E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Alastair Jamieson, msnbc.com
This $16 million house in the Hampstead area of London was bought by Moammar Gadhafi's playboy son Saadi about six months before the Arab Spring uprisings began.
LONDON -- With nine bedrooms, a stylish indoor pool and a suede-walled private movie theater, it was a standout luxury home -- even in a London neighborhood already full of celebrities and super-rich foreign oligarchs.
But after being wrecked by squatters, 7 Winnington Close is now at the center an international court battle over the multi-billion dollar assets of dead Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
The $16 million property, in north London’s wealthy Hampstead area, was bought by the despot's playboy son Saadi about six months before the Arab Spring uprisings began.
Now that the Gadhafi regime has been swept away, Libya's new government wants ownership of the home, alleging it was purchased with cash plundered illegally from the state and its citizens.
The country's new rulers will ask Britain's High Court on Friday for the repatriation of the property as the proceeds of corruption.
Lawyer Mohamed Shaban will argue that Saadi, a former professional soccer player who is now living under house arrest in Niger, could not possibly have afforded the mansion on his wages as a commander in the Libyan army and therefore must have purchased it with state funds.
Glentree Estates
This file photo provided by a real estate agent shows a bedroom in the London home belonging to Saadi Gadhafi.
Fast cars
It is significant development – the first international move to recover parts of the vast Gadhafi family portfolio of property, hedge funds, fast cars and private jets.
"If we are successful, we will then start to build a case for the other assets," Giuma Bukleb, media attaché to the Libyan Embassy in London, told msnbc.com.
The court case will also signal the end of a year-long occupation of the house by squatters.
A group calling itself "Topple The Tyrants" took over the house during the uprising, demanding that it be returned to its "rightful owners," the Libyan people.
The squatters unfurled a banner on the roof that read, "Out of Libya, Out of London" and "Solidarity," and posted a notice on the door declaring the building occupied – a move that under British law prevents owners from using force to access to their own property without the backing of court bailiffs.
One Libyan law student who took part in the occupation told the London Evening Standard the mansion had been "pretty much destroyed" inside, adding: "There's no furniture, just mattresses. The swimming pool is smashed and the heating doesn't work."
Alastair Jamieson, msnbc.com
A notice posted at the door of Saadi Gadhafi's house in Hampstead, London.
When msnbc.com visited the house this week there was no answer at the door. A black leather couch had been pushed up against the side entrance to prevent access.
'Peace and quiet'
The occupation has bemused neighbors, whose quiet cul-de-sac is now regularly besieged by reporters and Libyan political activists.
"It was noisy at the start but we haven’t heard anything for a while," said one neighbor, who declined to be named. "I hope the court action is successful so that Libyans get their property and we get our peace and quiet."
Mahmud Turkia / AFP - Getty Images, file
Saadi Gadhafi is a former professional soccer player. He is under house arrest in Niger.
Robert Palmer, a campaigner for anti-corruption group Global Witness, said Friday's court case would be "hugely significant."
"This is the first action to recover the British assets of an Arab Spring dictator," he said. "A lot of people will be watching to see what happens."
$20 billion in assets?
Bukleb said much of the Gadhafi family's property is in London, where one of the dictator's sons, Seif, attended the London School of Economics.
Dealings with Gadhafi son embarrass London college
Libyan Embassy officials say a court victory will trigger a deeper investigation into the Gadhafi family's complex network of assets, which Britain's Treasury estimates could be worth almost $20 billion in total.
Alastair Jamieson
A discarded sofa blocks entry to Saadi Gadhafi's home in Hampstead, London.
Many are owned through offshore investment companies. The house at the center of Friday's case is registered to Capitana Seas Ltd., a company based in the British Virgin Islands. The embassy's lawyers were forced to seek the U.K. Treasury's intervention in order to establish a link to Saadi Gadhafi, who is thought to be one of the company's directors.
Embassy officials believe the family's U.K. property assets include the $200 million Portman House on Oxford Street and apartments worth a total of $25 million in South Kensington.
"The fact is, we simply do not know for certain exactly how much the Gadhafi family had in London," Bukleb said.
A year after revolt, Libya mired in factional fighting
The National Transitional Council (NTC) won United Nations approval to access $1.55 billion in Libyan currency held in the U.K. by printer De La Rue last year.
Patrick Kovarik / AFP - Getty Images
A look at the life and times of Libya's mercurial and flamboyant leader
Palmer believes Capitana Seas will not contest the court action because it is owed money by Saadi.
'Greedy hands'
Saadi's lawyer, Jerusalem-based Nick Kaufman, did not verify that claim, but told msnbc.com: "Even if Saadi was a director of the company, he was never lawfully served with any legal documentation relating to this outrageously speculative claim."
He added: "The NTC, which has been criticized for a lack of transparency in its own financial dealings, is exploiting the fact that my client is currently subject to wholly unjustified international sanctions and an Interpol red notice for baseless criminal charges -- which it itself instigated.
"As a result my client cannot leave the humanitarian protection afforded him by Niger without fear of unlawful arrest. He can neither travel abroad nor can he get access to funds, at present, to instruct British lawyers to represent his interests in the face of this outrageously speculative claim based on surmise and not evidence."
He added that the court action is "a meritless publicity stunt designed to lay greedy hands on a property that was lawfully acquired."
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Mansions, jets: Libya battles to seize $20 billion in Gadhafi assets
- Dogs sniff out key anti-terror role at London Olympics
- How did 'KONY 2012' video spread so fast?
- Tsunami survivors: Starting a family, facing an uncertain future
- An Egyptian career woman? Soon it could be rare
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
They need to track down who trashed the house and jail them.
Who would make a law where anyone can occupy your house and you can't kick them out!
Yes that is insane.
That's English law (takes time for us yanks to understand). Having lived in the UK for several years I can imagine the destruction to the place.
Holland had a law like that too, and because of that, there were many MANY homes in Amsterdamn and other large Dutch cities that were essentially abandoned, but had lots of unemployeed teens and 20 somethings living there. It was hte epitome of liberal socialism. These kids would live there while collecting checks from the government, using drugs all day, with no job.
Well, at least the sofa will keep people out, now.
In the US, he would have gotten more house, or more value, for his $16 million. That old house in the picture looks awful.
Craig,
Would OWS pass a law that your house could be occupied? The answer is no, because they can't pass laws. They just occupy it without the law.
I should find myself a house in London to occupy. What a wreck, this law!
I don't know where this will all end but if this is going to mean cases against some or all the countries that aided Libya then I think it only fair that these assets be used to Help pay the war bill.
More phucking leftist scum....I say shoot them all after their first warning if they don't leave....won't be a waste of anything other than bullets. These are the same pieces of sh!t as the occupy scum. Smashing the pool, no heating, mattresses on the floor, no furniture, this is what these pieces of sh!t would do to everything, everywhere if given a chance. This is why they have to be crushed, with full-force and with no inch of compassion. They illeaglly 'occupied' this property, destroyed it beyond comprehension and have been'living' there (if that's what these creatures call it) for a year. If it were my property, I wouldn't need a court order...I need a court order for my own phucking property, are you phucking kidding me? I'd be hiring the biggest most brutal thugs I could find and they tossed these phuckers out in the most painful way possible. I can't stand scum like this or any of these other 'occupy' pieces of sh!t, they should all be smashed and ground into nothing...they are blights on this planet and should be treated as such.
So does that mean by british Governmet law I can go on a Buckingham Palace tour, slap some stupid notice on a window and claim I now 'occupy' the palace as this scum did with this house
"posted a notice on the door declaring the building occupied – a move that under British law prevents owners from using force to access to their own property without the backing of court bailiffs."
And until the proper 'bailiffs arrive I then 'own' the palace...yeah try doing that and you'd be arrested so quick it'd make your head spin...anyway I think this scum need to have their heads caved in and then sent to jail for tresspassing, destruction of property and every other charge that can be brought against them.
So correct me if I am wrong, If you legally buy and occupy a home in GB or England, and you go out to work on any given day, any one can post something on the door to your home and occupy that home? Isn't this a home invasion? Do I have this right? And then you have no right to get them to leave?
That is turning the whole thing we call legitimate and ownership upside down. I am what one might call socially liberal, but this does not resemble anything like the liberal or legitimate law, I believe in.
Fibrecon......................Yeah. I've known good attorneys. What country do you live in, where all people of a certain occupation are all bad? Certainly not the U.S. We have good people here in all walks of life. Go back to your third world country. Do you work for free?
SO you guys are Gadhafi sympathizers? I wish they would've burned the place to the ground except then it couldn't be sold and it's profits given back to it's rightful owners.
Ahhh Haaa!! Now we know what those Rebels were fighting for !!@!
Try being a landlord and attempting to have a nightmare tenant who doesn't pay rent and trashes your house evicted legally. Its not fun and it costs alot of money and I won't even go into the toll it takes on ones sense of wellbeing as a landlord/owner. I wouldn't recommend being a landord to anybody. Been there. Wonderful tenants of course do exist yet if you by chance get a bad apple....good luck.
That the truth..those houses must be burned, and sell the land, and return the money to the people in Libia...Here to much bla, bla, and bla....We need to be real in front what we have...that guy was a dictactor, and he took people properties, ..that is over Thanks God...but what about with the Castros in Cuba ? why this country does no say much about that? wondering..humm
Most of you who commented above completely missed the point of the article. True, the squatters who wrecked the house, and the British law does error on the side of said squatters, but this is minor compared to the big picture, and point of the article.
This will potentially open the door for an opportunity to collect assets formally held by the Gaddafi family and regime, and allocate them back to the people of Libya, where it probably belonged in the first place. This could be extremely beneficial to rebuilding their nation's society.
It amazes me how narrow minded people are. Look at the big picture....outside of your small little world. Yes, the British law about occupying buildings can be seen as a bad side-affect of Socialist policies, but the bottom-line is that the people who paid for the property (the Libyan state, which is ultimately the people of Libya) will be able to collect their assets, at which point the squatters can be evicted. The overall value of the property appears to dwarf any of the damage done, so at the end of the day this could be a very good thing for a nation trying to emerge from the aftermath of decades of oppressive rule.
Maybe people going to London for the Olympics can break into a house and "Occupy" it. Could take the courts and bailiffs a week or so to remove them, so you just got to stay in London for free.
Doug, I think we got the article, this is just a fun side bit to comment on. Have a sense of humor.
@Sully... yeah, it is ridiculous, but it is true. About 35 years ago, I worked with a lady from the UK. She said since her dad had passed on, her mum was afraid to leave her home to go anywhere for fear it would be occupied when she returned. Then she'd have no place to go. I was horrified, thinking she must be mistaken, but no... she was right. I was really glad I lived in the US!!!
Doug: I agree with army....we get the point of the article as a whole....simply some inserts as well.
My question is this. If the libyan government is attempting to claim these properties that they claim were gained unlawfully, why would they sit back and be Ok with Libyan "activists/anarchists", destroying the property. Doesn't common sense tell them that this 16 million dollar mansion is now worth less than a third thanks to these dirty squatters. That is what truly makes no sense and seems to be a commonality in the minds of middle eastern citizens. Israel moves out of settlements and the arabs destroy the homes and lands and re-build inferior homes to replace them, for what?. What a backwards mentality. Almost as bad as the English law that says i can't beat and drag some scumbag squatter off my property if i ind them living and destroying what isn't owned by them. Liberal policies are sucking the life out of this planet.
What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine!
Apparently if I put a sign up, yes, it's now mine. Until I leave?
You are sooooo right.
I owned 2 houses here in the States, while they were never occupied by anyone unknown to me, I found out rent was sometimes hard to get and eviction during the cold weather months is impossible. When I finally emptied them I eventually sold them, leaving them empty so they would not be destroyed further.
As for the Lybians it seems we are visititng the sins of the father onto the son. Assuming that he could not have purchased this real estate on his own. I do believe the owner was estranged from his father, and not part of that regime. That is what the article implies.
Just make sure the money and proceeds goes back to the PEOPLE in Libya.
torrens
Funny.....you should know how governments work by now....you will get a bill for seizing, legal proceedings, holding and securing the assets, and then a fee for selling your siezed property.....
Libya could make it into a government timeshare home for use by the Libyan people when they vacation in Europe. Or possibly a museum. Maybe a halfway house for deposed dictators. Charge a nominal fee of course.
FYI...
I liked the picture of Moammar with the bullet hole thru his head better....
Sixteen million dollars for that?
Agree. The inside looks nice but???????????
In an American McMansion neighborhood, that house would have sold for $600,000 in 2008 and resold after bank reposession for $450,000 in 2012.
Not much of a front yard!
Sold for the view and close to commuting?
What view? It is in a cul-de-sac in a densely populated area.
Kill your own people and the new regime wants a rebate for his pillaging.
I suggest to these "new leader's" to come over to the US. Got lot's of land and other items that we will trade.
The Brooklyn Bridge is first on my mind.
These people (until their brain kicked in) had no problem with Captain Moondick. This @!$%# looked like he could fly a spaceship will all that "self commendation" hardware he wore.
Winner gets the spoils ! and up yours Libya.
This just shows the new regime is worse than the old one. They are no different than the Nazi's.
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Nobody in Libya is anywhere near as bad as the Nazis were. Read up on your history or STFU.
Give it back to Libia's people. It was bought with blood money anyhow.
Do you think Libya's people could live in it?
Sure! The Libyan people will definitely benefit from the billions Kha-daffy had... right after the new leaders pay for their palaces, cars, planes, personal security, off-shore retirement accounts, etc. Everything that is left over will be put into the social funds used for the betterment of the Libyan people! That will be... what... couple thousand maybe?
Sounds fair to me, but only after all the debt incurred in his removal is repaid, and all and any past foreign aide that was givin to his regime since he has been in power, and I would add a cost of living interest rate to that amount as well.......then and only then, release the remaining funds to the populace......"IF" there are any......
why do you show us only now Gaddaffi family's assets?
where were you when they was buying expensives car and houses around the world with libyan's money?
it is always the same music with african's dictators and the EU knows that very well but they let them do it: stole people money!
Thats the way teh EU economy runs. Encourage the peopel tehy help set up steal money, help tehn launder it and put in their banks and make surethe money never leaves EU again. EU and most ofteh West runs and survives on money and resources stolen from Africa, Middle East and Asia......good thing that the Asians have woken up now and that's part of teh reason EU is in Finacial crisis.
How about the nations of the West keep Gadhafi's assets as payment for our assistance in Libya's civil war? Tomahawk missiles, hellfire rockets, predator drones, F-16's, and trained pilots are not cheap at all, and a significant amount of western tax dollars were spent assisting the rebel forces. I say we auction off his assets to offset the cost of NATO's help.
Interesting idea. Hire our armed forces out to reduce our own deficit? If they don't have the assets, just sieze their property and sell it.
That would make us what, a mercenary nation? Or would that be piracy as a national policy? I agree that resources and money are often drivers of foreign policy, but that takes things a little too far for my tastes.
Funny, Saadi hires an Isreali lawyer.
Archie Bunker must have had a point.
I actually think we need a show like "All in the Family" on TV today which ruthlessly shows all the ugliness people have in them. But unfortunately, we've become way too PC to air such a show.
Livia-779624
is the same as here in the US. Location...Location...Location !!!!
Here in the U.S. is not easy to evict people out of a rented or lost property either. It takes a court order and the Sheriff of your local police department with multiple officers to be able to get them out of "your"
property...without mentioning the multiple letters over a period of 3 months to notify the people staying "in your property" that they need to leave.
Just a mess everywhere! “Scrupulous” people take advantage of laws created to protect Tenants of “Scrupulous” property owners…The people in this house are simply taking advantage of the situation and
doubt they have any sympathy for what is going on back in Libya, otherwise they would simply have not destroy the house as they have and thus preserved the property value...Money
greatly needed for the reconstruction of their homeland…
So, these Occupiers took the house over and demanded it be returned to the rightful owners...."The Libyan People", but while occupying it they cared SO MUCH about the REAL owners they trashed the place? Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense! Dumb asses.
Sorry the country is NOT better off now, just like Iraq and Egypt. Society even killing societies ALWAYS ratchet DOWN.
I'm sure you know this in detail due to the extensive amount of time you spent over there.
Guess it's all a matter of perspective. I know a few Libyans, and even though materially they may not be better off, they've said repeatedly they would much prefer be in this position rather to have been back in the old days. But then again, maybe you prefer to live comfortably but have no freedom at all?
Libya sounds like the new Iraq. Certain people need to be ruled in order to behave. What is going to happen to the assets if they get them back. Someone else will just steal them.
That is why there is dictatorships all over the Middle East. They have been "ruled" for so long, to have the ability to self rule will be a disaster if taken on all at once. Of course, we don't have to worry about that now do we? Al Quaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (with our help overthrowing the former ones) will see to it that the people of Egypt and Libya are "well taken care of".
Correct rivkah;
Laws created to protect descent tenants from “scrupulous” property owners is used by “scrupulous” people who DON’T CARE about the Libyan people. That property, by the time they finish with it, will be worthless… Just the land value left thanks to its location. Sixteen Million, needed for the reconstruction of their
homeland, thrown in the garbage…They are truly “great patriots” ! ! ! Please!!! Disgusting...
Laws created to protect descent tenants from “scrupulous” property owners is used by “scrupulous” people who DON’T CARE about the Libyan people. That property, by the time they finish with it, will be worthless… Just the land value left thanks to its location. Sixteen Million, needed for the reconstruction of their
homeland, thrown in the garbage…They are truly “great patriots”!!!!! Disgusting....
Whole Libya thing and as a matter of the fact whole Arab Spring, stinks very much.
Free countries should not sell property to dictators and/or family of dictators if that property is being purchased with state funds stolen from the people of the country they rule. This son reminds me of the play boy brother of North Korea (Kim) who goes around the world gambling and drinking and eating at the expense of the North Korean people while they all starve. The squatters in this article don't make much sense. They said they did this because they wanted the property and money for this house to be returned to the Libyan government and people. So why destroy it and lessen the value of the property? Obviously British law favored them in that they could not toss them out, so why not just live in the place without wrecking it until it was turned back over to Libya?
Burn them out! How easy is that?
Actually, don't think this is just something that people in other countries do (destroying stuff owned by ordinary people to protest the government and such). Think of some of the riots in the past in the U.S. to protest some desicion made by the government and the people running through the streets turning over cars, burning them, smashing store windows and looting from business owners (their own neighbors) who are only trying to better their lives through hard work.
The US should not have become involved in Lybia or Egypt and, now, Syria. The groups that are taking the place of the prior governments are worse than the governments and leaders they are replacing. These groups are more inclined to restrict the lives of citizens than prior governments. Unquestionably, they will be more brutal in enforcing their restrictions. Plus, if the US attempts to invade Syria, it will likely find itself in a bitter battle with a very competent military, the best in the middle east. Our military is excellent; however, it is small in numbers and led (?) by a president who is more in sympathy with the enemy and has expressed nothing but disdain for the US military all of his adult life.
Correction Mel,
We don't know what will emerge from the ashes of Syria. That is just an unknown and your crystal ball certainly lacks the power to ascertain that outcome. The US seems determined to stay out of it, which is a good thing. Consequently, there is no need to ponder a hypothetical about our involvement that has not occurred to date and looks likely that non-intervention will continue.
In regards to Egypt and Libya, we do know definitively that the Mubarak govt. and the Gadhafi govt. were quite willing to slaughter their people in the street for such trivial acts as protesting for greater civil rights and democratic freedoms. That is beyond contestation, as evidenced by... well the evidence.
The outcomes in Egypt and Libya as evidenced so far is far more promising than the predecessor governments. You base your opinions on emotional hyperbole and a belief system that is not based upon fact but rather opinion. That's your perogative to believe whatever you want, but your particular belief system does not constitute truth, certainly in regards to the alterations in the mid-east to date.
The US military is doing just fine. Even led by this president, all objectives in the War of Terror seem to continually be realized, NATO is now a stronger and more united force than it ever was under the previous leader (just absolutely horrific under GW), the assistance provided by US special ops personnel in central Africa is now turning out to be a boon of goodwill all over the globe that was not expected (as evidenced by the KONY 2012 campaign), and terrorists and pirates are being dealt with daily and in ever greater incidents with greater assistance from allies, and the pursuit of peace with rogue nations like NK and Iran is so much more difficult than just going to war, but this president is doing everything possible to avoid the useless slaughter of life. Etc... etc... I'm truly impressed. This president has restored the America of greatness in the eyes of the world that was so utterly ruined by the previous occupant of the WH and the cronies sycophant cronies that propped up that particular regime.
If you want to believe that the president is in sympathy with the enemy, ok... so be it. I don't see any evidence of that. But that does seem to be a belief system held by segments of the population (the Glenn Beck and M. Savage crowd). Continue to fester in your hatred and misery. The world will continue to move forward and progress without you or your kind dragging us down to your knuckle-scraping level.
I'm always amazed at the breadth of personal experience that posters here in Newsvine have had living in other countries. So I have no doubt that Mr. Mel here speaks from personal experience about how much better these people had it under Gaghafi than it will be under the current or any future leaders. I'm so glad to see that he spent years there living and doing business as a regular citizen, and how difficult it is now, and how difficult it will be for the foreseeable future. Not!
Get real folks. If anyone here can tell me how good it was and how bad it will be based on personal experience, I'd appreciate it. The Libyans I've talked to will admit it is chaotic now, and not everything is perfect, but the sacrifice was worth it to get rid of someone who was an absolute tyrant and allowed no personal freedom whatsoever (unless you were related to him, of course).
Keep in mind a revolution always has a dark side, including our own in America. It was many years before order was restored under a republic with our constitution (6 years between the end of the war and the adoption of the Constitution, to be specific). But I don't think anyone will disagree that it was worth it. Still, people here are whining because Libya isn't an American-style stable democracy and capitalist paradise in just over a year after their revolution? Unreal.
I'm glad you have a rosy colored view of the world, and North Africa in general, Anthony, but before you criticize Mel for what he foresees, why don't you explain how you know things are going to come up roses? There have been several incidents in Tunisia and Egypt in particular that show things are still not under control and that those in charge now are almost - note almost because they haven't been in charge that long - as bad as those who ruled before. When a people who liberate themselves from one form of dictatorship then suddenly want to adopt Sharia Law, I'd call that a bad sign. When Egyptian Christians are less protected and more persecuted under the new, hopefully interim, regime, then I'd call that a bad sign. When it appears as if women in that country are given fewer rights, I'd call that a bad sign. Even before the "Spring" ended in Egypt, the same mob who wanted to oust Mubarak sexually assualted a reporter - or did you already forget about that? Who knows what else has not been reported. Who knows how many other assualts went unreported. Those are just a few examples of Egypt's instability. If you want more, I can direct you to them, including the fact that the military rulers now are using intimidation and even murder to keep activists and media figures from reporting what's going on over there. This doesn't even cover the incidents in Tunisia or Lybia that have happened since their revolutions. So, once again, before you criticize someone else, why don't you point out just how great things are over there now, since you have a crystal ball of your own to tell you how much better everything is.
Tunisia is doing remarkably well, actually. They have become politically stable and their economy is even set to grow.
Egypt is settling down now that parliament is in place. It will still take some time to see how well things go, but there's no reason to believe that they're headed for chaos and instability. It's notable that the biggest problems in Egypt are caused by the military's current grip over the country, which is officially set to end once a civilian government is in place.
Libya is the roughest spot, but that's entirely to be expected, as the only one of the three that's emerged from a full-scale civil war. But even it's doing remarkably well for a nation emerging from civil war and lacking formal civilian institutions that we take for granted.
As for Sharia law, religious rules are just religious rules. We may value secularism, but not everyone does, and there's no reason why democracy can't coexist with Sharia or people can't thrive under those conditions (even if you or I wouldn't like it).
Your "bad signs" are just that: indicators of civil issues and poor domestic trends, which of course happen in every country across the globe, to different degrees. Compared to the "bad sign" of having your country's laws made by a single psychopath in a palace and implemented at gunpoint, I'd consider all of your "bad signs" quite minor.
So, yeah, there are a lot of problems. But this is still a huge leap forward for these countries. The Arab world is finally saying they're ready to join the 21st century, and I for one think we're just shooting ourselves (and probably them too) in the foot if we ignore or shun them.
If Mel had said there were some bad signs and that his statements were forecasts, I would leave it as a judgement call. What I disagree with are his statements of "fact": 'These groups ... are worse', 'these groups are more inclined...', 'Unquestionably they will be more brutal'. On and on and on it goes, stating as fact something he has no basis for. Qaddafi was an absolutely brutal dictator, and to say things are as bad or worse now as they were then is a complete fantasy based on bias, not on fact. If Mel wants to convince me that things are so much worse in Libya now than they were before, he'll have to come up with a lot of data to convince me.
Now I happen to agree with him on the issue of Syria - we should not get militarily involved there. But that is an opinion about Syria, and it should not be based on false arguments about Libya.
Don't give those racist thugs a dime. The so-called rebels should be prosecuted for war crimes and the current ongoing ethnic cleansing has to be stopped. The blood is on your hands Europe and the United States and it want be soon forgotten.
WTF are you rambling about now? The people were tired of Ghadaafi murdering there own and making people disappeared, so they were armed and assisted in ousting him?? Would you rather allow murder to continue in exchange for stability??
Dear canowhoopass;
I guess you don't know much. These so-called freedom loving rebels in many way are worse than Qhadafi was. They are also murdering, torturing, and forced-relocating people just as he did. All we did by helping them is change one set of tyrants for another! The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of a tyrant! Here's a newflash for your delicate sensibilities and in your belief that our military is always right, as far back as 2006, most in Iraq would have wanted Sadaam back versus the US Military! If you're not willing to deal with reality, go back to sleep and keep dreaming!
Dear kennyfreethinker,
Please go back to freethinking...if you have forgotten already, Ghadaafi has personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing which has killed Americans. He has also ordered an attack on American servicemen in West Berlin back in 1986, the rebels have so far not atatcked us; thus, do not pose that threat Ghadaafi did. He was a terrorist to the American people and I hope the well his body was stuffed is never uncovered.
@kennyfreethinker
thats not what this poll says when they asked the Iraqis...
No one is saying Ghadaafi was a great guy, far from it, but what happened in Iraq with our help was far more civilized and by the book than what these rag-tag killers did to Ghadaafi. He didn't even get a trial. Canowhoopass, do you even know what happened to him? Instead of justice, they pulled him out, shoved a knife in his rectum, and killed him in cold blood. Don't get me wrong, the Lybian people deserved justice, but this was mob justice and not how the civilized world works. He should have been put on trial, convicted, and executed - in that order. The mob is ruling Lybia now, and to this day they have not proved they are any better than he was.
Maybe it was for the better, the country decided he should have died not 1 or 2 individuals. We assisted in liberating them, now they are liberated..letem do as they wish with freedom they have fought for...not sure if that poll showed in ym above comment either...:
((h tt p://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314. html))
Have all Lokerbie settlements been completed and paid? That must come first. After that, who cares? Libya got rid of a dictator and thief. They'll replace him with another. That will go on for decades. What they do with what they stole and will steal is their own business.
The new Libyan regime thinks they are going to get $20B. They're about to learn a lesson in finance. By the time the lawyers and politicians take their thumbs out of the pie they'll be lucky to get with lunch money, but it makes a good sound bite for their new politicians. Just as long as Gaddafi's family and their lawyers can't get hold of it, I don't care. It'll be fun to see how Nigeria treats them when they run out of cash. I'm just happy that President Obama resisted the GOP's calls for us to take full lead and responsibility for fighting and financing this mess as they're again trying to do in Syria. We are not the Cops of the World.
Lockerbrie is nothing compared to Gadhafi's loss. In fact, Lockerbrie is just a made up tale by the broke american government, to influence the american people that Gadhafi is the bad guy, so that they can start the 2011 war with him to steal all his money. Unfortunately, they were successful. At least I was the smart one to defend Gadhafi since last year, when this unjust war against him was occuring.
Ed McT, The wars that the GOP has got us into pails in comparison to the wars the Democrats have got us into. ie WWII, Korea, and Vietnam at a cost of 500,000 America lives lost and over 10 trillion dollars spent. To avoid your ignorance you may wish to google American presidents during wars and see for yourself which party is the real war mongers.
So this is what happens when stupid people gain access to rich and successful people's loot. Proves that people are insane as hell. I wish people would open up their mind and put themselves in Gadhafi's shoes, they would understand that what they are doing, is stealing, which is an international crime, but hey! He's rich! So we it doesn't matter if we ruin his life and destroy his family and luxary! Might as well do it to all the American people who are already rich! Like, the stupid americans would do that to their own people.
Nihal, I wouldn't call people stupid when you spell so poorly, ie luxary! If anyone is stupid, it is you.
@Nihal
Stupid Americans huh? Tell you what, why don't you crawl back into your cae or whatever hole in the ground you crawled out of ,and go consort with your brethren like Quaddafi who are murdering and torturing innocent poeple all over the world. Next, why don't you tell us what a great guy Assad is. The entire human race should be embarassed by people like you.
Bobwhite, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his spelling, and his spelling of "luxary" could have been a typo. Your comment is clearly unnessesary, so if anyone here is stupid, it's you, not Nihal.