Would you capture or kill Gadhafi?

[QuotePort]

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.

[Jordan:A]

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.

[Jordy]

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.

[Special]

capture, torture then kill in that order

[Ardemax]

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.

[.Tom.]

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

[Showder]

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

[Oleh]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

[Marbian]

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.