PureX
Veteran Member
It's hard to say, as so little journalism is actually journalism, anymore.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is anti-theocracy considered a "far right" position, e.g. the Netherlands
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Which are bolstered by the West's misadventures in the Middle East. Saddam and Gaddafi's government's were bulwarks against Islamism and Jihadis, but we killed them and destroyed their countries, allowing the racist Jihadists to run amuck with our weapons. If you want the refugee crisis to end, stop voting for warmongering politicians who then go and bomb the smithereens out of their countries. You'd leave, too.I'd say most of this is a fallout from the recent batch of Islamic Auhoritarian Regimes
Last edited:
Just to be clear, are you saying Saddam and Gaddafi should have been left in place?
I believe the West needs to stop warmongering and leave those people alone. Yes, they should've been left in place. They posed zero threat to us and we turned that region into hell on earth with what we did.
A full globalistic approach which emphasizes ecological, anthropological and demographic perspectives.
Not only superior, but probably necessary.
There are some war mongers in the world - but it's hardly limited to the West.
But I would say that Iraq and Libya were ALREADY hell on earth. So it's not clear to me that we should stand by and watch countries full of people be abused by authoritarian leaders. But I would say yours is a false dilemma. So I would agree that the Iraq war was totally horrible. But I have to think there are other approaches other than war or negligence?
No, Libya was doing pretty good for itself, before the vampires in Washington turned their sights on it:
And no one can say with a straight face that Iraq is better off.
We stand by and allow people to be abused by authoritarian leaders all the time, such as our "allies", Israel and Saudi Arabia and we continue to do business with the depotic Chinese government. Our foreign policy has little to do with what is right.
Are you saying that life was good in those two countries before our interventions?
I'm not defending our interventions btw,
It was far better than it is now!
That is a lot of wishful thinking.
Indeed. There are quite a few genuine dilemmas there.
Not my question.
I found the Telesur article compelling.
It is right to suggest that in terms of HDI, Libya was better under Gaddafi. Looking at the data it's really obvious when the military intervention occurred and that the country has not returned to it's former heights since.
Specific country data | Human Development Reports
With all due respect, that is a misleading conclusion.
One has to consider, among many other factors, that the current chaotic situation is a consequence of decades under the rather immature and crippling regime of Gaddafi. That is no minor contribution.
Besides, I have to take issue if the implication is that some non-Islamic government or entity is to blame for Gaddafi's fall - or even that it had some sort of duty to attempt to avoid it. That is, frankly, quite absurd and a non-starter.
One has to consider, among many other factors, that the current chaotic situation is a consequence of decades under the rather immature and crippling regime of Gaddafi. That is no minor contribution.
Besides, I have to take issue if the implication is that some non-Islamic government or entity is to blame for Gaddafi's fall - or even that it had some sort of duty to attempt to avoid it. That is, frankly, quite absurd and a non-starter.
I don't mean to suggest in any way that there was not resistance to Gaddafi, or that he did not deserve such.
However Gaddafi being deposed and killed in 2011 was the result of NATO involvement, and they were happy to take credit for such.
If your argument is that Gaddafi was to blame for the intervention - that argument is bad faith in the existential sense.
I definitely wouldn't ever suggest the west had an obligation to protect the Gaddafi government, but I do suggest that their involvement caused a large degree of suffering and was done under false pretenses.
The facts are that Libya was a prosperous nation under Gaddafi, and NATO destroyed it.
Period.
No wonder Lula was elected, in your country, dearest.
Because people are disgusted by what certain demonic élites have been doing for the last two decades. In Venezuela, as well.
So they elected someone like Lula.
On whose side are you?
Gaddafi was overthrown thanks to the NATO supporting ISIS.
Utterly disgusting.
My country had such obligation because of the Italian-Libya treaty, but the United States doesn't respect its own allies.
Last edited:
As I said, @libre and @Estro Felino : a non-starter.
Maybe you don't remember those years. I lived through them. Maybe you were not old enough to remember.
Maybe you don't remember those years. I lived through them. Maybe you were not old enough to remember.
I got a law degree in those years. I was an adult.
Gaddafi was loved in Italy.
Does this video suffice?
Again: Non-starter.
Agreed. But we can still try to figure out how a particular writer came to their conclusions.