If his political rivals were ISIS terrorists, shall I be sorry for them?
Think of Nine Eleven.
-
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!
NATO imperialism and the Libya flood catastrophe
- Thread starter lukethethird
- Start date
Think of Nine Eleven.
@Left Coast
Read this, monsieur.
www.growthinktank.org
Read this, monsieur.
The return of slavery in Libya - Grow Think Tank
Today Libya is, alas, still a breeding ground for slavery. The migration crisis has multiplied opportunities for smugglers to reduce many migrants to the
www.growthinktank.org
@Left Coast
Read this, monsieur.
The return of slavery in Libya - Grow Think Tank
Today Libya is, alas, still a breeding ground for slavery. The migration crisis has multiplied opportunities for smugglers to reduce many migrants to the
Your glass house is looking mighty vulnerable there, madame. Please don't ask me to read anything until you have some clue what you're talking about.
It was a dictatorship that drove thousands of people to risk their lives to end Gaddafi's rule. It didn't just have "little flaws" unless you consider murderous tyranny a "little flaw."
Gaddafi was the main catalyst for that by violently cracking down on dissent instead of stepping down.
You keep doing this in almost every thread: Instead of presenting cogent arguments or evidence, you cite some conspiracy theory or nebulous claim without elaborating. Who is "everyone"? What are those reasons? And most importantly, how does any of that change Gaddafi's crimes and tyranny?
Hundreds of thousands of Libyans protested against him in multiple parts of the country. Those were not just "terrorists and fundamentalists"; they included regular civilians who wanted more freedom and a better life but ended up being killed by his forces.
Yet another oversimplification mixed in with biased hyperbole. Like I said, you keep doing this in almost every thread.
It depends. If he wants women to be forced to wear the veil, or to tolerate slavery in Libya, what should I think?
I judge people from their actions.
There would have been a gradual process of democratization.
The ISIS ruined it all.
It depends on the dissidents.
If the dissidents were ISIS terrorists, was he right or wrong in repressing them?
He was considered a tyrant by the ISIS because he had modernized the country and women had so many rights, including the right not to wear the veil.
So I will not condone all those countries that hated Gaddafi, because they couldn't stand that Libyan women were free...since in the Gulf there is that medieval ideology that wants women to remain men's property.
I am not speaking of peaceful demonstrators.
Demonstrations are legitimate.
I am speaking of ISIS who invaded the country, aided and abetted by the West.
One question: do you believe that Saudi Arabia is a better country than Gaddafi's Libya, by chance? As for women's rights?
and minorities' rights?
I ask you not to elude the question. Thank you.
Last edited:
I think the U.S. kind of grew into its present role somewhat incrementally and slowly. The policies of the U.S., at least by the time of the World Wars, seemed to favor the balance of power with the British and French Empires at the center. Those who are in power want to remain in power, but Germany and Russia appeared to threaten that power, which led to World War and Cold War.
Ever since, U.S. policy has largely focused on trying to maintain and prop up the same status quo of Western hegemony - while still trying to make it appear as if they support the independence, freedom, and autonomy of the nations of the world. That's the one thing that seems consistent in everything the U.S. government has done. For example, we don't support the monarchy of Saudi Arabia because they love freedom and democracy so much, but they do serve a purpose which benefits Western hegemony.
I will say, in fairness, relatively speaking, as world empires go, America's "empire" hasn't been that bad. If you're going to be defeated and conquered by someone, one could do a lot worse than America, that's for sure. The Japanese and Russian Empires were much nastier, and the Mongols and Romans were even nastier. Some empires and governments have worse track records than others, so I'm not ignoring that. We've done some good things and bad things.
But when it to the realm of power politics (or "realpolitik" as some might say), then it's just a power game. It's all about who has the power, who wants to keep it and who wants to take it.
PureX
Veteran Member
Right now the greatest threat facing humanity is not the totalitarian dictators around the world (although they are a very grave threat and always have been), it's the global oligarchy running amok. It's the innate stupidity of boundless greed, selfishness, and egotism, being rewarded with massive amounts of wealth and power by a global economic system that has no moral compass whatever, and no respect for the well-being of humanity at all. And it's poison is spreading very quickly into every corner of the world. And is overpowering the rule of law, of tradition, of religion, of ethnic and familial solidarity, and of every and any other impediment that stands in the way of it's mindless nihilism.
Putin's quagmire in Ukraine is far more the result of economic greed than it is of any nationalist moral compunction or his dictatorial egotism. The Russian oligarchs agreed to pay for Putin's war in return for the right to pillage the stolen territories and resources of Ukraine for billions, for themselves. While the western oligarchs agreed to support Ukraine's defense in return for the billions and billions of dollars worth of defense contracks they will receive to replace all the expended missiles and war-making machinery spent in the war.
The whole thing is all about the money, money, money. Putin is feeding his ego, yes, but only with the backing of a bunch of greedy Russian oligarchs. And the west s playing the hero, yes, but only with the backing of a bunch of greedy western oligarchs looking for another big government payday. And the truth is that none of it would have ever happened if this bunch of very rich, greedy, selfish, sociopathic oligarchs weren't out looking to make billions more dollars off the deaths and suffering of millions of people, ... and if they didn't have the power to control whole governments; including even their mega-maniacal dictators.
Yes, the dictators are worrisome, and too powerful. But they are not nearly as effective at generating abject destruction as the greedy, immoral oligarchs that exploit them are.
Last edited:
If we ignored the dictators of other countries, alien to the West, instead of playing into their hands, we would live better lives.
It depends. If he wants women to be forced to wear the veil, or to tolerate slavery in Libya, what should I think?
I judge people from their actions.
He worked for Gaddafi who you think was awesome and worked for decades in international diplomacy and human rights. What do you guess he thought about those ideas?
That ship sailed the moment Gaddafi decided to violently crack down on protests instead of stepping down. Democratization would have meant his stepping down per popular demand.
Most of the dissidents weren't ISIS terrorists. Your question is loaded.
He was also considered a tyrant by the hundreds of thousands of Libyans who wanted him out of power.
And no, Libya wasn't "modernized"; it was an iron-clad dictatorship, which became even more obvious with Gaddafi's violent response to the protests.
The peaceful demonstrators constituted the vast majority of the people on whom Gaddafi violently clamped down.
I believe both were and are atrocious for women's and minorities' rights.
Your question is irrelevant and yet another attempt at deflection. Whatever Saudi Arabia is like doesn't change Gaddafi's actions and history.
It probably would have happened peacefully.
You eluded the question, though. Was he right in fighting terrorism?
But they used to demonstrate peacefully. They were not ISIS.
So many Italians knew Libya back then. Very well.
And so many Italians have always travelled there. And before Obama and Hillary's disaster, it was a paradise.
There was no slavery, women had so many freedoms.
The most beautiful Arabic-speaking country ever, I'd say.
So many skyscrapers, modernity, progress.
As it happened on January the 6th 2020...in the United States.
Absolutely not.
Women had rights in Libya.
I counted 4.5 on RF alone.
There almost seems to be a sense of panic in the world these days, even among the highest levels of power. The current political struggles appear to be between oligarchs, perhaps over power, wealth, resources, strategic position, or whatever it may be.
The ironic thing about all this is that, some 30 years ago when the Cold War had ended, people were talking about a new era of peace and cooperation in a capitalistic global economy, favoring free enterprise and open markets - away from the days of nationalistic protectionism. It was supposed to be an era of trust, cooperation, and friendship. Such as with China, some people argued against it, thinking it unwise, yet there are those who argued that we needed the friendship and trust of the Chinese in order to have a peaceful and economically cooperative world.
(They also talked about NAFTA around the same time and how it would be a great boom for the U.S. economy, as well as for the Mexican economy to the point where life would get so good there that there would be no more illegal border crossings. No one would have any reason to.)
So, the capitalists and leaders of the world once had big plans and high hopes in the early 1990s, but it all pretty much turned to mush in a short period of time.
I advise you to read this.
Islamic State in Libya - Wikipedia
I am for a respectful, sane and civil debate? Are you, @Left Coast?
I advise you to read this.
Islamic State in Libya - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I am for a respectful, sane and civil debate? Are you, @Left Coast?
My reply remains the same:
NATO imperialism and the Libya flood catastrophe
You would prefer an authoritarian who killed his political rivals. That tracks. If his political rivals were ISIS terrorists, shall I be sorry for them? Think of Nine Eleven.
www.religiousforums.com
In thread after thread after thread your ignorance about global affairs is pointed out and corrected. And in thread after thread you continue peddling horse **** in defense of authoritarian policies and leaders. Your thinly veiled comments about, for example, Africans, are transparent.
If you want a respectful, sane, and civil debate, start by educating yourself about the things you talk about and at least do bare minimum fact checking. Then stop defending literal tyrants. Then come back for a chat. Till then, I'm going to continue giving you the same advice.
I am expressing my opinion, and I am defended by the First Amendment.
Which enables me to say that Gaddafi was an enlightened leader.
And the evil that was done to Libya during the Obama administration is monstrous.
I am sorry.
Libya is a country we Italians know very well...so I know what I am taking about.
I respect your opinions but I expect you to respect mine, as well.
That's such a simplistic negative view. It ignores
how the evolution of capitalism you decry has
offered benefits, eg, much cheaper goods here.
Such things are never 100% doom & gloom,
or all rainbows & unicorns. Gotta consider the
full picture.
And it could very well be that the reason Taiwan
is still independent is that China would suffer
severe economic loss if it invaded.
One thing we might agree on is that capitalism
is messier (less controlled, more chaotic) than
command economies. But we would differ
on whether that's a significant problem.
You're allowed to say whatever you want (within the rules of the site). The First Amendment is a constitutional protection for American citizens and you're not American, so no - this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Another example of you not having a clue what you're talking about.
I'm allowed to point out when what you say is horrible. I do not respect neofascism, nor should I. And I'm also allowed to set the boundaries of your conversations with me.
So again, if you want further conversation with me, I've told you how to proceed.
That'll be all.