Libya 19

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

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...

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

42 years of dictatorship later , the rebels would disagree

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..

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.

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. 

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

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.

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 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 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 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.)

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.

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...

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..."

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

@ 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.