Thread: 'Victory' in Tripoli, Libya. A big lie?

Not to mention the fact that half the country is in pieces by now. Infrastructure, public buildings etc.

As I said - Gaddafi had a choice - to resign (like his neighbours) or start a bloodbath. He chose the second option.
Egypt and Tunis dictators chose the first and their countries suffered relatively minimum damage.

You are for it. You complain about foreign occupiers of your country and then applaud this.

Thanks to "foreign occupiers" British, Poles and Estonians - Latvia is an independent country (with current borders at least) now and not "Russian republic" like Tatarstan.
That's why I'm - "pro western".
Let's not pretend that there is "multi polar world" where everyone have good life in different way.
There is not.
There is "Western world" which is democratic and respect human rights.
And then there is the rest of the world where quality of life is (much) lower and there is no or little democracy and human rights are not respected.
That's why this is BS:

average moslem and the average Libyan in particular is no lover of the West

Of course they want human rights and democracy, and not dictatorship and oppression.
Soviet propaganda was full of this: "We will achieve prosperity in different way than rotting capitalists" - it turned out that only communist elite lived in prosperity, and not majority of people like in the west.
But officially "soviet people" were not "lovers of the rotting western bourgeois capitalism". But secretly they listened to "Voice of America" (which was filtered using special expensive noise generators) and were in ectasy if they got anything from the "rotten western world".

Arab spring to me looks really similar to events in Eastern Europe in early 90s - and that's why it would be extremely hypocritical of me to say that they better live under dictatorships and democracy is not for them.

Hanna - were you against Baltics joining EU too?

Originally Posted by nulle

Hanna - were you against Baltics joining EU too?

No of course not. It's their decision if they want to be in the EU or not. In fact, I campaigned FOR the Eastern Europeans joining the EU, back in the mid 1990s, in a youth movement that was popular at the time. A lot of people were saying "there are too many problems there, too much criminality etc, and it does not fit with the agricultural policy." I felt that was irrelevant, that it would be grossly unfair to exclude Eastern Europe on any of those grounds, and completely against the principles of the EU. This movement was called "Paneuropa", and it had a big part in the changing of public opinion about this across Western Europe. I am all in favour of the EU as long as it helps Europeans and doesn't become some kind of little NATO muppet.

I was against the Baltics joining NATO though, simply because that means having American war ships crusing around in the Baltic Sea, and whatever else they might want to get up to on the shore of the Baltic Sea which is extremely important to Sweden, and to me, as I grew up on its shore. The US has always wanted a foot in there, but they couldn't in the past, due to the USSR and the fact that Sweden and Finland are neutral. But because of the Baltics, now they can come and go as they please.

As far as I am concerned, American warships are no improvement to those of the USSR - and they, at least, actually had a shore to this sea, which the US does not.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

...

Show me the highest moral ground to stand on, point me the way.

“See, it's perfectly possible to be in favour of intervention for exactly the same reasons you claim to oppose it, … …only supported the intervention out of grubby self-interest, which is essentially what you're doing.” No I do not agree it is possible to be in favour of intervention by anti-parallel reasoning, or the converse, or reductio ad absurdum or any of those kinds of things. No, it is not essentially what I’m doing. I am against intervention because of the real death, injury, damage and destruction caused by Nato. Intervention has been argued about for a long time in many other cases. One of the problems is something like the idea of turn-about is fair play. Every one objects to intervention being done to them in their own country. It is hypocrisy to assert acceptability for intervention in other’s conflicts, but deny it’s applicability to one’s own country in parallel circumstances. I’m not hysterical, nor febrile. Intervention is an extremely dangerous precedent.
“”You need to read more declassified documents from the CIA.””
“Why?” Because what has been done and planned in the past shows that I’m not being febrile. Off the mark perhaps, we’ll see, but not febrile.

Until we get the full story, I remained unconvinced. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26255
And from China: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7584150.html
Some reads from Pepe Escobar: http://atimes.com/atimes/others/Pepe2011.html

that means having American war ships cruising around in the Baltic Sea

It is better than Russian tanks cruising around in Latvian cities
Like in Georgia in 2008 and now :P

Originally Posted by nulle

It is better than Russian tanks cruising around in Latvian cities
Like in Georgia in 2008 and now :P

Say that to Serbians or Lybians.

A good retrospective of what's happenning in Libya here:
Пишет Вам боец Красной Армии Д. Вэйдер (D. Vader)... - Ливия: ситуация в Триполи (ретроспектива)
Unfortunately - in Russian and I've no time to translate.

Take a good look at the photographs there. Notice the snow white T-Shirts of the so-called 'loyalist prisoners'. There were several days of hard fighting, remember?
And generally - take a look at these photos - I don't know what's really happenning in Libya but all I can tell - all photos is complete BS.

Those who believe in democratic ideals will especially like the fact that all loyalist soldiers found in military hospital were executed. Well, they were against democracy anyway. Some of them were handcuffed which indicates that they were executed, not killed in combat.

I don't believe that anything good can be done basing on lie, big lie and complete BS. I don't believe in such democracy. I don't believe that all these bodies is for the good democratic future of Libyan people. Who's next? Sirya, Iran, Belarus, Russia?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Ага, тролль, такой тролль.

Come on, serious topics like this one should be injected with some guffy stuff. Just for not getting tired and bored. ))

Especially for those who don't want to pay for marijuana.

Originally Posted by nulle

Like in Georgia in 2008

А не хрена было собственные галстуки жрать!

Originally Posted by Seraph

No I do not agree it is possible to be in favour of intervention by anti-parallel reasoning, or the converse, or reductio ad absurdum or any of those kinds of things.

Wait, let me get this clear. You don't believe it's possible for humanitarian concerns to be a motivation for supporting intervention? Is that really what you're saying?

No, it is not essentially what I’m doing.

That's exactly what your doing, as your quote above so ably demonsrates.

I am against intervention because of the real death, injury, damage and destruction caused by Nato.

Right, but by your own simplistic logic that means you are in favour of the real death, injury, damage and destruction that would have been caused by Gadaffi putting down the uprising in the absence of an intervention.

Of course you're not really in favour those things, we both know that, but that is the mirror image of the accusation you keep making against your opponents.

I tell you what I think. I think you don't really give a hoot for the poor Libyans. I think you're crying crocodile tears for them as a justification for opposing something you would have opposed anyway, no matter the circumstances, simply because you hate NATO. I think your opposition to the intervention is cynical, opportunistic and immoral.

How do you like them apples?

Intervention has been argued about for a long time in many other cases. One of the problems is something like the idea of turn-about is fair play. Every one objects to intervention being done to them in their own country.

No, everyone doesn't object. Those who lose something from intervention object, those who gain something rather like it. The South Ossetians didn't object to Russian intervention in Georgia. The Kosovan Albanians didn't object to NATO intervention in Serbia. The American revolutionaries didn't object to French intervention in the War of Independence. The anti-Gadaffi Libyans don't object to the current intervention.

It is hypocrisy to assert acceptability for intervention in other’s conflicts, but deny it’s applicability to one’s own country in parallel circumstances. I’m not hysterical, nor febrile. Intervention is an extremely dangerous precedent.

I totally agree that it's dangerous. But so is civil war.

No, I don't agree, and no that is not essentially what I'm doing. National sovereignty includes the right to self determination. I would agree that the world is a complicated place and bad things happen. False dilemmas convince me of nothing. We simply are not going to see eye to eye on this. The more I read about this the less convinced I am. Labeling me isn't gong to convince me.

As a matter of fact I don't hate Nato, because it has a real function with respect to mutual defense. Complications arise about the perceptions of threat. Possibly our disagreement has something to do with the grey area where border conflicts threaten Nato countries. Some regional conflicts could escalate and threaten Nato countries. More distant conflicts would have a somewhat different burden of proof as to the possible dangers to Nato countries. Balkan conflicts would seem to be somewhat different in this respect than African conflicts. The Balkan conflict was handled very poorly, with a significant bias that will cause a stink for a long time to come. A major problem in intervention is the balance of taking sides. This has clearly occurred in Libya, as the rebels were incompetent without Nato. Nato has done a lot of heavy lifting for the rebels. There is a significant difference between simply separating combatants, and actually supporting the successful campaign of one side. This will cause a stink for a long time to come. I myself cannot take sides, it is completely their business. I believe impartiality is highly moral. The intervention was not conducted impartially. If Nato simply separated the combatants, I would disagree less, but it doesn't seem that there was any real threat to Nato countries. I simply do not believe in violation of other nation's sovereignty. Every nation has the right to quell rebellions. And then there is the quagmire afterward.

National sovereignty includes the right to self determination.

And people who live under dictatorships do not have that right.

serious topics like this one

Originally Posted by nulle

And people who live under dictatorships do not have that right.

Do you know what equivocation means? Or the fault of composition? The majority of Americans were against bailouts of Wall street banks. They had no say. The majority of Americans are against other things as well, but have no say. Go to Chicago or New York or any other city in America and try to effect democratic change, or even of the nation as a whole. You will find out you will not be able to change anything. The right of a nation to self determination is not the same as personal rights. People who live under various different kinds of political systems besides dictatorships similarly have essentially no ability to effect political change in their respective countries.

Democratic ideals triumphs in Libya. True democracy wins! How could I doubt that!

Gaddafi's a monster, you say? Watch this:
www (dot) obamaslibya (dot) com

(warning: not to be seen by children. Blood, violence, very graphic - I wouldn't have posted it here at all, but some stubborn people from this thread should see this).

Libya had the highest literacy rate in Africa, ~88%. Soon to be half that. Democratic Shariah? LIBYA’S WAR FOR THE ABAYA
. oops, mistake. Found video says 83% literacy. Highest standard of living in Africa. Free health care.
.
Was Libya a direct democracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamahiriya
."The Libyan government states that Libya is a direct democracy without any political parties, governed by its populace through local popular councils and communes (named Basic People's Congresses). Official rhetoric disdains the idea of a nation state, tribal bonds remaining primary, even within the ranks of the military of Libya.".
.
.http://www.youtube.com/user/hhhpets#p/u/2/lXLQAUUpJwU
.Libya's unique form of government. http://www.youtube.com/user/hhhpets#p/u/1/lYe-s7FF3dg
http://www.youtube.com/user/hhhpets#p/u/7/TjrBzIv7zis. What is the truth?

I want to thank you all for discussing the situation, because the controversy has prompted me to look more and more into this. Very confusing, and very interesting.


.

Originally Posted by Seraph

Libya had the highest literacy rate in Africa, ~88%.
.

That's the kind of thing I was thinking about when I said it was a respected country.
The healthcare was good too.
Now everything is in pieces - they are doomed to at least a decade of chaos until things are as good as they were before.
They'll be drawn into the aid, military base, governmental "advisors" cycle...
I don't think Khaddaffi is great either, but total revolution, chaos and bombing the whole country to pieces.....?????? I doubt that's what the majority would have wanted.

It was a coup by the Western Europe/ NATO/CIA/KGB/Mossad/Zionist Jew Bankers-Media of the New World Order!

Not really. That's what I read in the RT forums though.

Quadaffii was playing to his own interests and was a dictator that made Libya possible because it was a bunch of small tribes that had little idea or interest of the rest of the planet. He slapped them around and made himself Boss. Modern Libya was born. The People got tired of his shiat.

It's not an American thing, it's more European. They were the former Colonialists Masters of the proletariat! It was the Italians!

It was like a spy movie. Europeans, Americans, Russians, Chinese, Arabs, Africans, Muslims and a little Chavez walking the same streets.

Don't even say Russia wasn't heavily involved in Libya. BILLIONS of rubles in arms (I see Kalashnikovs, not M-16s; РПГ-7, not any US or NATO variant. SCUDS were found.) and BILLIONS more in development contracts.

I wish them well.

Don't even say Russia wasn't heavily involved in Libya. BILLIONS of rubles in arms (I see Kalashnikovs, not M-16s; РПГ-7, not any US or NATO variant. SCUDS were found.) and BILLIONS more in development contracts.

You can guess three times from where comes propaganda about good Gaddafi and bad NATO occupants.

Gaddafi's a monster, you say? Watch this:
www (dot) obamaslibya (dot) com

It is war - and nasty shit happens - I hope these war criminals will be prosecuted afterwards.
(Deleted. L. We do believe that nasty shit happens. If it's "too graphic" let's not bring it here, please).
Look what happens in Russia in "peace time". Net is full of videos like these - warning - graphic and disgusting content.

www (dot) obamaslibya (dot) com

then delete this too :P

Originally Posted by nulle

(Deleted. L. We do believe that nasty shit happens. If it's "too graphic" let's not bring it here, please).
Look what happens in Russia in "peace time". Net is full of videos like these - warning - graphic and disgusting content.

I'm curious what was that about )

I'm curious what was that about )

Video made by Russian neo nazis - how they killed two persons "with caucasian looks".
One was shot, and other's head was cut off.
documentingreality, liveleak, etc is full of videos like that.
But, that's probably OK there - Putin himself said that they need to be beaten in toilets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_PdY...eature=related

American killed in attack on US consulate in Benghazi

Libya: American killed in attack on US consulate in Benghazi | World news | guardian.co.uk


An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in Benghazi

Originally Posted by BappaBa

American killed in attack on US consulate in Benghazi

Libya: American killed in attack on US consulate in Benghazi | World news | guardian.co.uk


An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in Benghazi

Дипломатов атаковать? Нет на них тамошних бандитов Каддафи.