if he got a 9mm behind the ear on his knees by the side of a jeep. I'm on about huntley
dune Posted 21 October, 2011 Author Posted 21 October, 2011 (edited) Personally I'm glad he was shot in a crossfire (ha ha - bet British diplomats have been advising the NTC on that one!) or executed, because it saves all the hassle of a trial and it puts the matter to bed and rebuilding can commence. Edited 21 October, 2011 by dune
manji Posted 21 October, 2011 Posted 21 October, 2011 Lets see how this develops. I remember the scenes of jubilation when Saddam was overthrown. How did that work out ?
dune Posted 21 October, 2011 Author Posted 21 October, 2011 Lets see how this develops. I remember the scenes of jubilation when Saddam was overthrown. How did that work out ? The big hope for Libya is the small population relative to their oil wealth. They could easily rival rich gulf emirates.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now