Qadaffi boasts some achievements in Libya. He is also
responsible for repression of the press, political parties and
opponents. The specifics of those charges are easy to find. Even
allowing for exaggeration, the indictment against Qadaffi is impressive.
- LOL. Come on bruh. "Some achievements"? Qadaffi built Libya.
- Literally.
- Wasn't for Qaddafi, Libya would be a desert wasteland sucked dry by British Petroleum and Standard Oil.
Actually my man, these assertions are not only credible. They are critical.
Declaring Qaddafi a "despot" or a "dictator" or as "an evil leader" is meaningless if you cannot point to an example of a leader who is not a "despot", a "dictator" or who isn't "an evil leader".
ANYONE can be called anything.
We all know how to google, we should all know how to make reasonable evaluations of the sources we find. While we can quibble over the particulars, denying that Qadaffi is a brutal despot is a nonstarter. I think even he’d be insulted.
Denmark Vesey said ...
I asked you 3 times to give an example of any world leader less of a
"despot" than Qaddafi and you failed to answer 3 times. I believe you
have failed to offer an example of any world leader who is "less of a despot"
than Qaddafi because the suggestion that one is any more of a despot than the
others ... is patently absurd.Therefor the suggestion that there is ANY moral justification to invade and destabilize that nation ... because ... Qaddafi is a despot ... is patently absurd.
Even so. There are arguments against intervention.
LOL. Oh there are arguments against "intervention" huh?
That's like saying .. "Well. There are arguments against invading Iraq".
"Well. There are arguments against occupying Afghanistan"
"Well. There are arguments against the Israeli occupation of Palestine."
"Well. There were arguments against intervening in Vietnam."
Invading & Occupying foreign nations is ALWAYS wrong ... even when a bunch of so-called rebel bullshit artists, propped up by the CIA and a complicit corporate media fills your head with manufactured horror stories about "civilians" being "straffed" by an "evil dictator".
You could say intervention in the affairs of other nations is always wrong. Or you could say that Israel, Syria and Yemen seem to get a pass so it’s hypocritical of us to pick on Qadaffi. You can say the US and NATO are motivated by oil, not humanitarianism. And you can argue that many of the countries allied against Qadaffi are complicit in his crimes.
"Many of the countries" ... "complicit" in his crimes?
LOL. That's hilarious. The nations bombing, destabilizing and invading Libya to steal oil ... are complicit in his crimes.
LOL. WHAT FUCKING CRIMES?
These arguments are worth debating. But variations of "The charges against Qadaffi’s use of ruthless force against his opponents are all lies" aren’t credible.
They are more credible than the hypocrisy of biblical proportion implied by variations of the arrogantly ignorant meme which ignores the ruthless force used against opponents to the corporate oligarchs trying to murder Qaddafi as we speak, so they can have uninhibited access to Libya's oil and to permanently destabilize the entire region.
Most of his apologists don’t really seem to be doing
that so much (for good reason). Rather to defend Qadaffi they fall back
on variations of the “you’re another” fallacy.
And if you want to argue that the US criminal justice system is an immoral disgrace I look forward to it. But that doesn’t have anything to do with Qadaffi’s miserable record of aggrandizing himself and his family while turning his back on his people.
And if you want to argue that the US criminal justice system is an immoral disgrace I look forward to it. But that doesn’t have anything to do with Qadaffi’s miserable record of aggrandizing himself and his family while turning his back on his people.
LOL. What planet do you live on? Are you cutting and pasting this shit from some NeoCon website?
Have you been to Libya?
I have.
That's not what the people told me about Qaddafi.
Tey told me what life was like BEFORE Qaddafi.
I’m still open to a serious hold-your-nose defense of Qadaffi and a critique of the west’s response. But requiring us to assume his rap sheet is all just bullsh*t is not serious IMO.
I’m still open to a serious hold-your-nose defense of Qadaffi and a critique of the west’s response. But requiring us to assume his rap sheet is all just bullsh*t is not serious IMO.
Pure silliness P. You mean to tell me ... after all of these categorical declarations that insist Qaddafi is a "despot" ... who may deserve to be murdered ... this is the best example of his evil demagoguery with which you could come up? Come on bruh ... some broken up misquotes painting Qaddafi as a black hating racist? lol. Man. Turn off the TV.
15 comments:
You can believe in!
That's regime change you can believe in.
No its humanitarian relief. America is the greatest force of good in the world.
Oh, I guess it's more complicated than that. To me the question is whether the US has bitten off more than it can chew (again). Unforeseen consequences make it very risky. But shedding a tear for Qadaffi? Not really.
Standing before God when old Hannah goes up, being asked where did you think the force of good was in the world, who did you pull for? Whatever else I've done wrong, I'm not answering "Muammar Qaddafi and his sons."
"I'm not answering "Muammar Qaddafi and his sons."" phx
I hear ya P.
But I don't feel ya.
I think you are just talking.
For example:
If asked "who did you pull for ..."
Who would you say you were pulling for more worthy than Muammar Gaddafi?
____________________ ?
Who is more worthy of being "pulled for"?
...
...
Anyway.
This is not about "pulling for" Muammar Gaddafi.
It is about pulling for truth.
It is about standing against wicked memes designed to engineer war.
It is about standing against totalitarianism disguised as liberal feel good save-the-world technocratic bullshit.
I'm pulling for a process, a violent process that I believe nobody controls, that nobody planned or started. I know there are "wicked memes" - and I know there are people engineering war for profit. There's some unrighteous people on my side. That's always the case. Just as their are unrighteous folks plying their trade for Qadaffi.
Nobody gets to say "All righteousness on my side." Only fools.
Is the USA totalitarian, and if it is are you saying Qadaffi is not totalitarian? I think you must mean that Qadaffi's such a small fry that he doesn't count. Or you mean he doesn't take orders from the Bilderberger group. If you aren't a member of the BG do you get a pass to be wicked?
I'm going to evaluate the USA's behaviors in its situation and context, apart from the USA-is-a-puppet-for-BG-and-Rockefellers meme.
Admittedly, my conclusions are tentative. I'm always astounded by other people's certainties. Personally, I think they're full sh*t.
I'm fascinated by the process which has caused you to arrive at the conclusion ... that Qadaffi is "bad" ... or "totalitarian".
I suspect you parrot that meme ... simply because you have heard it repeated so many times.
I don't think you have actually thought about it.
Again.
For example:
Name a leader of any nation on the planet earth ... less ... "totalitarian" than Qadaffi
__________________ ?
Barack Obama?
His "regime" has 2 MILLION people in for-profit prisons.
David Cameron?
Angela Merkel?
For what REASON do you refer to Qaddafi as a wicked man?
I'm curious.
Really.
Other than the fact they have been saying it on the news here for years ... without reason ... why do YOU think the cat is bad news?
I can't think of any reason why he is "worse" than anyone else.
I can think of reasons why he is better than some.
Name a leader of any country who has managed the wealth of their nation better than Qaddafi.
You're a smart cat P.
But you have allowed others to project their prejudices into your mind without merit.
Qaddafi today.
Mugabi tomorrow.
He's the other NWO "boogeyman du jour" the neoliberals have been taught to hate.
DV: Qadaffi boasts some achievements in Libya. He is also responsible for repression of the press, political parties and opponents. The specifics of those charges are easy to find. Even allowing for exaggeration, the indictment against Qadaffi is impressive.
Assertions such as “He is no worse than any other leader” or “There are no reasons to say Qadaffi is bad or wicked” aren’t credible.
We all know how to google, we should all know how to make reasonable evaluations of the sources we find. While we can quibble over the particulars, denying that Qadaffi is a brutal despot is a nonstarter. I think even he’d be insulted.
Even so. There are arguments against intervention.
You could say intervention in the affairs of other nations is always wrong. Or you could say that Israel, Syria and Yemen seem to get a pass so it’s hypocritical of us to pick on Qadaffi. You can say the US and NATO are motivated by oil, not humanitarianism. And you can argue that many of the countries allied against Qadaffi are complicit in his crimes.
These arguments are worth debating. But variations of "The charges against Qadaffi’s use of ruthless force against his opponents are all lies" aren’t credible. Most of his apologists don’t really seem to be doing that so much (for good reason). Rather to defend Qadaffi they fall back on variations of the “you’re another” fallacy.
And if you want to argue that the US criminal justice system is an immoral disgrace I look forward to it. But that doesn’t have anything to do with Qadaffi’s miserable record of aggrandizing himself and his family while turning his back on his people.
I’m still open to a serious hold-your-nose defense of Qadaffi and a critique of the west’s response. But requiring us to assume his rap sheet is all just bullsh*t is not serious IMO.
http://www.modernghana.com/news/294340/1/gaddafi-on-black-europe-islamization-project-for-b.html
Reform begins at home. So far the United States has spent $550 million to "save" civilian lives in Libya, and there is no end in sight. Meanwhile people are dying in the streets of America everyday.
"We have a situation in this country where, over the first five years of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, just under 5,000 Americans were killed through all kinds of methods, of all genders, races and so forth. Over that same five years, close to 27,000 black males were killed in this society by gunfire alone. That meant that the average black male had a better chance of surviving in the streets of Kabul or Baghdad than in the streets of their urban community." --Harry Edwards
The domestic policy of Barack Obama has been a colossal failure.
Cornel West and the fight against injustice
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2011/03/201132863311584728.html
Brother DV:
President Obama is "President of the United States" and "Commander In Chief".
Anyone who believed that he would be marketedly different than the 43 other men that preceeded him need to look at those who MARKETED this notion to them and their own naivete.
With that said I am less concerned about this, the Commander In Chief meeting with his TOP MILITARY LEADERS as I am at how the pack of Black journalists who met with Obama did so not to challenge him but to COORDINATE their message that is projected upon the Black community.
Rebel-rousin':
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42334849/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=1&hp
Hi. I am a Libyan-Maerican auto mechanic shop owner from Illinois. Please read my story and similiar others on mnsbc.com. I am returning to Libya with one rifle to fight, because my people need me. Don't worry about how I'm going to get there with this no-fly zone thingy, or how I'm getting the rifle on the plane.
Phx has been schooled by DV. Accept no substitutes.
lol.
yeah you got me P.
One of my early memories was of being four or five years old when President Hollywood got on the television to announce that he had bombed Libya in retaliation for some terrorist acts perpetrated by Qadaffi. They bombed that man's home and killed his infant child. I remember that, too. That was what stuck with me. The President had a problem with someone far away and decided the right thing to do would be to kill the man's baby--a baby that had nothing to do with what his father did or didn't do, a baby that was completely innocent. Then, it occurred to me that if Reagan and the government would have no problem dropping a bomb on a baby, they probably wouldn't blink at the thought of dropping a bomb on a five year old like me, for "justice" (mindless revenge). This was when I began to suspect the president might be evil, the government something suspect...
All these years later and another President Hollywood (by way of Chicago) is dropping more bombs on Libya, murdering more babies in order to "save" them...So then why wouldn't allowing Qadaffi to do the job himself (if he ever was going to) not be just as "humanitarian" as what is afoot now?
This isht is all the identity politics behind fascism...Put up national totems for people to identify with and watch them do the lockstep. "Hilary is a white, liberal feminist woman like me! So if she wants to murders some folks it must be a good thing! I have to be for that! She is me!" "Obama is a Black Man like me! If he says we need to continue secret renditions, torture, global surveillance of citizens, plus bomb the shit out of women and children for the good of humanity, then I'm all for it! After all, my identity is bound up with him!"
Post a Comment