conspiring the death of ghadaffi

surely in such an obvious case as the elimination of an unwanted government through also foreign means the whole idea of any sort of conspiracy is outrageous.

utterly farfetched. who would ever associate getting rid of despots with conspiracy's.
completely beyond me there are people that see conspiracy's everywhere.

let alone in such a case where the icc is fullfledgedly involved and hung to the next civic catastrophe, serajevo or sirte, what is the point to be made?

can we distract you?

so there is something uncanny about his death, it looks like an extrajudicial killing , a collector of gold guns on the run, targetted by nato, goated into the sewers, and apprehended by the next nearest unit in control.

anyway,

i don't know, habit or instinct, but as the news emerged i tried to understand what had happened,

there was no more anything tenable in the position in sirte, not for gold guns, and 75 vehicles
tried a break out, that is plausible, there have been enough desperate counteroffensives, and sirte was no exception.

it was a bit weird also the last time, where would you really break out to? the other thing would have been more or less to wait and die. the breakout initially went largely succesfull.

5km onward from the narrow frontline the nr of vehicles mentioned is still 75. allthough burned out carwrecks on tv now suggested another message.

that's a somewhat interesting detail. there is just that much suspicion. it would be a bit hard to get 75 running cars in an all out manouvre on the supposed square mile or less.

it also follows that to stay closest to the original story, 75 cars and the firepower was enough to make some impression, and a group, or unit of the ntc started to chase.

somehow it's already a bit of a strange affair, but perhaps reality was more confusing, and there were actually a few more things going on.

you could also interprete it that they broke through easily, and were not followed in another fashion then in coordination with nato , it's plane and drone.

it has been repeatedly reported to the media there were such or such advances in the coordination with ntc's forces,

especially in the kind of mixed action for example, and that most of the time past weeks nato had a presence over sirte. also that they struck on occasions.

with all that there is a continual and planned thing going on for a month. i would say nato knew what unit would follow.

actually they know much more then we think or they admit.

after the airplane struck, it "struck again against the eleven vehicles in one of wich was ghadaffi."
not against the others.

surviving the impact of that ghadaffi and still rather some of his men ran, apparently through some trees, to their last stand. the possibly so calculated irony of history.

running through trees is the one thing people like when they have just been shot at through the sky. and the cars did no more function, or perhaps even, they did no more dare to drive them.

anyway it took ages, when ntc arrived in the hot chase bridging the 3 mile gap in within 6 hours,
they located the refugees.

after some searching, nato appears to have been privvy about these sewer pipes. what does all the graffiti on them say i wonder?.
things about sewers and rats would be my first guess.

so they trim the anti aircraft guns, no that is not possible on a toyota, they train the antiaircraft guns and start firing, perhaps not in the general direction of the sewer pipes because it had no effect at all.

it's interesting to wonder what kind of effect they had been waiting for. you cant really surrender when people are firing anti aircraft guns in your general direction.

at least you would be a hero for trying. anyhow, whatever effect they expected, it failed to occur.

perhaps the ntc military was describing it's role in a slightly to positive light.

they had just been firing aircraft guns not in any direction at all. it is certain that nato nor anyone would allow for any of their embeddeds on the scene.

in that case i wonder why they stopped firing them, after all it had no effect.

next the man infiltrate.. oops i do it again,
i guess they didn't. they just got closer, not so hard i suppose when you have some 20 or 30 people in two sewer pipes and aircraft guns.

the story after this lacks depth, it allways does, you never hear the real story of the real heroes.

what he did tell was someone got out to call for surrender, that upon seeing his face (..)
started shooting at him.

thats also somehow weird, did he know his face?, but i gues it's lost in translation, the face of me or so.

what to think of that?

it's much like a clichee honestly, then again, could be, it was rather a suicidal affair all in all.

it's also the foremost excuse that applies for shooting potential prisoners on the frontline, so already news had come certain institutions were not quite happy without the live version of intolerance.

there is something about it, if it is really such a common affair, why is it the single incident singled out in the run of that story told,

beyond that, apparently the same man (the one that had dared to come out i suppose) said he had his boss muamar there and wanted to surrender.

in principle that is interesting if you want to know what has happened because it implies some interaction, on the other hand, it is also quite symbolic, it is not really a detail, 'the capture of muamar' is why the man is interviewed.

but symbolically it again need not be true, the guy that survived having started shooting in the face of an armed unit with antiaircraft guns, surrendered now for his boss.

whoever surrendered in what way, muamar was apparently seated, or more presumably lie down, wich suggests that the surrender was actually the kind of 'we inside the tube surrender to you outside the tube' and that they went in to enjoy the privilige of arrest.

(because he had a gun 'under him') so perhaps by that point indeed the ntc knew about muamar and had indeed started inspecting the (therefore wounded at his legs) prisoner.

a bit weird, since all the 24 body guards were killed.
somewhere along that way. he wasnt the last they got at, or the only, in fact mutassim has supposedly been filmed alive after that point. (couldnt tell if it is him eg.)

the really painfull point what happened with the other persons apparent is not the 'clean base for the future libya' we are talking about.

it's about killing someone from the elite, instead of a unit of common soldiers.

a warcrime.

oh yeah next? they beat him up a bit, and he dies, you can see him touch his head to get his hands in blood and watch it, how bad is it? seems.

so looks like they shot him by there, or let's say he shot his? someone shot him? maybe he was even hit in some last desperate shoot-out of the guards being 'no clean base for a future libya', and in the proces of being killed.

whatever. not what jabil or whatever his name said, if you feel it counts.
that they were shot at when they went army and all in pickups toward misrata.

because, the film that he is dead and dragged about bits so to see is at the same location where he is still alive. in the story after all next he is (dead i suppose), but in an ambulance, underway to misrata. where he is 'put in the morgue'. so no dancing on his corpse in that town.

that was all completely obvious. what was not obvious is what happened to the others,

in that context icc or nato and foreign ministry's don't impress me very much with their 'clean base for libya'. let's say that part has perhaps started after him being killed in the way so many that fought for him were.

why would a president or other member of the elite not become the same sort of warcasualty as the rest? suddenly be a warcrime?

it would be laughable if it wasn't so painfull.

what it is is exactly why we can be glad our time will not be wasted by endless verdicts on khadaffi, classjustice is a big fake and a cheat.

what a great time to set a wrong example badly. i really think they try to make up for that lost opportunity at icc.

for whatever reason and perhaps it is pretty mainstream, the usian voices appear to repeat a unified 'dictator' mantra, i suppose it doesn't really matter in the case, but how much of a fertile soil for propaganda of the kind that allows warfare through polarisation is usia still?

with that in mind there would be serious stuf to add.
mexico? iran? somehow they are out of their minds.