Would you capture or kill Gadhafi?

Hello there , Good AM/PM!

Today's debate I have considered to create is all about the current crisis in Libya , where Gadhafi has not been found. Since 6 months Gadhafi , the dictator of the country has fled into hiding , as majority of rebels are out to capture him. As you have seen in newspapers or TV , everyone is on the lookout for this infamous guy right now.

Your debate is .. if you were placed in a position of the rebels , would you either capture or to your choice , kill Gadhafi for your nation?

What if .... Gadhafi wasn't even found? Would you still try finding or hunting him? You could add some points to your statement , clear stating why Ghadafi should be captured or killed , in your decision.
My suggestion is , do not go out of this topic please as it may result in arguments!
All the best in your claims and good luck!

Capture. If they want democracy then they should do the honourable thing and just capture him and put him on trial. He's not a dangerous man as a single object, and to kill him straight away would be an anti-climax and barbaric for a nation that wants to modernise and advance socially.

If he did go into hiding, would he really be that dangerous? He's lost his powers if he loses Libya, and is just another grain of sand in the desert - completely harmless. That's assuming Libya resolves any problems and isn't divided.

I think you've asked the wrong question.The rebels have had so many loses. They'd do nothing but kill Gaddafi?

I think if there was a credible ground force you would of course capture him because it would be illegal to do otherwise.

I would put him on trial and should he be found guilty would like to see him hung.

Considering that the SAS are there in plain clothes helping search for him, they will most likely capture him. The NATO will have a deal in place of some sort to keep him alive so that he can be punished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuotePort

Considering that the SAS are there in plain clothes helping search for him, they will most likely capture him. The NATO will have a deal in place of some sort to keep him alive so that he can be punished.

---

I don't think it's ethical to have SAS in there looking for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

I don't think it's ethical to have SAS in there looking for him.

---

Neither is supplying the rebel forces with weapons, at least if the SAS do find him we'll have some say in how the situation goes down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuotePort

Neither is supplying the rebel forces with weapons, at least if the SAS do find him we'll have some say in how the situation goes down.

---

No we won't. The people should choose, not us!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

No we won't. The people should choose, not us!?

---

Yeah, I'm sure some armed rebel pumped with adrenaline who has just broken into the former dictators hideout won't make an influenced split-second decision. At least the SAS will have a cool head.

But don't get me wrong, I do believe that they should decide. I just don't think that they are in a position to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuotePort

Yeah, I'm sure some armed rebel pumped with adrenaline who has just broken into the former dictators hideout won't make an influenced split-second decision. At least the SAS will have a cool head.

---

Are you CRAZY? it's not our fight to get involved in. Do you know how much iraq and afghanistan has cost us? We're broke mate!
Also their dictator doesn't pose a thread to us, unlike saddam "did" LMAO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

Are you CRAZY? it's not our fight to get involved in. Do you know how much iraq and afghanistan has cost us? We're broke mate!
Also their dictator doesn't pose a thread to us, unlike saddam "did" LMAO.

---

You say that, but if we just left them to it the country would end up split and in ruins. You know Britain & other European countries are a magnet for refugees. At least if we help we have a chance of keeping Libya a stable enough country for them to stay there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuotePort

You say that, but if we just left them to it the country would end up split and in ruins. You know Britain & other European countries are a magnet for refugees. At least if we help we have a chance of keeping Libya a stable enough country for them to stay there.

---

Britain doesn't need another oilfield. we have enough. we need to stay out of this one and hope that the transitional council will be fine.

Your attitude is ignorant to the fact if it did 'split' then there'd be no need for refugee's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

Britain doesn't need another oilfield. we have enough. we need to stay out of this one and hope that the transitional council will be fine.

Your attitude is ignorant to the fact if it did 'split' then there'd be no need for refugee's.

---

Hey, I thought we were having a debate here. No need to call me ignorant.

How many people from Iraq & Afghanistan live over here now since the war? Alot!

I would say capture because killing him would create more problems.

Hmmmmmm , I also agree with capturing :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuotePort

Hey, I thought we were having a debate here. No need to call me ignorant.

How many people from Iraq & Afghanistan live over here now since the war? Alot!

---

Only because we were too stupid to allow them, asylum laws (internationally agreed) state that asylum seekers should seek safety in the first safe country that they cross into. As Britain is an island nation surrounded by continental nations which are considered safe, we should have no asylum seekers at all.

I've got to agree with the statement above.

I wouldn't do anything, it has nothing to do with me, it's not my fault their government was so ****e and created a huge spark leading to rebel groups forming.

I'd capture him. I don't see what good killing him does and to use a cliché to kill him would be a crime so you're just as bad as him, a criminal. At the end of the day he has told his army to shoot at his own people. He should be locked up and made to pay for what he has done.

I would capture him, and let a judge give him a sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Only because we were too stupid to allow them, asylum laws (internationally agreed) state that asylum seekers should seek safety in the first safe country that they cross into. As Britain is an island nation surrounded by continental nations which are considered safe, we should have no asylum seekers at all.

---

I'm sure all asylum seekers are clued up on this... hence all the illegal asylum seekers in the UK.

Asylum laws don't mean squat to a lot of these people.

Wouldn't care, as long as I got the 1 million for doing it.
Once I handed him over I wouldn't care what they done to him.

I don't think it matters either way, just as long as one or the other happens. Ideally he'd be captured and tried in a court to set an example but if he was shot, I wouldn't exactly be devastated.

It's like Bin Laden, it didn't really bother me whether he was captured or killed, just that he was found and taken care of.

capture, torture then kill in that order

Capture and then imprison for life.

Put a constant camera on him to humiliate (seriously he's an idiot, it's what he deserves) and show everyone this "great" leader.

Much more suffering than being hung.

Capture > public trial > when found guilty given the death penalty - Same as Saddam Hussain

Capturing is everyone's choice , what is ur idea bout killing?

Capture him. Put him in a 6foot high 2 foot wide box. fill it with bees. shake box. Torture the bugger

I don't understand the over-the-top hatred towards Gaddafi in this thread, sure i'm the first to denounce a socialist dictator who was brutal and cuddled upto the western world for many years. However, the question 'would I capture or kill Gaddafi?' - neither, it is none of our business. I simply ask myself, who is of more concern to us (or who should be); Blair, Brown, Cameron, Bush and Obama who have invaded countless nations based upon scaremongering and outright lies and caused more deaths through these wars in a decade or so than Gaddafi did in his 42-year rule, or Gaddafi, a foreign dictator of little or no concern to this country.

We don't like to hear that, but its true. But because they are 'one of us' we dismiss it as anti-war drivel. I think its a serious question.

I haven't really followed up on Gaddafi's past, so if I say something that might be wrong then sorry. :)

Basically, I think the world should of helped him. He's been in government longer than I've been alive... And these people trying to take over him could be anyone. If the French tried to take over Great Britain, Well, David Cameron... I'm sure he'll fight for him self, and I'm sure other countries would help.

It's like the loot... People see a chance to do something, mess up things, take over and destory other peoples lifes... So they do it! They see a opportunity.

Many people in Lybia loved Gaddafi... And he tried fighting people trying to kill him and boom all the world is on his arse because he killed some people that were in the shot. I'm pretty sure he had no attention to kill his own people!

I know there's stuff before, with him starting wars on other countries, or slavery and things... But if we tried taking over our government because of things their ******* up, 'riot's', they'd go ape on us with army, police, and so on. In Lybia, they're people using weapons against them. They have to fight back... And what hope has Gaddafi got when other counties bangwagon alongside with rebals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .Tom.

Capture > public trial > when found guilty given the death penalty - Same as Saddam Hussain

---

I agree with Tom!

I will capture him for the sake of da nation.
Peoples wanna see him alive in a jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodon

I will capture him for the sake of da nation.
Peoples wanna see him alive in a jail.

---

Well, I don't really think that's an appropriate action. You just sound like you are generalizing everything and summaries it into one silly assumption. Capturing him is not our business, like Undertaker said and seeing him alive in jail would've create a lot of problems. Do bear in mind that he has some loyal supporters and by putting him in a jail would not solve the problem. It would make it worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GirlNextDoor15

Well, I don't really think that's an appropriate action. You just sound like you are generalizing everything and summaries it into one silly assumption. Capturing him is not our business, like Undertaker said and seeing him alive in jail would've create a lot of problems. Do bear in mind that he has some loyal supporters and by putting him in a jail would not solve the problem. It would make it worse.

---

If you kill him, it will be worse. What will happen if his "loyal" supporters realize that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodon

If you kill him, it will be worse. What will happen if his "loyal" supporters realize that?

---

Well, it's the similar thing here. If you put him in jail, his supporters will rebel. Read the news lol. Why did you even put inverted comas for the word loyal? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GirlNextDoor15

Why did you even put inverted comas for the word loyal? :P

---

Because his rebel is not really loyal. I believe they are loyal because they are corrupted by the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodon

Because his rebel is not really loyal. I believe they are loyal because they are corrupted by the government.

---

Can you stop making assumptions? Lmao. This is a debate. You cannot generalize everything.
We cannot do anything about Gadhafi. It's none of our business and that's it.

Nuff' said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GirlNextDoor15

Can you stop making assumptions? Lmao. This is a debate. You cannot generalize everything.
We cannot do anything about Gadhafi. It's none of our business and that's it.

Nuff' said.

---

But you asking me. :rolleyes: