Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[Gustaf]

Third biggest city, situated in Western Libya (previously under government control), Misurata reported to have fallen to the protesters.

[Gustaf]

Another city falls, Adjabiya.

[Gustaf]

Democratic Undergrond tried to spin Chavez tweet as support for Ghadaffi. Lol.

[Gustaf]

Gaddafi is out, obviously. Kind of tragicomical how the international community only joins the bandwagon once it is 100% clear that the Libyan people has done the job on their own.

[Gustaf]

And the west is watching all this without doing anything...

Who are we to be world police and impose our cultural values on others? You don't want to be a colonialist imperialist, do you?

[Gustaf]

And the west is watching all this without doing anything...

Who are we to be world police and impose our cultural values on others? You don't want to be a colonialist imperialist, do you?

I suppose this strawman wasn't directed to me since I've never said nothing that could lead you to think I'm a dictator-loving "relativist". It would be nice if you didn't involve the entire forum in your feuds against a couple of users, though.

Actually, what I said had nothing to with the forum or anyone on it. It was more a general comment on how the world (especially the left of the world) reacts whenever the West actually intervenes anywhere.

[Gustaf]

Here we go again - Imperialist Europeans come to Africa and start slaughtering the natives. It is appalling.

Yes, because coalition members Morocco, UAE, Qatar, and Jordan are so white Imperialists. 

Lackeys, and just cover anyway. 

Now, THAT, is what I would call a colonialist assumption.

[Gustaf]

I don't think this is a tribal war at all. Before Qhadaffi used his control of military assets and African mercenaries to strike back the rebels basically had the entire country, from East to West.

Sure, it seems like there is more rebel support in old Cyrenaica but it's hardly a tribal war (yet, at least).

[Gustaf]

There are reports that an American plane crashed in Libya, due to some technical problem (it wasn't shot down).

[Gustaf]

Of course, Gaddafi is so legitimate like Cameron that is only representative of one constituency and from a party that has a plurality, but not a majority of popular support. Merkel, Cameron, Berlusconi and Sarkozy shook Gadaffi's hand and made business with him, but now, they are throwing him to lions. At least, Gaddafi made Libya more developed than in Idris' time and was more tied with Africa and Islamic's interests from a good group of Libyans.

At first I thought this was a pretty good parody of Khadaffi propaganda, but then it began to seem as if you actually think it's true that he has popular support or that it is an achievement to make a country bathing in oil more developed during the last 40 years of enormous technological process.

[Gustaf]

Gaddafi is not a legitimate leader in any sense of the word and it's a matter of time before the deadenders and mercs are defeated.

How is Gaddafi not a 'legitimate' leader?  He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

I don't believe I actually have to point this out, but (1) one should, in general, be wary of trusting statistics out of dictatorships because they frequently turn out to be messed up or just plain lies and (2) oil. In fact, let me say that second one again: oil.

Actually, one could also point out that being such a swine that you make your people rise up in arms and then start massacring them isn't really the pinnacle of human development, but that's another issue I suppose.

[Gustaf]

Ajdabiya fully freed this morning, and now Brega too!

Oh please.  'Freed'?  Lets get real here - I have seen numerous reports where the rebels were engaging in group muslim prayer.  This revolution isn't going to 'free' anyone.

Yes, especially since Gadaffi would never implement sharia law or base his political philosophy on Islam*.

And, did you watch the clip of the woman who was gangraped? I'm curious as to whether you think she deserved it because she was a Libyan and it's part of their culture to gangrape women or simply because she's a woman and they all have it coming?

*Since I know you're not too good with picking up on jokes and sarcasm and the like, I should perhaps make clear that that was sarcasm - Gadaffi replaced the old law in Libya with sharia law when he took over and his political philosophy is Islamic socialism.

[Gustaf]

And, did you watch the clip of the woman who was gangraped? I'm curious as to whether you think she deserved it because she was a Libyan and it's part of their culture to gangrape women or simply because she's a woman and they all have it coming?

No, I don't do those kind of searches, unlike you.  But I think gangrape happens all over the place, and I cannot say that I have any ambition to do anything about it, even if I could.  Remember the gangrape of the blonde Western journalist by the 'freedom fighters' in the mob in Cairo?  I suspect that these gonadal crimes arise from all sides - another proof that they're all 'bad', and to claim we are fighting for 'truth, justice, and human dignity' is a load of crap.

(and before anyone gives me deathpoints for the above, it was your own Gustaf who brought up this incendiary topic of gangrap - I was only responding)

Actually, if your cognitive abilities weren't so limited you would realize that I was referencing the post just above mine relating that story and showing a clip of the woman who was gangraped - not one of the actual rape (that wouldn't be something I would want to watch). So I didn't really bring it up.

But I see you've avoided my point regarding Qadaffi and sharia law to instead come up with another ludicrous assertion regarding moral relativism. The behaviour of some people in an unruly mob is obviously not comparable to those of the government's secret police. I would've thought you with your worship of totalitarian governments and their torture chambers would be well aware of that?

[Gustaf]

Actually, if your cognitive abilities weren't so limited you would realize that I was referencing the post just above mine relating that story and showing a clip of the woman who was gangraped - not one of the actual rape (that wouldn't be something I would want to watch).

The fact that I do not read affleitch's posts is hardly evidence of lack of cognitive ability, Gustaf.

Failing to grasp the context of a discussion is a sign of something. And you obviously read his posts on moderating you since you were so up in arms over them (until you went back to reporting everything that disagreed with you, of course).

[Gustaf]

...rebels really aren't organized, so far they apparently mainly benefited of air strikes in their advance, and air strikes destroy heavy military equipment, so they can't benefit of it to advance, or not in big proportions, I've never seen more than one more or 2 big military vehicles on their front line.

If the rebels have a big military vehicle, such as a tank, we should destroy that too just to be fair.

Who cares about fairness? This isn't a game show.

[Gustaf]

...rebels really aren't organized, so far they apparently mainly benefited of air strikes in their advance, and air strikes destroy heavy military equipment, so they can't benefit of it to advance, or not in big proportions, I've never seen more than one more or 2 big military vehicles on their front line.

If the rebels have a big military vehicle, such as a tank, we should destroy that too just to be fair.

Who cares about fairness? This isn't a game show.

Ah, so you admit it is a naked power grab and the 'freedom and democracy' stuff is just shoddy propaganda?

No...it's just that the fight for freedom and democracy need not be fair. If we're fighting a war there is no reason to limit ourselves to using an amount of force needed to make sure that we can't win. In fact, that idea is so stupid that I can't imagine anyone coming up with it. 

[Gustaf]

It is interesting to note that the neocon warmongers are silent about the rebels' use of civilians as human shields in Misrata.

Not really.

It's interesting though that the only source for this claim seems to be Libyan state television.

I have not watched Libyan state television. If you read or watch Western media, what we essentially are told is this: When Gadaffi's forces are in Sirte or some other city, it is because they are using the civilian population as human shields against coalition attacks from the air. A clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality! But when the rebels forces are staying in Misrata and the civilian population is suffering from a siege as a result, it is... a clear sign of Gadaffi's brutality!

The rebels kind of are the civilian population in the cities, you know. And there is a difference between indiscriminately slaughtering civilians while attacking your enemy and not being able to avoid hurting civilians because the other side is deliberately using people as human shields.

[Gustaf]

Since Libyans don't pay federal taxes in the US, putting a value on their lives would be about as absurd as putting value on the lives of hobos.

[Gustaf]

Antonio,

This war is about oil and it's not a lame talking point, just reality. The world wants libyas oil to keep flowing so they were much more likely to intervene here. You, as an individual might have wanted action in Darfur and other places, but the reason governments didn't do anything there and are all gung ho about Libya is due to oil. That's what I am trying to get at and also pointing out that the motivations of the governments are what people around the world will see.

*facepalm*

It's really sad to hear this kind of kind of arguments from you, after having been surrounded for years by bigoted "pacifists" and "anti-imperialists" in my country.

For your information, oil trade with Libya was going extremely well under Gaddafi. And not only oil, countries like France had important economic partnerships with Libya. Not to forget that Gaddafi was blocking emigrants for us. Basically, Europeans had every possible reason not to support Gaddafi and to hope he would resist. As for the rebels, a lot of westerners still feared "bearded men" as Opebo would say. There is no economical reason that would have led to western intervention. Not even one.

Of course there is an economic reason. You think they were only thinking of the short term? After the revolution started, and Gaddafi refused to back down when the west asked him to, the die was cast. At that point we probably just wanted a friendly face selling us oil and thought a little bombing would be enough to end Gaddafi (and in the end we might get rid or Gaddaffi and install a friend). Obviously the west isn't going in there to steal oil or any of that crap. And there were certainly other reasons for going in, as I have acknowledged here and in previous posts. That being said there is still a reason why we intervened in Libya and not in most other places.

And I doubt the only reason is because it's "easy" to do so in Libya.

Regardless I am against intervention in basically every case so it's not hard for me to not support this adventure. Is the concept that a country should mind it's own business and protect it's own borders really such a radical one? Then in that case I'm a proud radical.

Wouldn't the safest way to keep the oil flowing have been to let Gadaffi crush the rebellion?

When you say a country should mind its own business do you mean in the sense that one should only care about those with the same citizenship as oneself?

[Gustaf]

Perhaps, I'm being a bit to critical here, but aren't the same people who excoriated Bush from the beginning in regards to Iraq hypocritical here?  Saddam was responsible for how many deaths, yet those same people cry in support of Obama's Libya policy.  Even the people who supported the Iraq surge based on the same premise now attack Obama's Libya policy?  France flat-out attacked our Iraq policy, yet here they are seemingly leading the battle cry in Libya?  My Goodness.  Politics is the absolute antonym of common sense.

In 2003, Saddam wasn't bombing his own cities or preparing for a huge massacre among his political adversaries.

The number of innocents killed  in Iraq by Saddam's terror was pretty high, as I recall. And he certainly wanted to kill a lot of people, but was prevented, to an extent, by the no-fly zone instituted by the US.

[Gustaf]

Opebo, your signature makes me cry. Literally. I teared up.

It's quite bizarre that someone who claims to be more afraid of Islam than almost anything else would put the old Libyan flag in his signature.

[Gustaf]

I, naturally, am happy to see another tyrant fall. I regret that it was so bloody, but with Gaddafi's regime being what it was there was never any chance of it being otherwise...

I'm also filled with a warm gleeful feeling thinking of how upset Gaddafi's international buddies are - the thought of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and Robert Mugabe screaming over this makes me smile.

I wonder what the Shinners think of this?

Ortega, Morales and Correa were elected democratically, so your attempt to tie them with Gaddhafi and Mugabe is a fail of epic proportions.

It makes no sense to accuse him of "attempting to tie them". They tied themselves to Gaddhafi when they, you know, voiced their support for him.

[Gustaf]

So, just like every other country that's predominantly Muslim? okay, sounds fine.

Are you totally ignorant or are you just being a hack on purpose?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png
Or perhaps Turkey, Albania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are not countries?

A little of column A, a little of column B.

The fight against theocratic rule is really only important for enlightened, Christian countries. The barbarians can't be expected to understand such things. 

[Gustaf]

So, just like every other country that's predominantly Muslim? okay, sounds fine.

Are you totally ignorant or are you just being a hack on purpose?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png
Or perhaps Turkey, Albania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are not countries?

A little of column A, a little of column B.

The fight against theocratic rule is really only important for enlightened, Christian countries. The barbarians can't be expected to understand such things. 

So there are some exceptions, but the vast majority of Muslims live in countries with legal systems based to some degree on Islamic law

Regarding Gustaf's dumb strawman, one could also facetiously argue that systems of law should only be developed by enlightened, Christian peoples. The barbarians can't be trusted with the responsibility of writing their own legal codes. But one won't.

Come on Gustaf, I know you're not really a fan of Muslims, but let's not be a Sharia-fear-monger like some ignorant Oklahoman.

Your strawman is actually dumb. You seem to be saying that religious law is fine in Muslim countries. Yet, I don't think that you would maintain that it is fine for a Christian country to have religious law. Thus, you are implying that you think a different standard should apply to different groups of people.

I, on the other hand, don't think that Muslims are incapable of writing secular law. On the contrary, I think that they, like GMantis said, have done so in several places.

I don't dislike Muslims - I merely dislike theocracy. I thought you did too?