Canada To Extend Libya Mission by Three Months
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110914/libya-mission-extension-11...
"CTV News has learned Canada will extend its military mission to Libya by up to three months to help the country get back on its feet."
6079 you interpreted the piece negatively. The interview itself did not say what you "expected" it to so you read it into the text in between the actual words.
When I hear Islamic democracy I think it is an oxymoron but it has nothing to do with whether people of faith can also be democrats but whether or not a government lead by people of faith for the benefit of people of their own faith can ever be democratic.
@ NS
Well I presume you heard the interview, but here it is, at the top of part two for September 13 2011:
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/
In the first place, one of the points made by the person interviewed (Yunis Abu Joub of Columbia University) was that "sharia" simply means legislation, and there are many interpretations of that, including by Turkey, which is a NATO member.
And after all, when Gadaffi took power he instituted a legal system based on sharia as well.
According to Yunis Abu Joub it sounds like the alarm over sharia is simply a product of western misunderstanding.
And again, not to say I disagree with you about the separation of religion and state, but I think the reaction of the interviewer saying that "Islamic democracy" sounds like a contradiction is based more on that misunderstanding than on the far more sophisticated and insightful analysis which some of you are bringing to the table here.
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.
(Bolding not in original.)
You answered your own question buddy.
Responding to the bolded portion:
The answer is very simple. The reason why Muslim countries and cultures are incapable of governing themselves and running their societies the way they "should" - i.e., the way we want them to (i.e., like we do - with "democracy", "liberty", "equality" between men and women, "freedom of the press", "freedom of speech", "freedom of (religious) belief", "freedom of assembly", "freedom of association", "freedom of expression", etc.,) is because they are too "stupid (to understand political systems.)"
They are incapable and unwilling to make these appropriate changes fast enough to our liking, so for their own good WE will make these necessary and desirable changes for them through foreign military intervention, Wars of Aggression and regime change.
Do you see the contradiction in finding this attitude toward Muslim countries and cultures insulting on the one hand yet on the other, merely passing the growth of the American Empire and our re-establishment of imperialism in Libya and Africa through this foreign military intervention, War of Aggression and regime change as a fait accompli with little or no critical comment, as you did in (an) above post(s)?
These evils are all inextricably linked.
If you want to end ONE of them, you have to oppose ALL of them.
Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
The French did to the Iranians with Kohemini... 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.
Um, that would be what the Americans did to the Iranians with the Shah (Persia or Iran was a former British colony.) The backlash this created was the Iranian Revolution in 1979 where Iranians instituted Khomeni and the Grand Council of Ayatolas, etc.
Kohemini was in exiled in Paris and the French government sent him and his people back to Iran in a special plane. Reminiscent of Germany sending Lenin in the sealed train back to Russia.
The Ayatollah immediately purged all the leftists in the revolution while the west cheered discretely.
@ Frmrsldr
Well as I said, I don't have any issue with your treatise, and I agree with you on a fair bit of it.
But I think the comment on the radio is also a more basic slur against Muslims because it is a stereotype, and simply inaccurate.
But I think the comment on the radio is also a more basic slur against Muslims because it is a stereotype,...
Absolutely.
And because many Muslim countries have oil - Afghanistan is located near the Caspian Sea Basin that is rich in oil and Unocal wants to build TAP(I) - a Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly to India pipeline (it will either terminate in Karachi, Pakistan or Bombay (Mumbai), India where it will be shipped to Europe and North America by tanker.) Iraq and Libya have oil of their own.
And if these countries don't want to sell oil on the American Empire's terms, well hence the need for foreign military intervention, Wars of Aggression and regime change.
How do we justify (excuse) such actions?
What reason works for you?
Humanitarian war is a "good" one.
Though I have to say, I don't share your ironic turnaround of the word "stupid".
Or more to the point, I was refering to something quite different than what you are making it into.
The comment I was talking about, and the attitudes I mentioned upthread, are nothing but insulting. There's no irony in them whatsoever.
And although no, I don't see democracy as the only possible way for a nation, there have certainly been enough nations which have come to it in a legitimate way - sometimes, as in the case of Iran, too soon for the liking of Imperialists.
Libya Intensifies Resistance to US and NATO-led Occupation
http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2011/09/libya-intensifies-resistance-...
"Pentagon admits greater involvement on the ground...
Perhaps one of the most shocking stories to come out of Libya was revealed by former US Congressman Walter Fauntroy, a civil rights activist and aide to the martyred Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Fauntroy, who travelled to Libya during the earlier days of the war seeking to mediate a peace agreement between the US-NATO forces and the Gaddafi government, said he witnessed the beheading of people by Special Forces units from NATO countries.."
JTF2?
Though I have to say, I don't share your ironic turnaround of the word "stupid".
Or more to the point, I was refering to something quite different than what you are making it into.
The comment I was talking about, and the attitudes I mentioned upthread, are nothing but insulting. There's no irony in them whatsoever.
For neocons the argument for war against countries in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia is that Muslim (countries and cultures) are stupid. They are a bunch of ignorant savages who live in feudal times and who need us to bring them into the 21st Century.
For bleeding heart neoliberals these countries are run by evil despots who "murder their own people" and thus we wage war on them to "protect" their innocent citizens and bring them the benefits of our "advanced" civilizations - in other words for humanitarian reasons.
Both neocons and neolibs are imperialists.
The neocons are just more honest about it in that they will tell you with a straight face that it's all for the greater power and glory of the American Empire - Talk about America being the world's only Superpower, etc.
The bleeding heart neolibs are less honest. They talk "humanitarian" war, R2P, D2P bullshit. The unfortunate thing is some leftists have fallen for this line of reasoning.
Imperialism is based on racism.
Degrading our "enemy" so that they are less than human just makes it easier to wage war against them and murder them so that the American Empire can grow and we can take their oil and other valuable minerals away from them.
I'm not sure if you mean to imply that is my line of reasoning, but no, it is not.
I just think pictures of people kneeling down to flags, or thinking they are free and not seeing shackles on their feet, or the idea that they only do what the imperialists or their religion tells them to, are all very insulting - and inaccurate.
I think they show an incredible ignorance on our part of people generally, and of some people specifically who probably know far more about what is going on there, and the powers involved, than we do.
I am not saying that all these people are taking a progressive course of action; I am saying that they are not stupid, as some of us outsiders evidently think.
Silence and Fear Return to the Streets of Libya
http://rt.com/news/tripoli-rebels-people-fear-607/
"The rebels, they only represent themselves, not the Libyan people.."
I just think pictures of people kneeling down to flags, or thinking they are free and not seeing shackles on their feet, or the idea that they only do what the imperialists..., are all very insulting - and inaccurate.
If you are referring to those cartoons posted earlier keep in mind they are metaphorical and as such, do not have an exact 1 to 1 corelation with real life. The point being made and it is an accurate one, is that after (possibly) giving up opression under the despot (assuming this was the case) Gadhafi, the Libyans are going to suffer from the opression of U.S., Pentagon/CIA, E.U., NATO countries, etc., imperialism. Beyond that I wouldn't read anything more into it.
I'm not sure if you mean to imply that is my line of reasoning, but no, it is not.
Absolutely not. I'm making no such implication.
I'm simply saying that viewing Muslim countries and cultures as "stupid," "backward," "savages," "barbarians," "murderers," "misogynists," "rapers and defilers of women," our "inferiors," etc., is the means used by our governments, by our militaries, by the Pentagon and chorussed by the Fawning Corporate Media to justify war against these countries and their peoples.
War is never justified because there is no such thing as a just war.
War is not fought for generous or humanitarian reasons.
Kohemini was in exiled in Paris and the French government sent him and his people back to Iran in a special plane. Reminiscent of Germany sending Lenin in the sealed train back to Russia.
Although prima facie the two events appear to share similarities, they are in fact totally dissimilar.
Germany was at war. One of the countries Germany was at war with was Russia. The reason why Germany sent Lenin (he was not asked to be returned by the Russian government) back to Russia was it was believed conditions were ripe for revolution and that Lenin's agitation might just spark one. A successful revolution would take Russia out of the war and (it was hoped/believed) would improve Germany's chances for winning the war.
Lenin was sent on a "special" or sealed train - he was not allowed off during stops and no one was allowed on for fear of a possible spread of revolution. Things were overall bad in Germany as well.
Lenin arrived first in Russia and then the revolution broke out. Lenin's arrival in Russia and his subsequent actions were largely the (immediate and/or sufficient) cause of the revolution.
In the case of France and Iran, the chronology is wrong.
The revolution occurred first in Iran and then Ayatollah Khomeini was asked by the Iranian Prime Minister to return after having only spent less than four months in France. By the time Khomeini returned the revolution was in its final stage - the Shah had already left.
Unlike Lenin, Khomeini was not sent (as we have already seen) in a "special" or sealed plane. He arrived on a chartered Air France jet.
The German government (and military) clearly had a motive for sending Lenin to Russia.
There was no motive for the French government to send (as we have seen he was asked to return and was not "sent" by anyone) Khomeini to Iran. As already mentioned, Khomeini's arrival in Iran was not the immediate or sufficient cause of the revolution. The revolution had been in progress for roughly a year before Khomeini arrived.
The only government that would have had the ability to cause and/or influence/be involved in the Iranian Revolution would have been the U.S. because of its strong diplomatic ties to the Iranian government. The (most readily available) historical evidence however, does not suggest this. If the Pentagon/CIA and U.S. government had been involved, then things most certainly did not go the way they would have planned or wanted.
On both logical and practical grounds it makes no sense for the Pentagon/CIA and U.S. government to foment a revolution in Iran to oust their longtime loyal puppet Shah Palaveh, whom they had reinstalled back in 1953.
Historical consensus suggests that what occurred in Iran caught the rest of the world by surprize. The U.S. Carter administration no less so. White House staff and the Carter administration did not seriously consider that a revolution was possible in Iran and would in fact take place. They continued to support the Shah "to the hilt" right up until his departure.
If you are referring to those cartoons posted earlier keep in mind they are metaphorical and as such, do not have an exact 1 to 1 corelation with real life. The point being made and it is an accurate one, is that after (possibly) giving up opression under the despot (assuming this was the case) Gadhafi, the Libyans are going to suffer from the opression of U.S., Pentagon/CIA, E.U., NATO countries, etc., imperialism. Beyond that I wouldn't read anything more into it.
Well minstrel shows, the Elders of Zion, Fu Manchu and people being poor because they are lazy aren't accurate either. That is the thing about racist stereotypes - they do not have a correlation with real life.
And while I don't think it has any bearing on your second point about oppression, neither does that oppression make it right for a cartoonist, commentator or journalist to resort to discrimination to make that point.
It's wrong when it is directed at anyone, but as I think has been pointed out, it is especially wrong when directed at the most vulnerable, and in this case I think that means those who are caught up in this conflict.
My point isn't about what is happening on the ground over there; it is about how we see it and apply our values to it. And almost all of us do it, no matter what our political beliefs.
But anyway, we don't need to hash this out for the rest of the thread. I kind of feel like I said it
FMSD
I agree that the Iranian revolution was spontaneous. I doubt if it took any western intelligence agencies by surprise. I was in Tehran more than 5 years before the revolution and I could see it coming because I was told it was by earnest young people who only spoke to me and my travelling companions after they had decided we were safe. After a tour of Tehrain and a great political conversation these young people, all from the upper classses, told us not to dare talk openly inside Iran. The Iranian revolution was an uprising of the people with many organized groups being involved.
I think the game was to ensure the commies were decimated. My guess is that Kohemini played poker very well and the west was surprised by his organizations ability to dispose of the other factions in the revolution very quickly and cease complete control in the midst of the chaos.
Cameron, Sarkozy Support New Libyan Government
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/15/libya-gadhafi-915.html
"...The NTC and an executive committee it created are largely made up of technocrats - some of whom were once would-be reformers in Gadhafi's regime who grew disillusioned and left - and respresentatives from towns and cities around the country..."
LOL : CBC is up to its uusual high standards of rubbish dissemination - all the propaganda points are here..
And while I don't think it has any bearing on your second point about oppression, neither does that oppression make it right for a cartoonist, commentator or journalist to resort to discrimination to make that point.
The point that was being made was to contradict the misinformation and outright lie of the Fawning Corporate Media that we are "liberating" the people of Libya.
It's wrong when it is directed at anyone, but as I think has been pointed out, it is especially wrong when directed at the most vulnerable, and in this case I think that means those who are caught up in this conflict.
My point isn't about what is happening on the ground over there; it is about how we see it and apply our values to it. And almost all of us do it, no matter what our political beliefs.
(Bolding not in original)
Responding to the bolded portion:
But there's the rub: It is about what is happening on the ground over there.
"... it is about how we see it and apply our values to it. And almost all of us do it, no matter what our political beliefs." As I said above, our governments, the Pentagon/CIA our militaries and as you have just pointed out, our FCM chorusses this; the use of racism as a means (along with the oxymoron of "humanitarian" war, R2P, D2P, self-defense, etc.,) to justify our wars on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya.
It's a company source, so who knows if it is true, but creating a separate corporation (even if it is government-owned) sounds like it would be good for business, but not so good for autonomous control:
It will be good for corrupt players. That article reaffirms my believe that the rush for the gush has started in earnest. No matter what one thinks the last six months have been about, the result will be that it will have led to a whole lot of the Libyan economy being in the control of people who have never been elected but instead were anointed by NATO, as it bombed the crap out of the Libyan forces.
The Canadian embassy is newly renovated and open for business and I am sure that SNC Lavelin and other corporataionsa are already in overdrive.
@ NS
Yeah. If it's true, I am inclined to agree. Given the source it is kind of one step above rumour, and in and of itself it's not that outlandish that they might want to revise their structure to align with other OPEC nations.
But the fact that the company is floating stuff like this before the country has stabilized, formed a government, or held the election that this was supposed to be all about is what I find most alarming.
... or held the election that this was supposed to be all about is what I find most alarming.
The war was never about that.
War is not fought for generous or humanitarian reasons.
If it was about that, then clearly the war was about regime change which is illegal and something the instigators and key powers of the war on Libya (France, the U.K. and the U.S.) have never publicly admitted.
The "official" reason for the war was to "protect" Libyan civilians.
Jesus, Frmrsldr. Will you stop talking to others like they are completely ignorant, and give me some credit for a bit of irony?
Believe it or not, you're not exactly posting a news flash. I think I've only read that fifty times already/
Or better still, if you want to grandstand, spin your own damn posts. You have already demonstrated that you don't get half of what I have been talking about.
Jesus, Frmrsldr. Will you stop talking to others like they are completely ignorant, and give me some credit for a bit of irony?
Believe it or not, you're not exactly posting a news flash. I think I've only read that fifty times already/
Or better still, if you want to grandstand, spin your own damn posts. You have already demonstrated that you don't get half of what I have been talking about.
Temper, temper.
The way to combat deeply held prejudices like the ones you find insulting is to do what capitalism does: Conditioning (or indoctrination) through advertizing. In other words through repetition.
Some of what you're talking about Mr. Johnny come lately, is such bullshit.
Like your going off on the wrong tangent/misunderstanding of the intent of those cartoons and the intent of their poster. You're the only one who's got the proper sense of irony?
And oh, I guess your complete lack of any critical comment on this criminal War of Aggression against Libya (except perhaps from some statements that you agree with my position) and your argument(s) attempting to make (some of) the rebels look like good guys is just "irony" as well?
Wait, don't answer that question. I already know the answer. You turn backpedalling into a fine art.
Babble isn't only about news. It's also about discussing babble culture's social and political values concerning the latest events.
Why don't you open up your own thread on Libya?
That way you can spare yourself having to read all the previous Libya threads and because you would have ownership of that thread for openning it, your often babe in the woods comments on this subject wouldn't be so embarassing.
Well at least you didn't sample another one of my posts that time and use it to launch off on another one of your irrelevant tangents.
Not that I don't agree with some of the things you say, but frankly you just seem to be saying one thing, and getting weird when anyone get off your script.
I can ignore your personal insults, but if you can't even recognize when someone is using a bit of irony then maybe it is time to step back and ask yourself what you are trying to do in this conversation. Sorry, but that response was as wooden as it was tone-deaf.
The U.S. France and Britain's goal was not humanitarian, or to bring democracy, but regime change and oil?
THank you so much for enlightening me. I would never have figured that out by myself.
How about this:
Ignore what I have to say, and I will afford you the same courtesy, Because I 'm not really interested in this public tiff.
The U.S. France and Britain's goal was not humanitarian, or to bring democracy, but regime change and oil?
THank you so much for enlightening me. I would never have figured that out by myself.
No, according to some of your posts, France, the U.K.'s and the U.S.'s goal was to offer some assistance to some of the Libyan rebel freedom fighters to liberate Libya, which the rebel freedom fighters were largely able to do themselves anyway.
The U.S. France and Britain's goal was not humanitarian, or to bring democracy, but regime change and oil?
THank you so much for enlightening me. I would never have figured that out by myself.
No, according to some of your posts, France, the U.K.'s and the U.S.'s goal was to offer some assistance to some of the Libyan rebel freedom fighters to liberate Libya, which the rebel freedom fighters were largely able to do themselves anyway.
Since you like quoting me, how about actually providing one in which I say that the goal of the U.S. was to assist the rebels, rather than just making false accusations.
"I thought I would be a member of an opposition and the leader of an opposition party in Parliament. I thought, well you know, I'll be voting with the opposition party on most everything.
The government wanted to put the Libya motion through with one day of debate, to limit the debate to one day. They were seeking unanimous consent and they had the consent of the NDP and the Liberals. I didn't think I would ever be the only one voting no on Libya.."
ELizabeth May Goes to Washington - by Murray Dobbin
... And as for my comment about who is using whom, of course the rebels needed NATO help ...
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)...
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?
those poor fools in the streets of Libya -- not at all the same level of political insight as we see here at Babble:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14934352
Imagine, cheering wildly for such horrible oppressors !
Rapturous reception
After the talks in Tripoli, Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy travelled under heavy security to Benghazi, where a crowd had gathered in central Liberty Square, waiting to hear them speak.
Shouting to make himself heard above the roar of welcome, Mr Cameron told his audience : "Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your country and build your democracy for the future."
Mr Sarkozy plunged into the crowd, reaching across his bodyguards to shake the hands of waiting Libyans, many of them waving French flags.
The U.S. France and Britain's goal was not humanitarian, or to bring democracy, but regime change and oil?
THank you so much for enlightening me. I would never have figured that out by myself.
No, according to some of your posts, France, the U.K.'s and the U.S.'s goal was to offer some assistance to some of the Libyan rebel freedom fighters to liberate Libya, which the rebel freedom fighters were largely able to do themselves anyway.
Everything is not black and white, for me anyways. Why can't it be a combination of both? Help the rebels for good and nefarious reasons?
Also to me the rebels did do all the heavy lifting when it came to ground combat... claiming they had a cake walk is just plan bunk. Yes, NATO knocked out all the big stuff and hit fighting positions but there still was allot of heavy ground fighting that needed to be done to take the towns and cities.
Have you watched any of the fighting posted on YouTube? That's some crazy shit. Air support or not it takes some real balls to do that kind of fighting. They have my respect.
Again just my two cents worth...
those poor fools in the streets of Libya -- not at all the same level of political insight as we see here at Babble:
Imagine, cheering wildly for such horrible oppressors !
Rapturous reception
After the talks in Tripoli, Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy travelled under heavy security to Benghazi, where a crowd had gathered in central Liberty Square, waiting to hear them speak.
Shouting to make himself heard above the roar of welcome, Mr Cameron told his audience : "Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your country and build your democracy for the future."
Mr Sarkozy plunged into the crowd, reaching across his bodyguards to shake the hands of waiting Libyans, many of them waving French flags.
Yeah, I even heard they went to a hospital (where some of the injured could have been victims of U.S./NATO airstrikes) where they received a hero's welcome.
Can you say "staged event"?
Can you say "propaganda feeding frenzy for the FCM"?
What is happening?
I'm getting caught up in the moment!
I feel this strange urge coming on!
DUCE! DUCE! DUCE! DUCE! DUCE! DUCE! DUCE! DUCE! DUCE!
Excuse me for a moment while I grab a barf bag and puke.
Yes, NATO knocked out all the big stuff and hit fighting positions but there still was allot of heavy ground fighting that needed to be done to take the towns and cities.
Let's not forget that also in violation of UNSCR 1973 U.S. Special Forces, U.K. SAS and French Paras, etc., were on the ground training, arming and funding (some of) the rebels which also significantly contributed to their "victory."
@ Frmrsldr #81
No, sorry, I think that is what is called you are making it up, and making a false accusation. The only thing I said in there about NATO is that they want control - no other motive.
The fact that rebels might think NATO intervention is something they can use to their advantage is a different, and slightly more sophisticated concept.
This is the second time you have imagined something that wasn't there (a nonexistent post about rendition being the other one).
You don't seem to get what I'm talking about, and you also don't seem to get that I understand your points about NATO being in it for control, even though it is probably the most basic concept here, it has been repeated countless times, and I have even told you and indicated from my posts that I know and agree.
You don't even seem to get when someone makes an ironic comment.
Now I haven't interfered with any of your ideas or posts or even commented on anything you have said except in response. You on the other hand have repeatedly used my words as some kind of sounding board, tried to tell me what I can and cannot post, and you have also made repeated and extremely insulting comments.
I am not enjoying this, and I doubt anyone else reading this is either. So I'll say it again. Maybe you should start ignoring my posts. If you don't tell any more outright falsehoods about me I assure you I'll do the same.
Something tells me you're not actually interested in having a conversation anyway.
6079 I think I like your posting style very much and respect it and understand its contents but ...
Its a fairly simple language and communication idea, a "but" always detracts from or negates the previous supposed support or praise. Many of your posts have a "but" in them.
No, sorry, I think that is what is called you are making it up, and making a false accusation. The only thing I said in there about NATO is that they want control - no other motive.
Those were a verbatim quote of your words.
The fact that rebels might think NATO intervention is something they can use to their advantage is a different, and slightly more sophisticated concept.
Some of the rebels fought against the U.S. War of Aggression on Iraq. Most Libyans are aware of what U.S. and NATO war against Afghanistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Yemen, Somalia, Vietnam, Korea and the wars of neocolonial independence are like.
I find your argument that (some) rebels might make a Faustian bargain with the devil (the U.S. and E.U.) and feel that bringing war, death and destruction upon themselves and fellow Libyans is worth the gamble just to achieve their ends (let's not forget that some rebels rally to the old monarchist flag of Libya) and the ignorant, prejudiced and racist notions behind such a ludicrous idea to be more offensive than you find those cartoons.
This is the second time you have imagined something that wasn't there ...
That was a verbatim quote.
Now I haven't interfered with any of your ideas or posts or even commented on anything you have said except in response. You on the other hand have repeatedly used my words as some kind of sounding board, ...
Maybe that's an indication your posts on this thread aren't as good as you think they are.
Oh, and that's not done on blogs?
Thanks for the tip of the hat NS. Likewise.
And I know you're talking theory, not specifics, but "but" doesn't always negate or detract. What it does do is qualify, and point out things which are not necessarily black or white, or things which are related to, but do not necessarily change the main point.
Most situations are like that, and this one is no different. So in that sense, you are right that that many of my posts point out things that are not so black and white.
As I said a couple of times above, if there is a strong case (and I agree there is a strong case) then being critical and pointing out some of these things should not be seen as an attack, but rather as something to think about.
The fact is I have not said one word in support of the NATO intervention, nor that their intentions were anything other than control and exploitation.
(edit)
Come to think of it, the only actual criticism I have made is that it is a mistake to think of people as mindless pawns, and to point out in general terms that any government has to draw legitimacy from the people. Anything else I have posted has simply been information.
Thanks for the tip of the hat NS. Likewise.
And I know you're talking theory, not specifics, but "but" doesn't always negate or detract. What it does do is qualify, and point out things which are not necessarily black or white, or things which are related to, but do not necessarily change the main point.
You seem to be stuck in that mindset. "But" is a problem whether you acknowledge it is or not. If something has a predictable outcome on the people receiving it the person doing it would be foolish to ignore the actual effect and stubbornly insist that its not really having an effect.
Here is a little article that clearly sets out what I am talking about. No ands if or buts about it.
The word "but" has many valuable uses in both formal and informal English. Unfortunately however, many use this word when they are criticizing or giving feedback. Most people are so used to it, they can "feel" a "but" coming. It is usually detected by somber, stern or reluctant praise or good news. The "but" that follows, then takes the attention off of the positive and puts the focus on the negative, in most cases, turning the overall tone of the message, or the message deliverer, negative.
The words "but", "however", or any other contradictory word or phrase used in a criticism or while giving feedback, does one or more of the following:
- Causes resentment in those to whom the message is directed
- Causes defensiveness
- Fails to offer encouragement
- Fails to offer motivation
- Gives the impression that there are "strings attached"
- Detracts from the positive tone of the message
http://www.yeartosuccess.com/members/y2s/blog/VIEW/00000007/00000040/The...
Oh.
Well in the event that I have
I do apologize for being so offensive, and I will certainly try to modify my behaviour.
Anyway, I'll leave this to the better read among you to parse for bias and omissions, though I would draw your attention to the reference that the country needs to be "pacified". Plus the fact that again, the source is a company spokesperson - not a transitional government one - talking about policy decisions of a government which presumably doesn't exist yet.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/09/16/libyas-agoco-output-hamper...
And as for the complaint that underfunding of infrastructure is to blame because oil was not Gadaffi's first priority. Well there may be some truth in that, but you do the analysis.
And I am sure it is old news that Benghazi-based Agoco - which is the source of the story - has been bankrolling the rebels:
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL3E7EB03B20110311
Friends of Libya to Applaud PM, Seek Reconstruction Backing - by Campbell Clark
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/friends-of-libya-to-applaud...
"...next Tuesday's Friends of Libya meeting will give [Stephen Harper] him a chance to underscore the significant Canadian part in the military intervention - just before the Commons votes on a three-month extension..."
As I said a couple of times above, if there is a strong case (and I agree there is a strong case) then being critical and pointing out some of these things should not be seen as an attack, but rather as something to think about.
I have no problem with people criticizing my posts.
In fact if someone agreed with everything I posted, such insincere sychophancy and lack of original thought would be nauseatingly annoying to me.
I do not take offense to you or anyone else who responds either favorably or critically to my posts.
Where I do criticize the posts of another is if I think they have posted fallacies, bad, poor, incorrect or wrong arguments.
Article from Human Rights Watch, with a link to the rendition documents discovered Sept 3.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/08/usuk-documents-reveal-libya-rendition...
The article doesn't come right out and accuse the U.S. and Britain of arranging torture, but it clearly points out their double standard in preventing some people from being sent to Libya, while arranging the rendition of others.
Also, according to Reuters, the Gadaffi loyalists who crossed into Niger are being watched, but have not been detained, and that country faces its own crisis from the flood of refugees:
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E7KC2XA20110912
Dueling Legitimacies in Libya - by Soumaya Ghannoushi
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201191471810380175....
"...There could be no more strking indication of the rift between the two sides than the words of Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the council and ex-justice minister on the eve of Tripoli's conquest. Amid the jubiliation and euphoria, a downbeat Abdul-Jalil emerged to warn that there exist 'extremist fundamentalists within the ranks of the rebels.' threatening to resign if they did not hand over their weapons.
The war of words went on as Ismail Sallabi, head of the Benghazi military council, who commanded the famous February 17 brigade, called on the NTC to resign, castigating its members as 'remnants of the Gaddafi era' and as 'a bunch of liberals with no following in Libyan society.'
Many fighters, such as Sallabi, are insisting that they played a key role in toppling Gaddafi. Some go further, claiming that their swift capture of Tripoli had taken the NTC by surprise and that they had defeated NATO's alleged plans to partition the country into East and West."
Such speculations have been further corroborated by recent revelations that some US officials advised the Gaddafi regime on how to undermine Libya's rebel movement, with the potential assistance of foreign intelligence agencies...
It is a contest between a strategy directed by an internal agenda on the one hand and one defined from the outside, by NATO and western powers on the other."
UN General Assembly welcomes, 114-17, rebel Libya:
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-16-libyas-rebel-alliance-wins-un-seat/
The United Nations General Assembly on Friday gave Libya's UN seat to the National Transitional Council which toppled Muammar Gaddafi.
The 193-member assembly voted 114 to 17 to let representatives of the council take over Libya's UN mission in the face of opposition from left-wing Latin American governments. Some African nations called for a decision to be postponed.
@ NDPP
Gee, Canadian politicians never do that. They must be completely out of control. How dare they do that in a war zone?
Here's a similar look at the same thing covered by the article you posted:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/16/us-libya-tripoli-idUSTRE78F4RV...
And here's a more diplomatic response about the "rift" from someone on the fundamentalist side:
http://asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=26591
Also, rebels who have been defeated outside Gadaffi's stronghold are complaining that they are playing "dirty tricks" and shooting at them from behind. How dare they!
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=26612
There's an article in on that same site with a judge who discusses various coup attempts, assassinations and killings which happened over the years. Though if the judge wants to try Gadaffi I think he might have to recuse himself.
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=26617
National Composition of NATO Strike Sorties in Libya
http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-...
"Eight nations participated in strike sorties in NATO's Operation Unified Protector (OUP) in Libya. These nations are the US, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and Norway..
Britain: 10%, approximately 700 strike sorties by out of 7,223 total sorties by Aug. 15).
Canada: 10% approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25).
Purchase of Tiny Canadian UAV by Libya Rebels Reveals International Network
http://www.acus.org/natosource/purchase-tiny-canadian-uav-libyan-rebels-...
"Libyan rebels have been coordinating their attacks using a Canadian-made, unmanned surveillance aircraft, the drone's manufacturer announced Tuesday. David Kroetsch, the president and chief executive of the manufacturer, AERYON LABS of Waterloo, Ontario, said in an interview that his company was first approached by a representative of the Libyan TNC early in June...
The drone is extremely compact - the company says it weighs about three pounds and fits into a backpack - and its operator does not need any knowledge of flight. Mr Kroetsch said such factors were crucial for the rebels. Ultimately the drone was purchased for the TNC by a private security company based in Ottawa, ZARIBA SECURITY..."
Canada in Libya - killing Libyans and destroying Libya in so many interesting and significant ways...NATO Commander Charles 'the Butcher' Bouchard, RCAF, approves and selects all targets, drones, and even RP2. With virtual silence from Canadians on any of this. Have you registered your approval/disapproval with your MP etc? If not, please consider doing so.
Petition: Charge NATO with War Crimes
http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/charge-nato-with-war-crimes/3490
"I would like to make formal charges against the NATO alliance for war crimes committed in Libya..The following crimes are documented.."
The African Union yesterday dropped its support for Gadaffi. This follows several failed peace initiatives by South African leader Jacob Zuma which would have kept Gadaffi in power during a transition to democracy. http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1237006/-/bj7yoaz/-/
Compare this with the situation last month: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/africa/110822/libya-afri...
Dueling Legitimacies in Libya - by Soumaya Ghannoushi
["]Many fighters, such as Sallabi, are insisting that they played a key role in toppling Gaddafi. Some go further, claiming that their swift capture of Tripoli had taken the NTC by surprise and that they had defeated NATO's alleged plans to partition the country into East and West."
Such speculations have been further corroborated by recent revelations that some US officials advised the Gaddafi regime on how to undermine Libya's rebel movement, with the potential assistance of foreign intelligence agencies...
It is a contest between a strategy directed by an internal agenda on the one hand and one defined from the outside, by NATO and western powers on the other."
And as you can see, the Pentagon/CIA play all sides.
