Libya 19

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
Libya 19

Continued from here.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

We now have two threads titled Libya 19.  Please close one.

ov ov's picture

NDPP started a Libya 19 thread over a day before this one, and yet it's the one that gets locked down.  WTF?

NDPP

Mods please close one of the Libya 19 threads. I started it because 18 was over the usual limit and thought it would be closed before.

Frmrsldr

Not everyone supports the rebels in Libya.

Simon Denyer of the Washington Post wrote:

Two weeks ago, almost every house in the town of Ajaylat, a Gaddafi stronghold about 50 miles west of Tripoli, flew the green flag of the autocrat's regime. Today, those flags have been taken down, but the rebels' red, black and green banner flies over only a handful of government buildings.

Pro-Gaddafi graffiti have been painted over, but they have not been replaced with the slogans of the revolution. Shop shutters are still uniformly green, and - unlike in other towns - no one appears to be searching for red and black paint to convert them.

"In this area, only about 10 percent of people are against Gaddafi," said Khamis, a 45-year-old businessman, who like many people here, preferred not to give his family name so he could speak more freely. "Ninety percent are pro-Gaddafi. But at the moment we are in our homes, worried and afraid about what is going on."

... "People want Gaddafi. I can't deny this," said a resident named Khaled, 40. "We can't live under the invasion. Even though they are afraid, in a few days people can fight again - men, women and children."

... The rebels' problems in winning over the people of Ajaylat are a microcosm of the even larger problems they are likely to face as they prepare to move into the Gaddafi strongholds of Sirte, Bani Walid and Jufra, which lie to the east of Tripoli.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-rebels-struggle-to-win-over-p...

NDPP

STOP NATO: Libya news links, Sept 9

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/updates-on-libyan-warstop-nat...

Canadian Forces Ready for Extended Libya Mission: Military Chief

 

Hail to  the True Victors of Rupert's Revolution  -- by John Pilger

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/hail-to-the-true-victors-of-rupert-s-...

"NATO is raining fragmentation bombs over civilian populated Sirte and other 'Gaddafi strongholds' where, says a Channel 4 news reporter, 'until they cut off the head of the snake, Libyans will not feel safe.' I quote that not so much for its Orwelian quality but as a model of journalism's role in justifying 'our' bloodbaths in advance.

THis is Rupert's Revolution, after all. Gone from the Murdoch press are perjorative 'insurgents'. The action in LIbya, says the Times is'a revolution - as revolution used to be.'

That it is a coup by a gang of Muammar Gaddafi's ex cronies and spooks in collusion with NATO is hardly news. They told journalists what they needed to know: That Gaddafi was about to commit 'genocide', of which there was no evidence, unlike the abundant evidence of 'rebel' massacres..

European bankers' secret transfer of the Central Bank of Libya from Tripoli to 'rebel' Benghazi by European bankers in order to control the country's oil billions was an epic heist of little interest. NATO attacked Libya to counter and manipulate a general Arab uprising that took the rulers of the world by surprise.

Unlike his neighbours, Gaddafi had come to power by denying Western control of his country's natural wealth. For this he was never forgiven, and the opportunity for his demise was seized in the usual manner, as history shows. The American historian William Blum has kept the record.

Since the second world war, the US has crushed or subverted liberation movements in 20 countries and attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratic, and dropped bombs on 30 countries and attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders..."

DaveW

thanks for the tip: you officially count the Khaddaffi regime as a "liberation movement"" ....

42 years of dictatorship later , the rebels would disagree

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

42 years of dictatorship. That is quite the summation of Libyan history.  So the monarchy before Gaddafi was not a dictatorship?  You know the one that the rebel flag come from.  Do you really believe he was worse than those brutal colonial sycophants?  Gaddafi overthrew a brutal western backed regime and after he is gone the Libyan people will be going back to the same type of brutal regime as Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or Yemen. How long has the brutal Saudi monarchy been in place.  When are we going to bomb the crap out of it?  Oh right just like the monarchy that ruled before Gaddafi they are on "our" side.

In the meantime tens of thousands of people have died in bombing raids because the majority of the people in the towns they live in do not support the western backed rebels.  How did preventing the bombing of a rebel held city become bomb the crap out of Tripoli and other areas that supported the Gaddafi regime?  The Duty to Protect seems to be a strange rationale for bombing civilians and public infrastructure. How many innocent civilians has NATO murdered to protect them from Gaddafi?

 

NDPP

Anarchy Spreads as Tripoli Celebrates (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/anarchy-tripoli-celebrates-gaddafi-165/

"There is no peace. There is no safety in the city. We do not let our children outside when it's dark. We are afraid. We always wait for something bad. When Gaddafi was here, at least we didn't have to sleep awake, like we do now..'

And what is around is a scene of widespread destruction and social chaos. The badly damaged buildings matched by the rising stench of garbage and decomposing bodies. Armed youngsters roam the streets, barely old enough to understand that what they carry are weapons not toys. Many shops, schools and hospitals are closed, while the city's cemeteries are growing bigger.

Shortly after Tripoli fee into rebel hands, the NTC, Libya's new authority, claimed it was moving here from Benghazi. But weeks have passed, and there is still no sign of its presence on the ground or of order being restored.."

Apologies for RT's ridiculous title - the shithouse shambles of Tripoli is, 'democracy', not anarchy. If only..

DaveW

yes, it was 42 years of dictatorship under Ghaddaffi, and yes, before that there was a puppet king... one thing at a time, eh?

Look, rebel Libya is a messy revolt, but the Ghaddaffi dictatorship, set for a multigenerational dynasty à la Assad family, is gone. -- Bravo. Libya is generally happy with the result, by most accounts.. But they need every support to have open institutions, courts, assemblies, media,  they have never had before, and if that opennness brings out human rights abuses committed during the rebellion and liberation, fine.

Funny thing: the big cheerleaders for a "Third Way"" these days -- between Ghaddaffi and the rebels -- are at Babble. Sadly, however, one did not exist back in March when the rebellion got rolling. You had to choose sides; you chose the loser.

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well according to the latest Wikileaks dump Gadaffi wasn't above bending his principles when the price was right:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=20801

And even if that story was planted by the CIA, his threat to nationalize Petrocan because he didn't want to be criticized is a sign some of his decisions of late were guided more by vanity than public interest. 

Not to say that NATO involvement in the civil war is a good thing, I don't doubt there are those looking to exploit the situation.

But neither should actions almost half a century ago give someone free rein over a country for life. If some of the rebel leadership seem to have shady motives, the leader-in-hiding is no better.

 

contrarianna

DaveW wrote:

.....

Funny thing: the big cheerleaders for a "Third Way"" these days -- between Ghaddaffi and the rebels -- are at Babble. Sadly, however, one did not exist back in March when the rebellion got rolling. You had to choose sides; you chose the loser.

There is no "third way" there are only 2 choices:

(1)support for the existence of Libya as a sovereign state with self-determination, whether or not that includes an internal revolution.
(2) support for a US/NATO war of aggression--with the spoils going to the victors.

You obviously have chosen the 2nd.

 

 

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

An evil dictator rules in a country so our response is to bomb civilians.  Truly a brave new world.  

DaveW you keep ignoring the obvious questions.  Why is the NDP not calling for the citizens of Saudi Arabia to be protected from their murderous regime?  If the party was consistent in its approach I might even respect it but it is not consistent.  Do-War as the spokesperson for the NDP on this file cites only Libya, Syria and Iran as brutal regimes and leaves out Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Israel and Bahrain from its duty to protect.  Why are the citizens of those countries not getting any attention from the NDP?  Tell me the difference between a Saudi dictator and a Syrian one? Seems to me the only difference is one of them is our 'bastard" and the others are not. 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Quote:

 

Tell me the difference between a Saudi dictator and a Syrian one?

 

 

One is royalty and the other isn't?Wink

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well according to the latest Wikileaks dump Gadaffi wasn't above bending his principles when the price was right:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=20801

And even if that story was planted by the CIA, his threat to nationalize Petrocan because he didn't want to be criticized is a sign some of his decisions of late were guided more by vanity than public interest. 

Not to say that NATO involvement in the civil war is a good thing, I don't doubt there are those looking to exploit the situation.

But neither should actions almost half a century ago give someone free rein over a country for life. If some of the rebel leadership seem to have shady motives, the leader-in-hiding is no better.

Who are we to judge?

What is any of this our business?

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

Frmrsldr

DaveW wrote:

Look, rebel Libya is a messy revolt, but the Ghaddaffi dictatorship, set for a multigenerational dynasty à la Assad family, is gone. -- Bravo. Libya is generally happy with the result, by most accounts.. But they need every support to have open institutions, courts, assemblies, media,  they have never had before, and if that opennness brings out human rights abuses committed during the rebellion and liberation, fine.

"Zo," you admit that what the Libyan rebels now have (whatever it is) would not have been possible without U.S., NATO and E.U., etc., military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change, and since this is the case, what you call "open institutions, courts, assemblies, media", etc., are now dependent upon U.S., NATO and E.U. intervention in Libya.

I disagree with you on two counts:

1) What right do we have to militarily intervene, wage a War of Aggression and commit regime change in Libya?

According to the Nuremberg Trials, the Nuremberg Principles, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions and all other relevant international and national laws - military intervention, Wars of Aggression and (foreign) regime change through war and/or assassination/murder are illegal AND THEREFORE WE HAVE NO SUCH RIGHT.

DaveW wrote:

... and if that openness brings out human rights abuses committed during the rebellion and liberation, fine.

2) I don't agree with your morally relativistic argument.

The supreme war crime of military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change that have caused and is the sum of all the other war crimes/crimes against humanity we have committed against innocent Libyans (Libya did not wage or threaten imminent war against us) does not justify the "liberty" or whatever chimerical/nonexistent goods you believe have "resulted" as a "consequence" of our actions.

If Libya was to be liberated, it would be far better if they did it themselves.

6079_Smith_W

@ Frmrsldr

Whether or not it is right to be involved militarily is one thing, as I said, but if what is going on there is none of our business, sorry, this is thread # 19, and there are plenty of people, including you,  who made it their business long  before I commented just now.

Or does that only apply to certain opinions?

If we are going to hear about how the rebels are just bought and paid for by the west and all they are doing is bringing back *shudder* DEMOCRACY, then I it is fair to point out that Gadaffi had his own tidy arrangement as part of Washington's network of torture chambers.

And that while part of what he did was resist foreign ownership of his country's resources, on at least one occasion he only threatened to take that noble stand to nationalize a bloodsucking foreign oil company only after he felt personally insulted (and he was later talked out of it by Canada's foreign affairs minister.

And whatever he did 40 years ago, or how bad things were before him, there comes a time when every leader passes his or her best before date. Was that the consensus of the Libyan people? I'm not sure, but evidently some of them thought so.

 

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Frmrsldr

Whether or not it is right to be involved militarily is one thing, as I said, but if what is going on there is none of our business, sorry, this is thread # 19, and there are plenty of people, including you,  who made it their business long  before I commented just now.

Or does that only apply to certain opinions?

To make it one's (nations') business is to argue in favor of foreign military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change.

According to you, Gadhafi may be a hypocrite.

Two points:

1) What about our (governments') hypocrisy when the Gadhafi government was their buddy and through redition they sent people to Libya to be tortured and now (since late March) our governments have been engaging in an illegal, immoral and unjust military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change to "prevent civilian casualties" and bring "democracy" and "liberty" to Libyans.

Does Gadhafi's hypocrisy (let's make no mention of our governments' hypocrisy) justify our military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... there comes a time when every leader passes his or her best before date.

According to whose standards?

Does this justify our military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change against Libya?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Was that the consensus of the Libyan people? I'm not sure,...

That's mighty white of you.

Thanks for asking (the Libyan people for this War of Aggression against them.)

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... this is thread #19 [on Libya.]

You bet it is.

If you want to say something intelligent about my opinions on this subject,

I suggest you read my postings on the other 18 and other related threads.

NDPP

A War on Africa   -  by Dan Glazebrook

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1063/re162.htm

"NATO's war is aimed at ending Libya's trajectory as a socialist, anti-imperialist, pan Africanist nation in the forefront of moves to strengthen African unity and independence. The rebels have made clear their virulent racism from the very start of their insurrection, rounding up or executing thousands of black African workers and students.

All the African development funds for the projects described above have been frozen by the NATO countries and are to be handed over to their hand-picked buddies in the rebel Transitional Council (NTC) to spend instead on weapons to facilitate their war.

For Africans, the war is far from over. The African continent must recognise that NATO's lashing out is a sign of desperation, of impotence, of its inability to stop the inevitable rise of Africa onto the world stage. Africa must learn lessons from Libya, continue the drive towards pan-African unity, and continue to resist AFRICOM. Plenty of Libyans will still be with them when they do."

NATO-Backed Libyan Regime Persecutes Black Africans  - by Peter Symonds

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pers-s09.shtml

"Now the NTC and its imperialist backers, who are busy signing contracts handing Libya's oil  wealth over to major Western energy conglomerates, intend to use the most brutal measures against any popular opposition. They hope to escape all criticism of their actions thanks to the whitewashing of their political image by the international media.

In the forefront of this reactionary enterprise are various left-leaning and pseudo-radical organisations that have supported NATO's 'humanitarian intervention' in Libya.

The persecution and killing of black immigrants and Libyans is a devastating refutation of all those who claimed that imperialist war could bring democracy to Libya. THey bear full responsibility for the war's cost in destroyed and ruined lives..."

6079_Smith_W

@ Frmrsldr

Before you question the intelligence of my words  maybe you should read them, because the accusatorial questions you are firing at me actually have nothing to do with my point. 

As for singling me out as the only north american white guy who is removed from the situation there, I didn't say anything about what I think the Libyan people should or should not do, because I don't claim to have that insight.

"I'm not sure" I think were my actual words, and given that there was outside intervention, and the motives (on all sides of the conflict) are complicated, I think that is a fair and unpresumptious comment. It is also a nod to those who may have suspicions of the rebels - again, if you were paying attention to what I wrote.

But my point that accusations of self-interest and  involvement with western powers can apply to both sides of the conflict is valid. 

For that matter, I think my point that the will of the people (whatever that may be) is a bit more important than the past glories of the leader is valid too.

 

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Frmrsldr

Before you question the intelligence of my words maybe you should read them, because the accusatorial questions you are firing at me actually have nothing to do with my point. 

As for singling me out as the only north american white guy who is removed from the situation there, I didn't say anything about what I think the Libyan people should or should not do, because I don't claim to have that insight.

"I'm not sure" I think were my actual words,...

I quote you verbatim as I do anyone else. The questions I raised concerning your comments still stand.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... and given that there was outside intervention, and the motives (on all sides of the conflict) are complicated, I think that is a fair and unpresumptious comment. It is also a nod to those who may have suspicions of the rebels - again, if you were paying attention to what I wrote.

But my point that accusations of self-interest and  involvement with western powers can apply to both sides of the conflict is valid. 

(Bolding not in original.)

You're absolutely right that "outside intervention" was a given. The U.S., Canadian and E.U. governments have never given as an official reason for military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change against Libya that (some of) the Libyan people "asked us to."

The officially given excuse for the war on Libya was to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas" - Benghazi is mentioned by name in UNSCR 1973.

The U.K. and France (the main authors of) UNSCR 1973 proclaimed that they were going to wage a defensive war to "protect" Libyan civilians from trumped-up allegations that Gadhafi forces were going to commit a massacre in Benghazi. Within days French aircraft, soon followed by British and American aircraft and U.S., U.K., Canadian and other Navy vessels, violated that U.N. Resolution by prosecuting an offensive War of Aggression by dropping bombs, and firing (missiles, etc.,) upon Tripoli and other cities in an attempt to assassinate/murder/(regime) change Gadhafi and the Libyan government.

As to the motivations of the Western powers and Moammar Gadhafi, they're not hard to figure out:

The Western powers, led by the U.S. want regime change in Libya because he pissed them off by nationalizing Libyan oil and it looked like he was going to make deals with Russia, China, India and Brazil.

Gadhafi was also championing himself as a pan-African leader and was putting Libyan oil revenue into projects such as (African) continental communications infrastructure that provides low cost telephone services.

Gadhafi also eschewed loans from the IMF and the World Bank and publicly considered taking African currencies off the U.S. dollar and putting them on the African dinar backed by gold (unlike the U.S. dollar.)

The U.S., E.U. and NATO countries are effecting regime change through a War of Aggression. Gadhafi's motives are very simple: He is trying to survive and stay in power/regain power.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Before you question the intelligence of my words maybe you should read them, because the accusatorial questions you are firing at me actually have nothing to do with my point.

As for singling me out as the only north american white guy who is removed from the situation there, I didn't say anything about what I think the Libyan people should or should not do, because I don't claim to have that insight.

... For that matter, I think my point that the will of the people (whatever that may be) is a bit more important than the past glories of the leader is valid too.

(Bolding not in original.)

Responding to the bolded portions,

1) You are the one who seems not to put much thought into what you post before you write it and then not pay close attention to what you have written afterward.

2) The bolded portions contradict each other.

3) "I think ... the will of the [Libyan] people ... is a bit more important than the past glories of the[ir] leader [Gadhafi]..." Could you stop the backpedalling and the nondenial denials for a moment, reread what you wrote and explain what that means.

4) Whatever the "will of the Libyan" people was we will never know because it has been stolen, ruined and destroyed by our (governments') illegal War of Aggression against them and their country. The current "victory" the rebels appear to have won is a garbage victory because of the illegal foreign military intervention and War of Aggression.

I suggest you read all the Libyan and related threads to bring yourself up to speed with the rest of us.

6079_Smith_W

Gee Frmrsldr, 

Never mind that most of that last post has nothing at all to do with anything I wrote about - that is to say, I made no value judgment whatsoever at all about the validity of outside intervention, except to say that I think it makes it hard to determine what people on the ground actually wanted.

I am surprised that if you have such a strong case ( which I agree with, in part) you seem so threatened by what was actually a couple of fairly simple points on my part. 

Now I don't think the revelation that Gadaffi decided to become part of the U.S, rendition and torture network has any bearing on whether the NATO caompaign was right or wrong. But I do think it might have had some bearing on the question of whether the only villany in this story was on the part of the rebels, and whether there might actually be some reason why some people in Libya might want to have a change of leadership.

 

 

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... I made no value judgment whatsoever at all about the validity of outside intervention,...

And that's what's wrong with your posts.

To uncritically accept and remain silent about U.S., E.U., NATO, etc., foreign military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change is to very least tacitly support it.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Now I don't think the revelation that Gadaffi decided to become part of the U.S, rendition and torture network has any bearing on whether the NATO caompaign was right or wrong. But I do think it might have had some bearing on the question of whether the only villany in this story was on the part of the rebels, and whether there might actually be some reason why some people in Libya might want to have a change of leadership.

That's very condescending and judgemental of you.

Look at what's wrong with that above statement:

1) Again it passes no judgement on the actions of the U.S., E.U. and NATO but entirely shifts the blame (blames the victim for the foreign military intervention, War of Aggression and intended regime change) on Gadhafi for his "decision to become part of the U.S. rendition and torture network" as you put it.

2) The purpose of point 1 is to show U.S., Canada, E.U. and NATO, etc., countries' governments' hypocrisy.

It matters not whether this has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the U.S./NATO campaign as:

3) Foreign military intervention/War of Aggression

    Regime change

    are illegal

    and thus the U.S./NATO campaign stands alone and is wrong in and of itself period.

4) War is the greatest evil because it is the sum of all the evils it creates.

    The Libyan civil war would not have taken on the nature that it has without the foreign military intervention/War of Aggression. What has happened is the CIA, MI-6, French, Italian, etc., intelligence and Special Forces have armed, financed, trained and led their Al-Qaeda, monarchist and other extremist and intolerant contacts whom they know will be loyal to the demands of Western governments. This is why we see the evil of some rebels murdering black Libyans and Africans, Gadhafi troops and supporters and people who do not support their radical islamist views, etc.

5) Whether (most of) the Libyan people wanted their (Gadhafi run) government deposed was/is not up to us to decide but we (our governments) did just that with their military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change against Libya.

Like I keep on saying,

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am surprised that if you have such a strong case (which I agree with, in part) you seem so threatened by what was actually a couple of fairly simple points on my part.

Threatened doesn't describe it.

Highly unimpressed I would say squarely sums it up.

Again I suggest you read all the Libya and related threads

so you don't sound like a babe in the woods on the subject.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Did I say anything about Gadaffi's decision to do errands for the U.S. and British justifying NATO intervention? It would be like leaping to the assumption that Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the U.S. justified their later invasion of his country.

In short, you just made it up. It's not a reasonable conclusion, and I am disappointed that you are accusing me of it for merely pointing out a few things that add a bit of nuance to the tidy story we are hearing here.

For one thing, I can understand that someone who was tortured by Gadaffi and probably knew he was acting as an errand boy for the imperialists might want to redouble his efforts to topple that government.

(edit)

And if I am the only one looking at the situation from an outside perspective, I wonder how people who have been trying to fight Gadaffi for decades feel about being seen as stooges and fools simply because NATO decided to step in. 

http://rabble.ca/comment/1276656

http://rabble.ca/comment/1278651

I am sure no one appreciates the difficult situation more than some of them do. But somehow I think they are not quite as stupid as some of these cartoons make out.

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Did I say anything about Gadaffi's decision to do errands for the U.S. and British justifying NATO intervention? It would be like leaping to the assumption that Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the U.S. justified their later invasion of his country.

In short, you just made it up. It's not a reasonable conclusion, and I am disappointed that you are accusing me of it ...

How does

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... Gadhaffi decided to become part of the U.S. rendition and torture network ...

lend itself to your above interpretation?

It doesn't. (Bolding not in original.)

The comparison you make between Moammar Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein (Assad of Syria and the Afghan Taliban government and Manuel Noriega one could also add) is the point I am making - and the one you have glaringly failed to bring up - is the hypocrisy, wrongness, criminal illegality and malfeasance of the U.S. in its wars on (Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq) and Libya and the U.S., E.U. and possible NATO treatment of Assad and the Syrian situation with yet another possible foreign military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change against the Syrian people and Syria's President Assad.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... for merely pointing out a few things that add a bit of nuance to the tidy story we are hearing here.

Don't flatter yourself.

Your naive Johnny come lately, just fell off the turnip truck suggestions were discussed and put to bed in these threads long ago. (Namely, the composition of the rebels and who they are, the demonization of Gadhafi to justify/excuse Western governments' actions and the suggestion that this is not an illegal and immoral War of Aggression but a "humanitarian war/intervention.")

Again, I suggest reading through the previous Libya threads.

Pay particular attention to our friend NDPP's posts and links.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

For one thing, I can understand that someone who was tortured by Gadaffi and probably knew he was acting as an errand boy for the imperialists might want to redouble his efforts to topple that government.

Those people (if there are any) who have taken up arms among the rebels are such a small group that they would be statistically insignificant.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if I am the only one looking at the situation from an outside perspective, I wonder how people who have been trying to fight Gadaffi for decades feel about being seen as stooges and fools simply because NATO decided to step in. 

 

How do you know (some Libyan) "people have been trying to fight Gadhaffi for decades"?

That's pretty confident coming from a guy who's emphasized twice that he's not sure what Libyans think.

Think back to the early part of the civil war when government (Gadhafi) forces were still advancing and (a) group(s) of rebels foiled a (U.K.) SAS operation in eastern Libya. Then fast forward a few weeks when rebel forces were advancing and persuing retreating government forces. There were a number of instances when U.S. and NATO aircraft attacked and injured and killed rebel forces - allegedly by mistake. The response of (most of) the rebel forces was not for the U.S./NATO to halt or reduce air support but for increased air support(!)

How do you account for this difference?

I explain it metaphorically using a drug addict as analogy:

The foiled SAS operation was before the "junk" (heroin/CIA, Special Forces funding, training, arming, leading and air support) was introduced.

The "friendly fire" incidents was after the junkie had become hooked on his heroin addiction. Once (most of) the rebels became dependent on funding, training, arming, being led by the CIA/Special Forces, SAS, Paras, etc., and coordination among their activities and the actions of U.S./NATO warplanes and their air support, Western military forces, intelligence and governments had docile and willing puppets they could use as a "weapon" or means to effect, through foreign military intervention and War of Aggression, their goal of regime change.

Again, read my reasons as to why the U.S. and E.U. want regime change in Libya or go back through the previous threads and read the reasons there - (you'll find them mostly in our friend NDPP's postings.)

NDPP

Libyan NTC Rebel Fighters Ambushed in Bani Walid by Gaddafi Loyalists

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/libya-ntc-rebel-fighters-ambushed-i...

"Novices had been mixed in with the veterans and there had been almost no co-ordination between them. 'In one word, it was chaos. There is some kind of treason going on. People pretended to be with the rebels but are really with Gaddafi.."

 

Reports: Infighting Between Libyan Rebels Kills 12

http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6884

"Despite the plea by the chief of the National Transitional Council for different factions among the Al Qathafi fighters to restrain themselves in dealing with each other, at least 12 people were reportedly killed and others wounded when two groups of fighters turned on each other in Libya's west.."

6079_Smith_W

Frmrsldr

haha... well I think my admission of what I don't know is more to point out that unlike some,  I don't think I know everything.

The discussion of who the rebels are was put to bed long ago? Yes, I saw the cartoons. I think they are a perfect example of people  who see Libyans as idiots. If the source and political slant were different I am sure they would have been flagged as racist because it portays them as people who do not know what they are doing and do not think for themselves.

As for my initial post, the information on rendition and torture I mentioned only broke after the documents were discovered September 3. I don't think it has been brought up.

And I was talking about Abdul Hakim Belhadj, who was a victim of rendition, and a member of the Libyan Islamic FIghting Group, and now military commander of the resistance.

http://www.newcivilisation.com/home/middle-east/abdul-hakim-belhadj-mili...

And yes, I have read the accusations of an MI6 connection. Nevertheless, it is at least interesting that the Imperialists would employ Gadaffi to torture the man and then (by some accounts) set him up as one of the new rulers. 

I think I said already that Gadaffi's work for the UK and US has no bearing on whether the NATO intervention is wrong. 

But if the only thing we are supposed to hear in this thread is the drum beat of how this whole incident is nothing more than a NATO invasion... well, if the case is THAT strong (and I agree with you that it is strong) then I don't know what you have to fear from the information I presented, and why you are very rudely jumping on information that provides a bit of nuance to what it going on there.

Like it or not, it is relevant background.

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The discussion of who the rebels are was put to bed long ago? Yes, I saw the cartoons. I think they are a perfect example of people  who see Libyans as idiots. If the source and political slant were different I am sure they would have been flagged as racist because it portays them as people who do not know what they are doing and do not think for themselves.

Your selective reading of the Libyan posts/threads is consistent with your selective understanding of the situation in Libya.

Sounds to me like the guy who gets all his information from a newspaper from the comix section.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As for my initial post, the information on rendition and torture I mentioned only broke after the documents were discovered September 3. I don't think it has been brought up.

Wrong. Again the result of a very scant reading (in this case of the most recent) Libya threads.

Read this one and the previous one again, more carefully.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And I was talking about Abdul Hakim Belhadj, who was a victim of rendition, and a member of the Libyan Islamic FIghting Group, and now military commander of the resistance.

Our friend Fidel has some good posts on LIFG, I suggest you read them.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think I said already that Gadaffi's work for the UK and US has no bearing on whether the NATO intervention is wrong. 

You sure don't carefully read and attempt to understand things posted by those other than yourself, do you?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But if the only thing we are supposed to hear in this thread is the drum beat of how this whole incident is nothing more than a NATO invasion... well, if the case is THAT strong (and I agree with you that it is strong ...

No one has yet been able to make a convincing case that what occurred in February in Libya was a revolution.

Nor am I entirely convinced that it wasn't.

If it was a revolution as I said, we will never know because the U.S., E.U. and NATO hijacked it and made it a case of regime change for their ends.

However the one thing that is clear is that France and the U.K. were the initial authors of UNSCR 1973 - with the U.S. jumping on board a little later - which they proceeded to violate almost imediately.

What occurred in Libya on March 19 to the present is an illegal foreign military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... then I don't know what you have to fear from the information I presented, and why you are very rudely jumping on information that provides a bit of nuance to what it going on there.

Like it or not, it is relevant background.

1. You have an overinflated opinion of your information.

2. You haven't brought anything new to the discussion.

3. There's nothing subtle or nuanced about this information.

It's called empathy. The ability to see things from another person's point of view.

I read your posts in this thread and I'm embarassed for you.

Frat boy Political Science and Philosophy 101 arguments that there are saints and sinners among the rebels, Gadhafi did both good and bad things - his agreeing to take rendition victims and torture them so the U.S. would stop trying to assassinate him and see him as a "good" guy and that the U.S., E.U., NATO actions are both good, evil, self-centered, humanitarian and this "kinetic military action" has both elements of an illegal War of Aggression war crime as well as a humanitarian war.

Wait, let me put on my propeller beanie and join your candycoated fantasy world.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Irony alert. Demonizing propaganda is a NATO speciality and their "allies" were very happy to spread the viagra lies and murder black men using the lies as an excuse.  Gee seems to me that what goes around comes around.  

Quote:

Taking Bani Walid will be no easy task, as pro-Gaddafi fighters within the town have the higher ground.

 

The main challenge, said Monem, was snipers perched on the hills and residents armed by Gaddafi.

 

They have been led to expect the worst from the NTC force after an intense propaganda campaign that has depicted them as killers and rapists.

"Civilians are afraid of us because Libya TV said we are rats that will rape their daughters," he said.

 

The lack of electricity in the Bani Walid area had prevented the NTC from countering that message, he added.

All afternoon, a local pro-Gaddafi radio station broadcast an appeal to residents to rally against the invaders.

 

 

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/libya-ntc-rebel-fighters-ambushed-i...

NDPP

'Mission Accomplished' is Easier Said Than Done  -  by Scott Taylor

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1262833.html

"Now, after six months of NATO intervention in support of Libyan rebels, Moammar Gadhafi's regime has been ousted and his loyalists are fighting a no-win battle. However, for those trumpeting war mongers who believe this is yet another quck victory over a Third World regime for western intervention, one need only study the tribal makeup and violent history of Libya to recognize that this war will not end with the death or capture of Gadhafi.

It will likely only intensify as the rebels fight among themselves for control of Libya's oil and gold riches."

NDPP

Libya Lies: Armed Gangs, Oil and Imperial Gain  -  by Murray Dobbin

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/09/libya-lies-armed-gangs-oil-and-imper...

"But watching the sorry spectacle of media coverage of the tragic farce unfolding around Libya, one has to wonder if anyone will ever expose the lies and hubris that have run throughout this faux Arab Spring...

But none of this bothers the Canadian political elite and its intellectual hired guns. It's hard to know if the brain trust at NATO actually believed this whole thing would be over in a few weeks but what they did know, and what the Canadian media refuses to tell us, is that Libya was the biggest obstacle to the continued super-exploitation of Africa and its vast resources...

On a whole number of fronts, Libya was using its oil wealth to gradually close the doors to the IMF, World Bank and the hegemony of the US dollar in the economic domination of Africa..."

6079_Smith_W

You know, Frmrsldr if you just ignored posts you disagree with, or disagreed more politely then they would probably be read and passed over and you could get back to saying the thing you want to say over and over again.

But as for my post... no, unless it's buried there was no prior mention of rendition, and it certainly wasn't discussed, and "put to bed" which I guess is your term for deciding the single common position everyone is going to take on something. 

For that matter, I must have missed the post pointing out that Belhadj is planning to sue Britain. Clearly he didn't get the memo that they gave him his job.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/197521.html

But I have read about MI6 and the LIFG, as I think I mentioned. They do have that information on the turnip trucks, not just on the latte  trucks.

Given the success rate of imperialist inerventions though, I have to wonder a bit about the insulting view of the rebels as idiots and sycophants. Looking at how things are going on the ground I would have to ask who is using whom? Perhaps they are just playing a longer con than the U.S., France and Britain - one that they are pretty sure they will win eventually.

Whatever the relationship between these parties, I am sure that it is not that simple, and that they are not as stupid as these outside commentators say.

What I find really odd is that you seem have a problem with me posting anything other than a strong condemnation of the NATO invasion (even though it wasn't the point of my post, I said nothing in support of it, and said that, in fact. I agree with that view of intervention). In short, if I don't scream your views as loudly as you think I should then I am "tacitly supporting" NATO's actions.

So I'm wrong for bringing up something that you think may have been mentioned in a footnote somewhere, and I'm also wrong for not repeating the same thing that has been hammered away at for the past 19 threads.

Seems a bit contradictory to me, Frmrsldr. Maybe you should post your rules at the top of every thread just so we all get with the program.

In any case if you want to spend more time insulting me than discussing the issue, feel free. I assure you I have heard worse from others, and I think it reflects more on you than it does on me.

(edit)

@ NS

Cross-posted with you. Yes, I think I read (here, probably) that the source of that story was a single unopened box of viagra found in a tank. 

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Amnesty: Libyan rebels may be guilty of war crimes
 

Quote:

Rebels fighting to topple Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi committed unlawful killings and torture, Amnesty International said in a report released on Tuesday.
The 100-plus page report, based on three months of investigation in Libya, draws no equivalency between the crimes of Gadhafi loyalists and those of the former rebels, who now hold power in Tripoli: The Gadhafi forces' crimes were greater, the list of them is longer, and they may have amounted to crimes against humanity, the report said.
But it said the crimes of the rebels were not insignificant.
"Members and supporters of the opposition, loosely structured under the leadership of the National Transitional Council (NTC) ... have also committed human rights abuses, in some cases amounting to war crimes, albeit on a smaller scale," the Amnesty report said.

Hoodeet

The African refugees and workers are in dire straits, isolated inside Libya, many in hiding, others in temporary refuge, running out of food and medicines and water, as rebels close in on them.  The Blacks are terrified and no one is helping them out of their situation -- unless the UN or the Red Cross/Red Crescent have by now been allowed in by NATO and the racist goons.  So much for protecting civilians...

Good thing there's now a Libyan embassy where we can and should be directing our protests.

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But as for my post... no, unless it's buried there was no prior mention of rendition, and it certainly wasn't discussed, and "put to bed"...

Look harder because there was a link posted for it and I certainly have dicussed the subject.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

For that matter, I must have missed the post pointing out that Belhadj is planning to sue Britain. Clearly he didn't get the memo that they gave him his job.

So what's the (not so) profound point you're raising here?

That Belhadj is a member of a miniscule minority: A Libyan who was tortured by the Gadhafi government through rendition by the U.K. before the Libyan civil war, was liberated and joined the rebels to fight the evil demon Gadhafi (for doing things like torturing rendition victims.) That Belhadj belongs to that illusive phantom group - the "good" rebels?

Well I got news for you. Belhadj is a Benedict Arnold. What, you think that because he was a victim of rendition and is suing the U.K. government and is fighting the Gadhafi government because it tortured him, he is an example of a "good" rebel? That he is a great humanitarian and that he is fighting for the rights and liberties of all Afghans who were the victims of Western imperialism and Gadhafi's evil despotism?

Wrong!

Belhadj is a cynic who is "in it" for no one else's interests/benefit but his own.

He could have stuck with Gadhafi but decided he would get a better (powersharing and financial) deal with the U.S., E.U. and NATO countries. That he was tortured by the Gadhafi government is for him a convenient excuse. So he is suing the U.K. government for his rendition and subsequent torture. That's mighty humanitarian/generous of him. For how much? Ever notice how funny it is that the rebels and NTC are claiming that they need the billions in frozen Libyan assets just to be able to do the day-to-day running of the national government when the Gadhafi government for over forty years, was able to run day-to-day business of government for exponentially less?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Given the success rate of imperialist inerventions though, I have to wonder a bit about the insulting view of the rebels as idiots and sycophants. Looking at how things are going on the ground I would have to ask who is using whom? Perhaps they are just playing a longer con than the U.S., France and Britain - one that they are pretty sure they will win eventually.

OMFG, are you for real?

Look up our friend Bec.De.Corbin's posts and links in these threads. He shows you the weapons and tactics the rebels used when left to their own devices (especially in the early part of the civil war.) They were armed with Second World War and older vintage Mannlicher Carcano Italian bolt action rifles from the days when Libya was an Italian colony, Cold War Era Soviet-made rifles, machineguns, grenades and RPGs and Grad rockets and other Saturday Night Garage Shop Specials jury-rigged to civilian Toyota trucks. Their tactic was to have guys in their forties and older act as Sergeants and above, the foot soldiers being kids in their teens and twenties - half of them unarmed - running up to the front lines of battle.

There is no way that the rebels could have won the war without U.S./NATO support. That is why at first SAS troops were foiled in their early operation in eastern Libya but later rebels aparantly clamored for more U.S./NATO air support even though some U.S./NATO airstrikes resulted in rebel deaths and injuries.

Even someone with the meanest intellect and the most cursory reading of post WW2 American history will see that being Uncle Sam's friend is poison. Again I bring you to the attention of 1953 Iran, Manuel Noriega, the Afghan Taliban government prior to September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi.

You're trying to have us believe that most Libyans and Libyan rebels who live in a country that provides the benefit of free education - including post secondary education for all Libyans, would not know this?

Hey buddy, did you get the license plate number of the turnip truck you fell off?

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/09/libya-lies-armed-gangs-oil-and-imper...

 

6079_Smith_W

???

No, actually you imagined it. The link isn't there. Not even in the Al Jazeera piece. Not that it matters, because your rulings about what commentary is allowed and what is not doesn't follow any rhyme or reason anyway, aside from the fact that anything I write seems to bug you.

Maybe you should just drop it and move on.

And actually I didn't offer any opinion about Belhadj. I can't claim to know what his motivation is beyond what is written about him, but the fact that the military commander of the rebels was a victim of rendition and is now planning to sue because of it is information relevant to this thread. If you don't think so, too bad. 

And as for my comment about who is using whom, of course the rebels needed NATO help; I think we all know that. The point I am raising is that I don't necessarily think they are all the brainless fools some are making them out to be.

I am sure they are not stupid enough to think that the west will not want control  in return. On the other hand, there are enough ventures the Americans and Brits have gotten into in the past - in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Somalia to name a few - where they have not been able to maintain control. 

It's a gamble to be sure, but I can't think of why any thinking person would make a deal like this thinking to just hand everything over to the west after it is all done. Clearly the rebels feel they needed NATO to get rid of Gadaffi (whoever initiated what in that whole process). Given how powerful Gadaffi's forces were there probably was no other way.  But as for what happens now - that remains to be seen. 

With all the irons in all the fires the U.S. has already, do you think they can maintain control in a country like Libya? Surely the rebels can read the papers and are aware of the U.S. debt. It may just be a matter of waiting.

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It's a gamble to be sure, but I can't think of why any thinking person would make a deal like this thinking to just hand everything over to the west after it is all done. Clearly the rebels feel they needed NATO to get rid of Gadaffi (whoever initiated what in that whole process) but as for what happens now - that remains to be seen. 

What makes you think the rebels ever had a choice?

Look over the history.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron hold an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting.

UNSCR 1973 (the "No-Fly Zone) is drafted.

UNSCR 1973 spells out that U.S./NATO navy ships and combat planes are to protect Libyan civilians and civilian populated areas. That left two cities under threat of government forces attack: Benghazi (mentioned by name) and Tobruk. The war was to be one of defense - to protect civilians. UNSCR 1973 is violated the instant French aircraft drop bombs on targets other than government (Gadhafi) forces advancing toward Benghazi or Tobruk (in the case of Tobruk, this contingency never materializes.) Shortly afterward the fact that this illegal foreign military intervention and War of Aggression was/is also about regime change became aparent when aircraft and navy ships dropped bombs and fired upon Tripoli (a city never under threat of government forces "attack") and Gadhafi's home.

The war thus quickly transformed from a war of defense to a war of offense or War of Aggression.

Thus, the rebels and Libyans in general never really had a choice when it came to "support" and being maimed and murdered by this U.S., E.U., NATO, etc., criminal war being waged against them.

We never so much as even asked "by your leave" of the Libyan people.

When it comes to the American Empire and Wars of Aggression, we never ask.

We just do.

6079_Smith_W

As I said... "whoever initiated what in that whole process".

The one big advantage the various anti-Gadaffi forces do have is the current power vacuum, and time.  

NDPP

Mustafa Abdul Jalil and Mahmoud Jibril Have Been Paving the Way for NATO's Conquest Since 2007

http://rebelgriot.blogspot.com/2011/09/mustafa-abdul-jalil-and-mahmoud-j...

"So 2007 was the year that launched these three men on the path towards their current role as NATO's proxy rulers in Libya. Benotman's letter made NATO support for a violent AL Qaeda affiliate politically possible, and helped to sucker Saif-al-Islam into releasing the very people who would become the ground forces in the overthrow of the government.

Abdul-Jalil's appointment as Justice Minister smoothed over teh fighters' release, and prepared the legal framework for an economic takeover by Western corporations. Jibril's appointment as Planning Minister prepared, at a micro level, the details of how this takeover would come about, and cultivated the relationships with the Western companies that would be invited in.

So why did this all come about? Who was pulling the strings?"

Sketching Out the New Libya: Departures from Protocol at the UN

http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/departures-from-protocol-at-u...

"The uprising originated, to some extend anyway, with Libyans - but only a select few visionary one operating within Libya, in Paris and especially in New York. These pioneers worked largely through the United Nations, but in an unusual personal, not national capacity. I'm no expert on international law, but I suspect what happened here was illegal.

This fascinating but ignored line of thought is the cornerstone of an impressive recent article I read and will cite throughout this one: The Role of the UN Security Council in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libya, by Ronda Hauben.."

NDPP

Canadian Diplomats Back in Libya

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/12/pol-libya-canadians-bac...

"The government has repeatedly said Canada wouldn't send ground troops into the country, but CBC News has learned there are members of the Canadian Forces on the ground in Libya. A senior government official says Canada is in a strategic position to promote Canadian values in Libya.."

I thought that was what Lt. Gen Charles 'the Butcher' Bouchard, was already doing...

ps: the 'Canadian Forces on the ground in Libya' are likely more Canadian butchers, JTF2

Frmrsldr

NDPP wrote:

A senior government official says Canada is in a strategic position to promote Canadian values in Libya.."

Those who have been paying attention will recall this is a verbatim quote from former General Rick Hillier on Canada's "role" in Afghanistan circa 2003.

NDPP

Splits Emerging Among Libya's Rebels

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110912/world/splits-emerging...

"Sharp splits are already emerging in the ranks of Libya's new rulers between Islamic conservatives and more secular figures competing for power even as the leadership begins to settle in Tripoli. The rising tensions, which have become increasingly public, could jeopardise efforts to rebuild the country and form a cohesive state after six months of civil war..."

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As I said... "whoever initiated what in that whole process".

That sounds like Al Bundy's (Married With Children) definition of history:

"A bunch of important guys who said and did a bunch of important things."

The end.Laughing

6079_Smith_W

There was a jaw-dropping comment on "As it Happens" this evening during an interview about Mustafa Abdul Jalil's announcement that the new Libyan government would use Islamic law.

"Islamic democracy - isn't that a contradiction in terms?" said the host. Aside from being very insulting, it also shows some ignorance of countries with large Muslim populations which are democratic - Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Singapore, Bosnia Herzegovina. Not to mention the many Muslim people in Canada who manage to understand the concept of democracy just fine, and even serve in govenrment.

 

 

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There was a jaw-dropping comment on "As it Happens" this evening during an interview about Mustafa Abdul Jalil's announcement that the new Libyan government would use Islamic law.

"Islamic democracy - isn't that a contradiction in terms?" said the host. Aside from being very insulting, it also shows some ignorance of countries with large Muslim populations which are democratic - Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Singapore, Bosnia Herzegovina. Not to mention the many Muslim people in Canada who manage to understand the concept of democracy just fine, and even serve in govenrment.

Turkey is a corrupt country. Certain Turkish lobbyists, according to a Turkish-American citizen fired from her FBI job for whistleblowing, infiltrated, bribed and generally corrupted high ranking members of the U.S. House on behalf of Turkish interests in the late 1990s-2000s. And the corruption is ongoing apparently since whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is living under a federal gag order. No protection for whistleblowers, government secrecy, and deep seated corruption are alll incompatible with democracy.

Bosnia has been transformed into a militant Islamic base since NATO and the U.S. worked with al-Qa'eda to affect an ethnic purge of Bosnian Serbs in the 1990s. Kosovo is a corrupt narco state friendly to the west and recognized as an independent state by only a handful of countries in the world. Serbs still consider it part of Serbia, but it's being run into the ground financial and economically by a drug trafficking criminal regime backed by the west. Camp Bondsteel is another Guantanamo Bay torture gulag on the edge of Eastern Europe. Renditions, torture and working to establish Qa'eda hangouts in 1990s Yugoslavia had nothing to do with democracy just as it doesn't in Libya today.

And Pakistan is about as corrupt a nation as they come. The US and series of US-backed military dictatorships in Pakistan began striving toward creating a purely ideologically driven nation of relgious fanaticism, like Iran today, beginning with General Zia in the 1980s. Socialist Tariq Ali says Pakistan is hopelessly corrupt. 

NDPP

The Imperial Media, Libya and the Battle of Bani Walid  -  by Les Blough

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_63735.shtml

"Examining the facts and finding the truth of what began Friday night as The Battle for Ban Walid has not been easy due to the many conflicting stories published by the pro-invader media. That the western media has organized itself to blatantly lie about the NATO war on Libya is irrefutable, indeed, they make no attempt to defend their deception, depending rather on repetition and brute force on minds, akin to the savagery of NATO's assault with bombs and missiles.

In the coverage of the Battle for Bani Walid we argue that the media has warped into publication of deliberate contradictions meant to confuse the reader, hiding or ignoring the truth.."

6079_Smith_W

I'm not denying any of that, Fidel. And we don't have to look that far if we want to find corruption. It is the perception that Islam and democracy are contradictory that I find insulting.

 

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is the perception that Islam and democracy are contradictory that I find insulting.

Why do you find that insulting?

Hint:

The answer to that question will provide the answer to this question:

Why do I (and why should you) find the subconscious unquestioned and assumed right by Westerners to militarily intervene, wage Wars of Aggression and engage in regime change in countries with societies and cultures different from ours, insulting?

What does the expression "What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans" mean?

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well whatever your baffling comment is supposed to mean, Frmrsldr...

(and yeah, I think i do understand what you're saying - it just has nothing to do with my point)

I think it is discriminatory for someone in our society to  imply that people of other cultures are too stupid to understand political systems.

After all, there are enough examples to the contrary.

I'm especially shocked to hear it come from a journalist who I thought knew better. Maybe it was a joke, but if so it was a very bad one. I don't think she would have said Catholicism and democracy are contradictory.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Islamic democracy is a contradiction just like a Jewish democracy or a Xian democracy. To become an Islamic republic a specific religion is included in the constitution or laws where there is no written constitution.  IMO it therefore cannot be democratic because it means more than on class of citizen with differing rights and restrictions.  The constitutions that were imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan are not secular they are religious based. The people in those countries never got a say in what "democracy" they would have imposed for their own good.  Looks like no one is going to ask the Libyan people either.

The French did to the Iranians with Kohemini what the Germans did to the Russians with Lenin. Seems to me that Iran is a democracy if Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq are democracies.  The empires most loyal allies are corrupt dictatorships like Saudi Arabia where religious law and courts are considered the rule of law so its not like in foreign relations NATO cares about whether a country is democratic or not. 

6079_Smith_W

@ NS

Well be that as it may, I don't expect that was the perspective the journalist was coming from.

I expect it had more to do with the assumption that Muslims don't think for themselves and just do whatever they are told by their religious leaders. 

Again, it's not a comment that mainstream journalists here would make about nations with a Christian tradition.

Not to say I think your point and Frmrsldr's point about secularism, imperialism and the nature of democracy are invalid. It's just not what I was talking about. My point was about discrimination.

 

 

Pages

Topic locked