The Syrian authorities on Friday inexplicably blocked an officially sanctioned Red Cross convoy laden with food and medical supplies from entering a devastated neighborhood in the central city of Homs, one day after the army overwhelmed the main rebel stronghold there following a brutal monthlong siege. There were unconfirmed reports that Syrian security forces were conducting house-to-house searches and summary executions in the neighborhood, Baba Amr, while the convoy of seven Red Cross trucks was parked at the edge of the neighborhood, where military sentries refused to grant it entry despite having received official approval 24 hours earlier. It was unclear why the Syrian military had blocked the convoy.
That's a nice fantasy that's gained a lot of traction recently, but it simply isn't true. Change has come far more historically from the introduction and/or imposition of new ideas from the "top" that have gained acceptance from those who are politically active, which until the last century was a very small minority of society.
The French, Spanish, and American Revolutions would like a word with you.
(To name but 3 examples out of the vast infinity of instances of 'pressure from below' which have radically changed the world.)
Well American Revolution was not led from the 'top' but it was aided by foreign intervention (the French didn't want democracy, they just wanted to mess with the British)
as for the French... same idea, led from the middle (And given that it took ~100 years to finally get it right
Yesterday night the Syrian army started to get inside Baba Amr from al-Bassel stadium and Brazil Street, in addition to shooting that was coming from Aysoon [a pro-regime district]. But today the Syrian army is in control of all Baba Amr. There are a lot of wounded who could not flee, especially in al-Sultaniyia and Jubair districts. Baba Amr is a desolate place now. No one can stay in Baba Amr, whether civilians or FSA. The Syrian army are firing against anything they can find in front of them. They are arresting any young men they find. As the army moved, in there was not any resistance by the FSA – in fact it was a light engagement to cover the FSA's withdrawal. There are no more safe place that we can stay in Baba Amr any more. All roads are blocked from all directions. A large number of Syrian army are coming from the Jubair direction. Some groups came with the army ... they were not wearing military uniform but white dress with red or white ribbons on their heads. They are armed with knives. The Syrian army are even shooting sheep and stealing cars belonging to people. The weather is so cold. Yesterday, at 8.30 pm, my cousin Mahmood al-Zua'bi was trying to flee Baba Amr but he got shot by a sniper and killed. He was only 17 years old. Sheikh Baha al-Sufi was killed too in Baba Amr. I have not seen any Red Cross members, but I hope if they come they will go to all parts of Bab Amr, not only the centre.
And from an interview with Paul Conroy, a british photographer who left Homs earlier this week:
People brought me half a baby, and saying 'Save my baby. Where is the help?' And I have no answer. It's not a war, it's a massacre. Indiscriminate massacre of men, women and children. There is no power. There is no water. Food is down to biscuits. Snow is falling. It's more than a catastrophe. In years to come we're going to sit, and we're gonna go, how did we let this happen under our nose? Once the cameras are gone, I fear for what's happening. There was no restraint with cameras there.
That's a nice fantasy that's gained a lot of traction recently, but it simply isn't true. Change has come far more historically from the introduction and/or imposition of new ideas from the "top" that have gained acceptance from those who are politically active, which until the last century was a very small minority of society.
The French, Spanish, and American Revolutions would like a word with you.
(To name but 3 examples out of the vast infinity of instances of 'pressure from below' which have radically changed the world.)
Well American Revolution was not led from the 'top' but it was aided by foreign intervention (the French didn't want democracy, they just wanted to mess with the British)
as for the French... same idea, led from the middle (And given that it took ~100 years to finally get it right
Having one of the greatest military minds of human history didn't hurt either.
As for the events in Syria:
Look at what happens when you let your anti-Americanism overtake reason. Thousands more will die, and for what? So that Russia can keep their patsy in charge? Because they wouldn't get "super duper double true democracy"?
The killing could have put to a halt by now. But here we are, looking at the horrors that the Syrian dictatorship is forcing on its own people. And there are people praising Russia for enabling this.
Shame on those that believe it is better that these Syrian people are murdered than that they receive help from the UN.
Meanwhile in the NATO's newest bastion of democracy:
I could say something about how 600 local militants and 118 mercenaries (most from Arab countries) have surrendered to Syrian government troops in the city of Homs in the past few days and how Homs residents are helping the army track down rebel fighters (the cowards hole themselves up in civilian buildings waiting for guns to be smuggled to them through 'humanitarian aid') but I won't, too many people in this thread feel so comfy on their NATO bloodlust bandwagon... why bother As for all this talk about a Russian veto... too bad there isn't a list about another country’s veto's... oh look! + Show Spoiler +
List of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2002 (Russia has used their veto TWICE) Year: Resolution Vetoed by the USA 1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids. 1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. 1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians. 1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. 1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians. 1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians. 1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security. 1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians. 1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories. 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa. 1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa. 1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. 1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race. 1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel. 1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations. 1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries. 1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people. 1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs ofstates. 1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons. 1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people. 1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions. 1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians. 1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women. 1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions. 1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes. 1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories. 1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons. 1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament. 1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions. 1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles. 1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions. 1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983). 1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier. 1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967. 1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions. 1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology. 1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts. 1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions. 1982 Supports a new world information and communications order. 1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons. 1982 Development of international law. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment . 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions. 1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies. 1984 International action to eliminate apartheid. 1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions. 1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities . 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law. 1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa. 1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians. 1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places. 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians. 1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians. 1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. 1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States. 1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions. 1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation. 1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions. 1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space. 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction. 1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions. 1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace". 1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989). 1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama. 1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama. 1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua. 1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua. 1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force. 1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions. 1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories. 1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory. 1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions. 1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999). 2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 2001 To set up the International Criminal Court. 2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia. The US of A: helping to make the world a fairer place.
Here's a random qoute for everyone who isn't a sheep: It has too often been too easy for rulers and governments to incite man to war. Lester B. Pearson
Your only problem seems to be the fact that there is video footage of these atrocities.
Gaddaffi did worse, to everyone, and on a larger scale. But suddenly that isn't a problem. But no, Gaddaffi is better in your eyes because...
Yeah, why exactly? Because he did his dirty business behind closed doors? He kept the cameras out of the torture room?
This is horrible, but to suggest that Gaddaffi was the good alternative to this is ridiculous. He did more and did worse. He purged entire prisons, filled with Libyans that did nothing wrong, other than get on the bad side of the government.
If you truly felt that human rights were at stake you wouldn't be calling for the return of Gaddaffi, a man that commited worse atrocities than this on a daily basis.
That you adress the rebels in Homs as cowards says enough. I wonder what sick mind could look at the images of Homs and feel glee in his heart as artillery rains down on it. The entire city has been shot to ruin. Thousands of people have died in a battle to gain control over their own destiny.
And you? You call them cowards. Words fail to describe how deeply you have failed as a human being.
Glee in my heart? What the hell are you talking about? Most of them are criminals who are being paid cash money to kill government officials... If a bank robber uses a woman as a human shield so the police wouldn’t shoot him, is he a coward? yes he is! Except in this case the police don’t give a fuck, that’s why the people of Homs want those criminals out. Everybody is wrong in this whole story, if the world just lets them deal with their own problems A LOT less people will die. Apparently it is more important for some sheltered westerners to feel good about themselves then the lives of innocent people.
You talk about Gaddafi like there is any proof apart from hearsay bullshit they put on CNN and BBC, of course a lot of bad things happened it was a bloody civil war, everything could have been avoided but SOMEBODY had to feel good about themselves. And what happened in the end? a thug was replaced with a thug and Libya was sent back 20 years, the country left in ruin.
Hey, if wanting peace and justice means i have 'failed as a human being' then so be it.
On March 04 2012 07:42 ahappystar wrote: Glee in my heart? What the hell are you talking about? Most of them are criminals who are being paid cash money to kill government officials... If a bank robber uses a woman as a human shield so the police wouldn’t shoot him, is he a coward? yes he is! Except in this case the police don’t give a fuck, that’s why the people of Homs want those criminals out. Everybody is wrong in this whole story, if the world just lets them deal with their own problems A LOT less people will die. Apparently it is more important for some sheltered westerners to feel good about themselves then the lives of innocent people.
"The people of Homs want those criminals out."
Where did you read that? On your little Russian Today propaganda blog? Honestly, did you ever stop and wonder about this:
The city of Homs is under heavy siege. The country is in complete media blackout, even images of the city under siege are hard to come by. So how in the hell would anyone be able to go door to door and take a poll to see how people are feeling?
You seem awefully detached from reality. These people are being fired upon by the government on a daily basis, and you think their instinct is to run to the government and help them? I get angry if someone pushes me. I doubt I would get happy if someone fired a piece of artillery on me.
Let alone the practical question: How exactly is the government having so much trouble capturing Homs if both the army and the citizenry want them out?
Your comment on how a lot less people would die is just flat out ridiculous. Had Russia not decided to veto the bill, the killing would have grinded to a halt by now. Certainly not the thousands of dead that are being raked in now.
The Syrian government is on a full-on killing spree against the opposition. Wake up, this is the worst case scenario. Take your eyes off the tinfoil blogs and look at reality.
You talk about Gaddafi like there is any proof apart from hearsay bullshit they put on CNN and BBC, of course a lot of bad things happened it was a bloody civil war, everything could have been avoided but SOMEBODY had to feel good about themselves. And what happened in the end? a thug was replaced with a thug and Libya was sent back 20 years, the country left in ruin.
Are you fucking kidding me?
There are literally thousands of reports on human rights abuses by Gaddaffi. It is so well documented that only the illiterate have an excuse for not knowing how fucked up Libya was under Gaddaffi.
Libya was massively opressed under Gaddaffi. Things were bad and they were going to stay bad.
Now, with the uprising, Libya has taken a gamble. Things might get better, they might go back to the way they were.
So the situation has changed from bad, to 'might improve.' The people of Libya can hope for a future again. Whether they will get one is up to them now. Popular uprisings can be hijacked, that is simply a fact of life. That doesn't mean they shouldn't happen.
If you beat people, they will rise up against you. Don't ask these people to love the whip.
Hey, if wanting peace and justice means i have 'failed as a human being' then so be it.
How can you be so two-faced?
Your policy of choice is being enacted upon the people of Syria. Hands off, let them die by the thousands. Yet you pretend to want peace and justice?
You are supporting a dictatorship murdering its people when they rise up for a say in the country. Are you seriously this hypocritical? Are you seriously so lacking in any sense of reality and self-reflection that you can't see how false your statement is?
Seriously, it is like North-Korean news in terms of how detached it is from any sense of reality.
On March 04 2012 08:12 GizmoPT wrote: for peace to exist all humans have to die true story
Baseless statement with no empirical proof what so ever.
I'll give you an example of peace; Scandinavia. In general; The democratic peace, however likely or unlikely.
Edit: Realism is mostly alive through USA foreign policy, and less now than before. It is not, quite obviously, an undeniable truth, even though it purports itself as such. If it were, you would be correct.
That's a nice fantasy that's gained a lot of traction recently, but it simply isn't true. Change has come far more historically from the introduction and/or imposition of new ideas from the "top" that have gained acceptance from those who are politically active, which until the last century was a very small minority of society.
The French, Spanish, and American Revolutions would like a word with you.
(To name but 3 examples out of the vast infinity of instances of 'pressure from below' which have radically changed the world.)
Well American Revolution was not led from the 'top' but it was aided by foreign intervention (the French didn't want democracy, they just wanted to mess with the British)
as for the French... same idea, led from the middle (And given that it took ~100 years to finally get it right
Having one of the greatest military minds of human history didn't hurt either.
As for the events in Syria:
Look at what happens when you let your anti-Americanism overtake reason. Thousands more will die, and for what? So that Russia can keep their patsy in charge? Because they wouldn't get "super duper double true democracy"?
The killing could have put to a halt by now. But here we are, looking at the horrors that the Syrian dictatorship is forcing on its own people. And there are people praising Russia for enabling this.
Shame on those that believe it is better that these Syrian people are murdered than that they receive help from the UN.
That's a nice fantasy that's gained a lot of traction recently, but it simply isn't true. Change has come far more historically from the introduction and/or imposition of new ideas from the "top" that have gained acceptance from those who are politically active, which until the last century was a very small minority of society.
The French, Spanish, and American Revolutions would like a word with you.
(To name but 3 examples out of the vast infinity of instances of 'pressure from below' which have radically changed the world.)
Well American Revolution was not led from the 'top' but it was aided by foreign intervention (the French didn't want democracy, they just wanted to mess with the British)
as for the French... same idea, led from the middle (And given that it took ~100 years to finally get it right
Having one of the greatest military minds of human history didn't hurt either.
As for the events in Syria:
Look at what happens when you let your anti-Americanism overtake reason. Thousands more will die, and for what? So that Russia can keep their patsy in charge? Because they wouldn't get "super duper double true democracy"?
The killing could have put to a halt by now. But here we are, looking at the horrors that the Syrian dictatorship is forcing on its own people. And there are people praising Russia for enabling this.
Shame on those that believe it is better that these Syrian people are murdered than that they receive help from the UN.
There are literally thousands of reports on human rights abuses by Gaddaffi. It is so well documented that only the illiterate have an excuse for not knowing how fucked up Libya was under Gaddaffi.
Libya was massively opressed under Gaddaffi. Things were bad and they were going to stay bad.
So the situation has changed from bad, to 'might improve.' The people of Libya can hope for a future again.
The Libyan aftermath looks like a horror movie straight out of the Nazi Death Camps where racial torture and degradation are rampant and the central authority is virtually non-existant, weak and without a clue as to building a civil society. Saw an interesting comment on the internetz (for obvious reasons with a spoiler tag): + Show Spoiler +
What else expected, can the west give them back all this bellow what Gaddafi gave them? • In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world • Today Libya has attained the highest standard of living in Africa • Libya utilized the revenue from its oil to develop its country • The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated • Libyans now earn more per capita than the British • Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society • Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services • Today, Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World • All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges. • New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard • All Libyans own their own homes and cars • Large scale housing construction has taken place right across the country • Every citizen has been given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free • Any Libyan who wants to become a farmer is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, some livestock and seed. • First World, Libyans have it very good indeed Why are we bombing them?
Benefits for being Libyan: 1. Electricity for household use is free 2. Interest-free loans during the study 3. Student receives the average salary for this profession if he/she does not find a job after graduation 4. Every unemployed person receives social assistance $ 15,000 a year 5. Cars at factory prices 6. Free health and education 7. Free higher education abroad 8. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15 9. Water in the middle of the desert, drinking water (read about great manmade river) 10. 8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR) 11. Gasoline at 44 cents a gallon 12. For each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for his needs. 13. Lowest infant mortality rate 14. $76,000 wedding gift 15. Home loans are available at 10% of a family's yearly salary 16. 300,000 homes built for the poor 17. Guarantee of land ownership for all Libyans …Why destroy something Better than what we have, when Improvement is the Obvious & less traumatic Objective?
So now lets see whats the Glorious pro-NATO Liberation army of Libya is up to:
Former Libyan rebels widely supported by the West in their fight against late leader Colonel Gaddafi are now turning against their allies, attacking their war graves and smashing Christian symbols with hammers.
Deep shock and outrage are the reactions in the Western world after former Libyan rebels in Benghazi attacked and desecrated a WWII cemetery of those who “liberated” them from Gaddafi’s “tyranny”.
A video apparently posted on the internet by the attackers shows them kicking and destroying tombstones of British and Italian soldiers who fell during the deadliest war of the 20th century.
Those who recently begged for NATO’s help to destroy the regime have now taken down crucifixes and smashed headstones with hammers at the Benghazi War Cemetery. Over 200 tombstones were damaged. There is speculation that this was done to punish NATO, or the US, for American soldiers burning numerous copies of the Koran in Afghanistan, an act which provoked violent riots by Muslims.
More than 1,000 soldiers and airmen from all over the world – British, Australian, French, Congolese, Vietnamese, German, Italian, Polish and American, among others – lost their lives in the desert during the Second World War. Their war graves were carefully preserved by the regime of Colonel Gaddafi. The new Libyan leadership has apologized for the act of vandalism. The National Transitional Council (NTC) has said it "deeply regrets" and "strongly condemns" the attacks, vowing “to prosecute those involved.”
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission insists that “both cemeteries will be restored to a standard befitting the sacrifice of those commemorated at Benghazi.”
Meanwhile the NTC has not managed to put the country on a path towards improvement. Hate crimes are reportedly taking place around the country, including against national minorities. The temporary government has control of Tripoli, but the areas outside the capital are out of its reach and still controlled by tribes.
A video recently posted on the internet shows former rebels torturing a group of black Africans treating them like zoo pets.
So apparently I'm detached from reality for saying that arming Islamist rabbles is a bad thing... I feel so sorry for you zalz, i really do, what kind of life you must have had to be filled with so much hate towards people who think differently then you. Seriously, can you write one post without attacking someone? Yes we all know people who want to invade Syria are 'liberal', 'intellectual', they are the master race and we must all bow down to them because god forbid, not being filled with blood-lust is wrong and 'anti-democratic'. WE GET IT EDIT: added a sentence and fixed some grammar... i think ^^
In Jerusalem, a Christian monastery has been desecrated ( Source ). Should the Jews never have been allowed to return to Israel, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians?
In France, the famous pet cemetary where Rin Tin Tin lies was desecrated ( Source. Does that mean that they should never have been allowed to became free again from the Third Reich, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians?
In Colma, San Francisco, hundreds of graves have been desecrated. ( Source ). Does that mean that America should never have been allowed to become independed from the British Empire, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians?
In Libya, war graves from WW2 has been desecrated. And I know the answer for this one: We should never have given them weapons and allowed them to rid themselves of their dictator, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians.
Is it because all Libyans are one homogenous group that acts with a collective will that they should be treated differently from the Jews, French and Americans?
On March 05 2012 18:58 iMAniaC wrote: In Jerusalem, a Christian monastery has been desecrated ( Source ). Should the Jews never have been allowed to return to Israel, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians?
In France, the famous pet cemetary where Rin Tin Tin lies was desecrated ( Source. Does that mean that they should never have been allowed to became free again from the Third Reich, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians?
In Colma, San Francisco, hundreds of graves have been desecrated. ( Source ). Does that mean that America should never have been allowed to become independed from the British Empire, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians?
In Libya, war graves from WW2 has been desecrated. And I know the answer for this one: We should never have given them weapons and allowed them to rid themselves of their dictator, seeing as they're such a gang of uncivilized barbarians.
Is it because all Libyans are one homogenous group that acts with a collective will that they should be treated differently from the Jews, French and Americans?
Israel is actually really non-homogenous, we have a severe problem of Orthodox jews, who are uneducated, yet get a lot of benefits from the governmant (an orthodox jew can make basically 3,500$ a month by doing nothing but learning Torah and having children). And they keep on getting these benefits because the less religous and the non religous constantly vote for a myriad of different parties, so the orthodox parties basically give governmental power to whoever gives them the most benefits.
So apparently I'm detached from reality for saying that arming Islamist rabbles is a bad thing...
The boring and predictable routine. Gaddaffi was providing so many good things, why would people not love him? Because he oppressed them with a zeal that is hard to match anywhere.
You can get many and more of those things in Sweden. Are you seriously telling me that if the Swedish government began to publicly hang people that protested against their government, you would tell the Swedish people to suck it up?
If the Swedish government sends assasins to hunt down Swedish people that have fled Sweden, would you applaud the Swedish government?
You can't buy people's lives. The price of one human life is not 1 free healthcare and/or 1 free education. Freedom of speech and the right to not be treated as the property of the state. These are universal rights.
You might be willing to sell your freedom of speech for the price of a house, but some of us aren't that short-sighted. Some of us include the people of Libya that have rejected their tyrant. They will not be bought as livestock by their ruler who uses the oil that is theirs to begin with.
I feel so sorry for you zalz, i really do, what kind of life you must have had to be filled with so much hate towards people who think differently then you. Seriously, can you write one post without attacking someone? Yes we all know people who want to invade Syria are 'liberal', 'intellectual', they are the master race and we must all bow down to them because god forbid, not being filled with blood-lust is wrong and 'anti-democratic'. WE GET IT
It is ironic that you should bring up racism.
After all, you are the person advocating that because they are only Libyans, they should shut up and take their fate. For some reason you don't think Libyans are entitled to the same freedoms as the Swedish.
Why is that? Why do you advocate treating Libyans differently than Swedish people?
I don't even know where to start with this, next you'll be implying that i deny the holocaust happened or some other bull-crap i never said. YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that living in a tribal theocracy is better than living a (better than) first world country? How brainwashed can you get? seriously! The only people that were 'suppressed' in Libya were the tribal islamist fanatics, mark my words woman's rights wont exists in Libya within 2 years of this 'democracy', oh wait... they are putting off elections indefinitely, big surprise. Did you even read what the Libyans had under Gaddafi? I would rather have a popular uprising to bring about Gaddafi in my own county than live in a Taliban style country. Seriously 0.08euro fuel? free electricity? free education? free healthcare? 76k$ when you get married? free land? a free house? As opposed to getting your head cut off by al-Qaeda fanatic because you do not know the quran by heart? Yeah... good job idiots!
On March 05 2012 22:40 ahappystar wrote: I don't even know where to start with this, next you'll be implying that i deny the holocaust happened or some other bull-crap i never said. YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that living in a tribal theocracy is better than living a (better than) first world country? How brainwashed can you get? seriously! The only people that were 'suppressed' in Libya were the tribal islamist fanatics, mark my words woman's rights wont exists in Libya within 2 years of this 'democracy', oh wait... they are putting off elections indefinitely, big surprise. Did you even read what the Libyans had under Gaddafi? I would rather have a popular uprising to bring about Gaddafi in my own county than live in a Taliban style country. Seriously 0.08euro fuel? free electricity? free education? free healthcare? 76k$ when you get married? free land? a free house? As opposed to getting your head cut off by al-Qaeda fanatic because you do not know the quran by heart? Yeah... good job idiots!
Nice try, but zalz is unrelenting. Every post comes back loaded with moral judgements backed up by the same old tired hyperbole. Better of just giving up, let him have fun in his thread, pretending he's a public speaker rousing a rabble.
What he doesn't realise is that the vast majority of people don't care about their system of government, as long as they have stability. If people really gave a shit, then we'd see close to 100% turn out at elections, or failing that, mass political protests or campaigning. But no, we don't. We see 40-60% turnout in most western countries. People have more important things to worry about than politics. As long as it doesn't interfere in stability of their daily routines it doesn't matter.
I can't vouch for your statements on life in Libya since I know so little (and western media tends to paint the Libyans as a body of down-trodden supressed repressed peasants under Gadaffi) but there is no way we have been told the whole story.
To me, the whole TNC in Libya seems a farce. Who are they, where did they emerge from, on what grounds did they assume the mantle of 'voice of the people'? Seems like they were part of the elite political cadre anyway. SMELLS LIKE A COUP TO ME.
On March 05 2012 22:40 ahappystar wrote: I don't even know where to start with this, next you'll be implying that i deny the holocaust happened or some other bull-crap i never said. YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that living in a tribal theocracy is better than living a (better than) first world country?
No, I don't.
But do the Libyans? Is that their dream? If not, then don't vote for them. You know, democracy. Allow the people to get their own way, pick and choose and try different parties until their country goes the right way.
These dictators are the whole reason that religious fanaticism is so big in these middle-eastern countries. All political parties are outlawed, so the only way to get together becomes the friday prayer.
Libya was also by no means a first world country. It takes a little more than being build upon a pile of oil to be a first world country.
How brainwashed can you get? seriously! The only people that were 'suppressed' in Libya were the tribal islamist fanatics, mark my words woman's rights wont exists in Libya within 2 years of this 'democracy', oh wait... they are putting off elections indefinitely, big surprise.
Again, if you allow these dictators to exist that is exactly what you sow. The only gathering that they can't crush is the friday prayer, so of course you will foster a religious fanatical base. It becomes the only way for people to resist their government.
Did you even read what the Libyans had under Gaddafi? I would rather have a popular uprising to bring about Gaddafi in my own county than live in a Taliban style country. Seriously 0.08euro fuel? free electricity? free education? free healthcare? 76k$ when you get married? free land? a free house?
Sounds like you don't need to win over yourself. You already love Big Brother.
0.08 feul, free electricity, free education, free healthcare, 76k and a house. That is awefully cheap for me being branded "property of the state."
You do realize that Libyans couldn't even run right? No matter where they went on the world, Gaddaffi would send assassins to kill them if they dared to speak out. To be born a Libyan meant that you would never in your life be allowed to truly use your freedom of expression, even if you fled Libya.
You were born as property of the state and you would die as property of the state.
And for what? Trinkets and paper? How much money would you need to be paid in order to change your opinion on Libya? Because it sure sounds like you are more than willing to sell your voice.
As opposed to getting your head cut off by al-Qaeda fanatic because you do not know the quran by heart? Yeah... good job idiots!
That doesn't seem to be happening in Libya at this point
Nice try, but zalz is unrelenting. Every post comes back loaded with moral judgements backed up by the same old tired hyperbole. Better of just giving up, let him have fun in his thread, pretending he's a public speaker rousing a rabble.
What he doesn't realise is that the vast majority of people don't care about their system of government, as long as they have stability. If people really gave a shit, then we'd see close to 100% turn out at elections, or failing that, mass political protests or campaigning. But no, we don't. We see 40-60% turnout in most western countries. People have more important things to worry about than politics. As long as it doesn't interfere in stability of their daily routines it doesn't matter.
I can't vouch for your statements on life in Libya since I know so little (and western media tends to paint the Libyans as a body of down-trodden supressed repressed peasants under Gadaffi) but there is no way we have been told the whole story.
To me, the whole TNC in Libya seems a farce. Who are they, where did they emerge from, on what grounds did they assume the mantle of 'voice of the people'? Seems like they were part of the elite political cadre anyway. SMELLS LIKE A COUP TO ME.
Ooh cry me a river.
But I shall admit, I love that you admit that you don't know much about Libya, but you still know that the whole thing "sounds like a farce."
The realization that you don't understand the situation doesn't even give you a moment of hesitation. You just jump into conspiracy land with both feet.
Whenever I worry if I am on the wrong side of the debate, it does my heart good to read posts like yours. A reminder that I am clearly in the right camp.
EPT
