I'm easily amused.

It would appear he remained defiant to the end....BBC news an hour ago reported a will he wrote five days ago has been passed on to his relatives and amongst it's contents was his wish that should he die, he wanted his supporters to carry on the fight.

What a surprise. The Interim Government in Libya has announced that Sharia Law will now be the law of the land.

I knew when Europe and Obama decided on getting involved in Libya's civil war that this would be the result.

Once again Obama has shown his true colors by supporting hard core Muslims over Secular Leaders.

Now we have thousands of missing shoulder launched SAMs in a country that will no doubt ally itself with al quaeda since they aided the rebels. I'm sureeeeeeeeeeeeee everything will work out just fine.

Within 5-10 years we will all be wishing Quaddaffi was still running Libya. As things stand right now it looks like we created another ally for Iran and another base for terrorists.

What a surprise:hmmm:
I take it you don't know anything about sharia or the laws of Libya then Satyr.

You really are confused.
Forget for a moment that you don't like the current US President and see if you can actually think about the subject as so far you have made very little sense and indeed much of what you wrote is just a plain demonstation of woefull ignorance

What's wrong with Muslim laws controlling the land? Isn't in similar in Saudi Arabia? Muslim does not = bad, get your head out your arse and realize there are other cultures then American, Democratic and Christian. :doh:

While there are multiple schools of thought in how Sharia should be applied - certain facets remain the same.

Polygamy is allowed (though in modern society it has been outlawed in some places)
Women are still second class citizens.
Banks are not allowed to charge interest on loans (boy can't you see all the world's banks running to get into libya now! NOT!)
Conversion from islam is apostasy, equal to treason and is punishable by death.

There is more, but you get the picture. Suffice it to say that its not exactly the most equitable foundation for a society to be built upon. Its not a matter of someone's head up their arse - its a matter of differences in how people view other humans, how people should deal with each other, and how much one religion should be allowed to permeate society to the forcible exclusion of all the rest.

All I'm saying is that just because a country is guided by a religious law, be it islam or any other religion, does not mean that that country is suddenly terrible to its people.

Your right... because there are only two real Theocracies in the world right now, and one is quite nice and peaceful, the other wellllll... you know...

Does a system that is fair and just 50% of the time be considered "good" :hmmm:

This is puzzling me also Jim....why no mention of this guy?. I can't find anything about him. He was the 'number 2'- the heir apparent.

The lack of information about him may speak volumes, about what though I do not know...

I read today that he is trying to sneak to Niger with a false passport.
Found also this: http://www.hrw.org/node/102543
Hague Tribunal will have a lot to do, both with Gaddafi's men and these baseball cap revolutionists who first shout "no more terror" and then shoot you in the back after smashing your head with a riffle butt. :yeah:

How come you chose 4 examples to demonstrate the sameness of the religious interpretations where there is very wide variance, including one example where not only is there a wide variance but your example is directly contrary to their scripture on which it is supposed to be based and one that isn't even true?

A false passport and a Groucho Marx comedy moustache/nose combination no doubt. Though he has a natural one already IIRC.

I did hear shortly after Gaddafi was found that Saif who had also been trying to flee south in a convoy and was completely surrounded by NTC forces..... then nothing more.

That's a dead link for me Kranz by the way....a blank page

Even if all that were true, it's up to the people to decide how they want to live including which system.

Saudi Arabia as an example? Really? Just because our fine Western leaders decide to do business with them, does not make the regime any less oppressive.

Check out the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and check out in which substantial points it differs from other declarations.
1000s of people died, not only in "Western" countries, for rights like universal suffrage or the right to critizise religion.

For most people it is more important in their daily lives to have access to fresh water, than having free elections. However this does not make the struggle for human rights less important.
This is not about respect for different cultures, but about very basic rights. Are muslims other human beings who are thus not eligible to the universal, basic human rights? No, Sir, this is Western arrogance at it's best, to imply that these people do not need or want the freedom they are entitled to by birth.

If people decide to live like slaves on their own, free will, it is their problem, but no state has the right to abridge rights of the ones who don't want to live like this.

Isn't it funny that in other current topics "westerners" are complaining about criticizing religion and the existance of universal suffrage.