Images and even videos showing the fall of Gaddafi bear a mention or another along the lines of "content is potentially offensive or inappropriate. Viewer discretion is advised."
But why? Isn't that what we wanted?
The man who convinced Sarkozy to go for war, Henry Lévy, says that the end of Gaddafi is a great day for the Lybian people and all its friends around the world (fr) [1], and what a end it was! Sarkozy himself evokes it as a disappearance: [2]
Of course, it was 36 years of the same regime when, in late 2007, Gaddafi was the special guest of Sarkozy, with honours rarely extended to other heads of states. Sarkozy's statements by then in front of the criticisms of overdoing his welcome for a despised figure include such personal opinions: [3]
In the Arab world, that counts... Surely in Mr. Sarkozy's mind, such changes of opinions don't count too much in the Arab world. That a politician says one thing and its opposite is nothing new or surprising... but when that finishes in such a bloodbath, the irony turns into obscenity, the ridiculous into indecency.
There are pictures everywhere to be found of our leaders, cheerful and smiling in company of this man we have seen today slaughtered by an infuriated crowd [4]. The head of Europe, for instance, van Rompuy—particularly accomplice and friendly (!?)—said that the death of Gaddafi marks the end of an era of despotism [5]. The same source reports that even Ban Ki-moon said that this day marks a historic transition for Libya.
So, why all the prudery with the pictures? This death of Gaddafi, since we are explained it is so good, why should we shy away from it? Why should we be ashamed, or warned, or prepared to see how it happened? This is no inhumane violence, this is no animal brutality, this is—if I read them well—justice, this is order, this is for the good of humankind, of civilization, that this man has been torn apart alive, flesh and hairs wiped out by an angry mob. This man covered in blood, this is not a man in agony, this is the evil which is being destroyed... Shouldn't this image be shown to children at school? Shouldn't it proudly decorate our walls? Some even said Gaddafi's fate should serve as a warning to other dictators. We may even have defined a new standard. The violence of the images? Crucifixion is no less direct and graphic. Yet it is a picture for a baby to see over the baptismal stone. If we can only rejoice of the event, if it elicits such a concert of congratulations, if there is no voice to condemn the circumstances of a death which, in all evidence, was violent and barbaric, if there is only room for satisfaction and a feeling of achievement, then let us not pretend to have some humanity and empathy with the reality, and let us see these images as the glorious achievement that we are being told it is. Let us not speak of "disappearance" or "end", let us say "the slaughter of Gaddafi marks a great day for civilization", "the bloodshed of this morning is a major step forward", "People in Libya today have an even greater chance after this slaying of building themselves a strong and democratic future."
My opinion is otherwise. I think that nothing that is right should make us feel wrong. These are not the images that bother me, this is that, while being obviously shocking, painfully against sense and reason, crudely clashing all the values of the civilized man and nation, they are not condemned as such. They are the image indeed of what happened, a crime [6], that puts its perpetrators beneath the other criminal who became, in this shameful atrocity, their victims. To turn Gaddafi into a martyr, that is the extent of the outrage they have been able to perpetrate.
Here is an interesting speech from Gaddafi that has to be seen on this day.