EPTLibyan Uprising - Page 98
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
oldgregg
New Zealand1176 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4438 Posts
On April 01 2011 05:15 KaiserJohan wrote: Dubai indeed lives off it's oil, although I've noticed in my travels there over the years that it's becoming more and more focused towards mainstream-tourism. The sheiks are still uneducated fools with alot of oil money, though... but it's a beacon of light in a pretty grim part of the world. There is hardly any oil in Dubai , thats why they needed to go down the tourist route. Does make you wonder what will happen when the middle east runs out of oil though , they'll probably go back to how they lived 500 years ago.Or more likely get on a boat and land in Italy or France attempting to live in Europe. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
no extremists are as bad as it gets Are there moderate communists? I would consider anyone that would adhere to such an extreme political system to be an extremist. It might vary from person to person but the most moderate communists are still rather far out there on the political spectrum. Islamist means the political doctrine inspired by Islam, it does not refer to Islam or muslims. Islamism is the teachings of the Quran and other islamic text made into a political conviction. why do you have a idea why islamists in general are bad? there is many different sects of islam with large differing ideals one muslim may have different laws then next. perhaps you should not be so quick to think all of islam is bad. Islamists are always bad, it is a system no more redeemable then fascism. It is the only theocratic system that has any mentionable backing and for that reason alone it should be despised. Look into what islamists believe and i doubt anyone of sane mind could call them anything but extremist. many of your ideas are untrue as much as it is anti-islamic and some of these ideas came from people who hate islam. I shall admit that to a certain degree i am anti-islamic but i don't think that is a wrong view. I have looked at what islam teaches and things like sharia law and i concluded that i am utterly repulsed by the very religion. If i meet a person and he tells me he wants to kill all homosexuals i would not hesitate to fight back against such notions and i would put in no effort to conceal my disgust for such views. Now tell me why exactly is it when relgions such as christianity or islam have these views i should consider them with more sensativity? I do not believe in the divine and to me organized religions are not special, they are simply very disgusting political groups. So yes i am anti-islamic in that the content of islam is disgusting to me. I am not anti-islamic in a sense that i somehow hate people simply for being muslim. I have nothing against muslims and those that can moderate their views to an acceptable degree are perfectly fine, but i will not treat gay-bashers less harshly when they tell me they follow the will of allah. if you do a bit of research, you will find that many countries in the middle east has christians/jews (including iran who has around 2% non-muslim minority) freedom is a common ideal amongst all humans Beacuse it has a minority it is tolerant and they all love freedom? Did you know there was an American stationed in South-Korea that defected to North-Korea. At this point i would presume he is still alive so we can conclude there is something of a 0.00001% American minority living in North-Korea. How does this prove that North-Korea is a freedom loving nation? Freedom for one-self is an ideal in all people, simply because it is in a persons intrest. Freedom for everyone is a very rare point of view that only a minority of people have in this world. also, your right that most countries have oil-based economy but your notion that this cannot change within a few decades shows that you have no idea of economics(also what are you trying to say? i dont see the points in your facts) It could change in a few decades if they knew what the hell they were doing, wich they do not. Having power does not mean you are talented at ruling a nation. The conservative leaders who mostly look out for themselves have no intrest in changing, they are rich and will remain so for many years. Some of them might try last-minute changes when they see just how little oil is left but that will only happen when they see the wall they are about to crash into. And then what? Please invest in us, we need you to invest money or we are going to see our entire export section vaporize and the entire region will destablize. Sounds like a really solid business proposal and i wouldn't see any reason why investors would not be eager to dump trillions of dollars into a region that is about to go up in flames. The leaders are too incompetent to change to a non-oil economy. They have no intrest in doing so because doing so would only give rise to the idea that the gravy train is coming to an end. Why not postpone it a few more years right? They will keep doing that until it's all far too late. Bumping up your economy isn't a matter of choice. It's not like there are evil people out there that literally make a choice to destroy the economy. It takes smart planning, something that most regimes in the middle-east lack. Dubai is a good example, let's build a massive vacation resort whilst maintaining strict sharia law so most tourists are going to be doubtfull about visiting the place to begin with. If they loosen their laws then ofcourse, it stands a chance to succeed, but the question are their leaders and their population smart enough to do so? China emulates the western economical model. Despite what they say, they are in no way a communist nation. I don't think the middle-eastern people will understand how crucial that is until they join their African neighbours in begging for money and food. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On April 01 2011 09:42 oldgregg wrote: gaddafi has lots of supporters, he may be a brutal dictator but he uses his oil money to provide cheap education and health care to libyans They're not making much noise then. : / And why did army members leave if Ghadaffi had a great popular support, again? On April 01 2011 15:08 oldgregg wrote: whats ur point? that we can't trust anything a news reporter says? No, but having such a precise number in such a messy situation is kind of weird, especially since no one else has spoken of such numbers. It could be more, it could be less, but how could we know? It's like saying that Ghadaffi has X mercenaries. How would he know? By asking the head of the Libyan military? How does he make sure that the numbers aren't greatly increased/decreased depending of the source? IMO the problem is that he doesn't explain where this odd piece of information came from. On April 01 2011 19:51 zalz wrote: Islamists are always bad, it is a system no more redeemable then fascism. It is the only theocratic system that has any mentionable backing and for that reason alone it should be despised. Erm... ![[image loading]](http://pewforum.org/uploadedImages/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/in-god-we-trust_large%281%29.jpg) On April 01 2011 19:51 zalz wrote: Look into what islamists believe and i doubt anyone of sane mind could call them anything but extremist. Read the bible. It's the same kind of thing. You work on sundays = you should die. Just listen to american fundamentalists. Just remember the murder of the poor doctors who accepted abortions. On April 01 2011 19:51 zalz wrote:It could change in a few decades if they knew what the hell they were doing, wich they do not. Having power does not mean you are talented at ruling a nation. Right, you know better. You know better again than Harvard-raised counselors and think tanks. But please, show us the arguments showing that they don't know what they're doing. Precise ones. You also seem to rule out the possibility that the ruling class doesn't really care about the long term since they already have billions abroad, and castles on the 6 continents. Also, look at this footage that was supposedly in a mercenary's cellphone. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On April 01 2011 21:04 Kukaracha wrote: Right, you know better. You know better again than Harvard-raised counselors and think tanks. But please, show us the arguments showing that they don't know what they're doing. Precise ones. You also seem to rule out the possibility that the ruling class doesn't really care about the long term since they already have billions abroad, and castles on the 6 continents. I'm confused, are you trying to argue that having power makes you a competent ruler? | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4438 Posts
On April 01 2011 21:04 Kukaracha wrote: Also, look at this footage that was supposedly in a mercenary's cellphone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AAdM6Tsj2E Pretty tame compared to what Allied troops have been doing to civilians in Iraq for 8 years imo. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On April 02 2011 00:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Pretty tame compared to what Allied troops have been doing to civilians in Iraq for 8 years imo. What does France have to do with this? I knwo France's history, most likely more than you do, thank you. Glad you edited this out. There was also footage of a man shot down after refusing to chant "Long live Ghadaffi" but I didn't know you needed crude, violent videos to be satisfied and to avoid petty comments. I highly doubt that Ghadaffi's mercenaries and Allied troops in Irak are behaving the same way. If you want to make such comments, back it up. On April 01 2011 21:30 HellRoxYa wrote: I'm confused, are you trying to argue that having power makes you a competent ruler? No, I'm arguing that ruling classes rarely act with "stupidity". Decisions aren't taken in a light and foolish manner and diplomats aren't drunk retards who just "don't know". Decisions are also very heavy at the higher levels, involving hundreds of people, and changing the course of a country is a difficult task. Actually, the chances of a "commoner" not knowing a god damn fu*k are much, much higher. Especially when they have no arguments whatsoever. | ||
|
Petruccio
90 Posts
7 years has passed already since Iraqi became free, did they build a prospering democratic society? The free Iraqi people have all the oil money to develop their country and raise their living standards. Somebody is aware or at least has an interest how is it going there? | ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
On April 02 2011 00:39 Petruccio wrote: Can we use the current Iraq example as attempt to predict Libya future? 7 years has passed already since Iraqi became free, did they build a prospering democratic society? The free Iraqi people have all the oil money to develop their country and raise their living standards. Somebody is aware or at least has an interest how is it going there? Iraq has been in a deadlock since the March 2010 elections where Al-Maliki's ruling party lost the election but has refused to step down or negotiate a consensus government with the opposition parties. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On April 02 2011 00:39 Petruccio wrote: Can we use the current Iraq example as attempt to predict Libya future? 7 years has passed already since Iraqi became free, did they build a prospering democratic society? The free Iraqi people have all the oil money to develop their country and raise their living standards. Somebody is aware or at least has an interest how is it going there? Vastly different scenarios, so no, you can't. | ||
|
Petruccio
90 Posts
"Fresh intelligence this week showed that Libyan government forces were supplying assault rifles to civilians in the town of Surt, which is populated largely by Qaddafi loyalists. These civilian Qaddafi sympathizers were seen chasing rebel forces in nonmilitary vehicles like sedans and trucks, accompanied by Libyan troops, according to American military officers." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?hp "Civilians who pick up weapons and join in fighting can be lawfully attacked as long as they are directly participating in hostilities. " It is funny, a civilian of the town of Surt picks up AK-47 to fight the rebels, so must be destroyed. Then he puts it away and comes back to his family - he must be protected. It is clear now that there are 2 sides of population, of unknown proportion, in the conflict. One side wants Gaddafi to resign, the other wants him to stay. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On April 02 2011 00:58 HellRoxYa wrote: Vastly different scenarios, so no, you can't. Its like some people can only process two chunks of data at a time. They see "WESTERN POWERS" + "MIDDLE EAST" and somehow compute that any situation including those 2 variables will always result in the same outcome. Or they look at Libya vs Egypt or something and compute that because Libyans are using violence that the Libyans can't be fighting for the same ideals as the Egyptians were. Its highly possible they aren't, but its like people go around looking for an event that vaguely resembles a current event and then try to make an argument that supports their point of view. | ||
|
mstan
Romania17 Posts
and to ease the tension: Koussa Moussa's fake Facebook page http://twitpic.com/4fei3w/full | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
No, I'm arguing that ruling classes rarely act with "stupidity". Decisions aren't taken in a light and foolish manner and diplomats aren't drunk retards who just "don't know". Decisions are also very heavy at the higher levels, involving hundreds of people, and changing the course of a country is a difficult task. Actually, the chances of a "commoner" not knowing a god damn fu*k are much, much higher. Especially when they have no arguments whatsoever. This is actually not true at all. During the great leap forwards in China the government imposed steel production quota's wich forced small towns to melt down metal objects to up the production of steel in China. Do you get this? The Chinese government wanted the people to produce steel for the global market, in the their backyard furnaces. Last year we discovered that the Greek government was fucking bankrupt. Their social wellfare paradise spending drove them right into the ground, they knew it was happening and they didn't prevent it either. Governments are made out of people and people can be fucking stupid. Robert Mugaba took control of Zimbabwe and managed to turn "the bread basket of Africa" into one of the most impoverished states in the world. Leaders are incompetent and reality can easily be disguised. Dictators are more likely to fall victim to false realities because there is no open press and criticism is often silenced till only yes-men are left. In eastern Europe there was a dictator that was going to adress protestors. When he got out on the balcony and they booed him off he literally did not understand what was going on, the guy was completly dumbfounded that the people wanted him gone. Leaders can be incompetent and dictators often more so. The middle-eastern dicators are wholly incompetent and without their oil their nations will collapse. Turning an economy around takes a long time and the fact that nearly no middle-eastern country has begun to adress their oil dependacy is very telling. Read the bible. It's the same kind of thing. You work on sundays = you should die. Just listen to american fundamentalists. Just remember the murder of the poor doctors who accepted abortions In my post i allready adressed christianity aswell. Never did state that the bible is somehow not an idiotic hate-filled book. And by the way, you might not really understand this so i feel like i have to spell it out, but it takes more to be a theocracy then to put the words "in god we trust" on your money. Holland has a Queen so i am sure we are now a monarchist state and me and all the others are living in serfdom. Right, you know better. You know better again than Harvard-raised counselors and think tanks. But please, show us the arguments showing that they don't know what they're doing. Precise ones. You also seem to rule out the possibility that the ruling class doesn't really care about the long term since they already have billions abroad, and castles on the 6 continents. What harvard counselors and think tanks are painting the middle-east with a bright future? The middle-east is currently on a dead-end track. Party hard for 30 years on oil rather then do the right think. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On April 02 2011 01:11 Petruccio wrote: It is clear now that there are 2 sides of population, of unknown proportion, in the conflict. One side wants Gaddafi to resign, the other wants him to stay. There were 2 sides since the very beginning, and this isn't surprising at all since Surte is the hometown of Ghadaffi and would have the highest pro-Ghadaffi numbers with Tripoli. I don't remember ever hearing anything about protests in Syrte and we know that Ghadaffi's tribe is heavily favoured. If I remember correctly, eastern rebels never got past Syrte actually; Ghadaffi never allowed any further push. Now that's a clever move on Ghadaffi's part since rebels are also armed civilians; it underlines the UN's position which is anything but neutral. On April 02 2011 01:47 zalz wrote: During the great leap forwards in China the government imposed steel production quota's wich forced small towns to melt down metal objects to up the production of steel in China. Right, you're talking about oppressive communists states. Shall I remind you that this was a time of extreme measures and planned economy (who used a planned economy? Oh right, Ghadaffi!). Ideologists had little regard for human life, as the campaign of a 100 flowers proved it (Zhou En Lai was suspected to have thought of the tragedic outcome beforehand, using it in a similar way to the 36-38 great purge). Shall I remind you that before glasznost and perestroika were decided by Gorbatchev in 1985, the reason the leaders didn't know anything was because the nomenklatura didn't carry the information to their ears, and information had no other way to the power's eyes apart from the NKVD - today, we have telecommunications. What John Doe, a random netizen, knows, the sheiks know too. The difference was that at the time, no one knew. Now, whether the leaders care or not is a different matter. And by the way, you might not really understand this so i feel like i have to spell it out, but it takes more to be a theocracy then to put the words "in god we trust" on your money. Why do you think you don't work on sundays? Why do you think homosexuality is still looked down upon? Why do you think abortion is always on the verge of illegality? Why do you think there are little gay rights in many states? Why do you think a president is allowed to speak of an "axis of evil"? You have little knowledge of Islamic laws apart from the "terrifying" Sharia everyone thinks about when we speak of Islamism. There are moderate muslims everywhere, and it's oppression that favoured the rise of extremism in many states. What harvard counselors and think tanks are painting the middle-east with a bright future? The middle-east is currently on a dead-end track. Party hard for 30 years on oil rather then do the right think. There is no "right thing". Leaders can suck the country dry if they want. In Plato's sense, yes, they're "wrong", but what you would usually say is that they don't give a damn. As I said earlier, those families are very west-oriented and don't necessarily work towards de happiness of their people. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6313 Posts
On April 02 2011 01:49 Kukaracha wrote: There were 2 sides since the very beginning, and this isn't surprising at all since Surte is the hometown of Ghadaffi and would have the highest pro-Ghadaffi numbers with Tripoli. I don't remember ever hearing anything about protests in Syrte and we know that Ghadaffi's tribe is heavily favoured. If I remember correctly, eastern rebels never got past Syrte actually; Ghadaffi never allowed any further push. Now that's a clever move on Ghadaffi's part since rebels are also armed civilians; it underlines the UN's position which is anything but neutral. Zalz please stop going off topic and pm to further your argument thx. I am not sure if there were protests in Sirte but there were a lot of protests in Tripoli so I highly doubt that there are a lot of pro gadaffi people but it's all speculation of course. Anyway more updates: There are unconfirmed reports that more people have left the inner circle of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, following the high level desertion of Moussa Koussa, Libya's foreign minister, who arrived in the UK on Wednesday. It is understood a group of top officials who had headed to Tunisia for talks have decided to stay there. Some Arabic newspapers said Mohammad Abu Al Qassim Al Zawi, the head of Libya's Popular Committee, the country’s equivalent of a parliament, is among the defectors, and reports of other defections, such as that of top oil official Shokri Ghanem, remain unconfirmed. Many Libyan government figures have resigned since the uprising against Gaddafi began on February 15. Interior minister Abdel Fattah Younis and justice minister Mustafa Mohamed al-Jalil have both left, as have numerous ambassadors around the world. Most high-level Libyan officials are trying to defect but are under tight security and having difficulty leaving the country, a top Libyan diplomat now supporting the opposition said on Thursday. source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113312103411544.html Also the rebels are getting more organized but nobody knows it if will have an effect on the outcome of the war. I don't have the source for it atm I'll edit it in later Libyan rebels lay down terms for ceasefire Libyan rebels will agree to a ceasefire if Muammar Gaddafi pulls his military forces out of opposition-held cities and allows peaceful protests against his regime, according to an opposition leader. There is a lot more in the article but I don't have time to find all the important stuff out of it so go read it yourself  . source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201141134110527219.htmlStill heavy fighting going on for Brega and Misurata with Misurata being surrounded by Gadaffi forces. | ||
|
Petruccio
90 Posts
On April 02 2011 01:49 Kukaracha wrote: There were 2 sides since the very beginning, and this isn't surprising at all since Surte is the hometown of Ghadaffi and would have the highest pro-Ghadaffi numbers with Tripoli. I don't remember ever hearing anything about protests in Syrte and we know that Ghadaffi's tribe is heavily favoured. If I remember correctly, eastern rebels never got past Syrte actually; Ghadaffi never allowed any further push. Now that's a clever move on Ghadaffi's part since rebels are also armed civilians; it underlines the UN's position which is anything but neutral. No, there was Gadaffi with his paid mercenaries and remains of still loyal army against people of Libya at the very beginning. How tomahawking Tripoli, taking the risk of civil causalities (confirmed by catholic priest) and Gadaffi troops underlines UN's neutral position?? | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4438 Posts
On April 02 2011 00:21 Kukaracha wrote: I highly doubt that Ghadaffi's mercenaries and Allied troops in Irak are behaving the same way. If you want to make such comments, back it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings On September 16, 2007, Blackwater military contractors shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisoor Square, Baghdad.[1] The fatalities occurred while a Blackwater Personal Security Detail (PSD) was escorting a convoy of US State Department vehicles en route to a meeting in western Baghdad with United States Agency for International Development officials. The shooting led to the unraveling of the North Carolina-based company, which since has replaced its management and changed its name to Xe Services. The next day, Blackwater Worldwide's license to operate in Iraq was revoked.[2] The US State Department has said that "innocent life was lost"[3] while US military reports indicate Blackwater's guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force.[4] The Iraqi government vowed to punish Blackwater after an Iraqi inquiry found that the guards were "not touched even by a stone" when they opened fire on the civilians.[5] The incident sparked at least five investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe that found almost all of the shootings "were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq."[6][7] Others.... Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack US SNIPERS SHOOTING CIVILIANS IN IRAQ http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0492 Marines may face trial over Iraq massacre · Report likely to say troops shot 24 unarmed civilians http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/27/iraq.topstories3 | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
In the other hand, repression of recent protests in the arabic world was meant to strike fear and thus leading to systematic brutality, violence and cruelty, following clear orders. Sources? Any report on the clashes in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia. Captured thugs in Egypt confessing being paid to increase the feeling of insecurity and danger among protesters, captured mercenaries (who, by the way, aren't likely to even have the discipline of Blackwater loonies). The way an interviewed woman was treated a few days ago is also very eloquent: telling foreign reporters that Ghadaffi's forces raped her at a checkpoint because of her origin (being from Benghazi), she was attacked on camera by men of the government, and taken away to an unkown place while journalists were being brutalized and threatened with a gun to get the footage back. She is probably dead or tortured by now (the video is on the last pages I think). Ps: the Insider is a terrible, terrible news source. Any website that discusses NWO theories isn't reliable at all (but I still counted it as they used Guardian sources for this article). | ||
| ||
