Not only is that completely bull**** as the killing of him wasn't done in the name of any of those or for revenge of any of those, but it's typical shoddy reporting from "The Sun."
So are they complete morons or just incompetant at half decent reporting? Or both?
Because bear in mind this is most certainly not the first time the people at "The Sun" have made nonsensical over the top excitable headlines.
That's not the point though. Gadaffi's capture and death had nothing to do with any of those events mentioned on the front page of todays "The Sun" yet they make out like it is.
The phrase "that's for..." doesn't necessarily mean that is the reason for the killing. It's a gloat.
It suggests that his killing and capture was done for those reasons, when it obviously wasn't.
And considering this is the Sun, I don't see what the issue is? It's the sort of thing it's readers would like.
Well I realise it's the sort of thing you'd come to expect from them, however once in a while they do something that is even more awful it's hard not to pass comment on it
If you had any idea about politics and journalism, you'd have noted that the Sun was picking up on David Cameron's short speech in which he said that yesterday was a day to remember the Lockerbie victims, Fletcher and the victims of the IRA who were armed by Gaddafi.
Maybe you'd be better reading the Guardian. I haven't checked, are they eulogising him? it's just that the left wing were sucking on the teat of Libya and Syria until very recently.
If you had any idea about politics and journalism, you'd have noted that the Sun was picking up on David Cameron's short speech in which he said that yesterday was a day to remember the Lockerbie victims, Fletcher and the victims of the IRA who were armed by Gaddafi.
There is an obvious difference between saying it is a time to remember the victims and saying his capture and death was as a result of those incidents.
Maybe you'd be better reading the Guardian. I haven't checked, are they eulogising him? it's just that the left wing were sucking on the teat of Libya and Syria until very recently.
When I read newspapers I read "The Times" and "The Independent."
Maybe you'd be better reading the Guardian. I haven't checked, are they eulogising him? it's just that the left wing were sucking on the teat of Libya and Syria until very recently.
Were they? Please provide evidence to back this up.
There is an obvious difference between saying it is a time to remember the victims and saying his capture and death was as a result of those incidents.
They aren't saying the capture and death was as a result of those incidents, they're alluding to him deserving his comeuppance because of those incidents.
I thought that was fairly clear and find your need to create a thread about it rather baffling.