Originally posted by Lucius
"Hang in there Assad!"Really? Really, really? That sounds so absurd coming out of my mouth when I say it outloud . . . the man is a ruthless and murderous tyrant. What fantasy land do you live in?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
He kept religious extremists in check because they threatened his rule. When it suited him he played the part of a devout Muslim and when it didn't he played the part of a secular ruler. Every reporter who's ever interviewed him commented on how Qadaffi changed personalities and personas as he changed his costumes. He was like Murdock from the A-Team only in control of an entire country.
Please state the sources of at least few of 'every reporter who's ever interviewed him''.
I'd really like to see this.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Al Quaeda? Seriously? You're spouting nonsense.
Actually, it's you that's spouting nonsense as you're totally ignorant of the entire situation.
you tend to google bits and pieces which you think would counter my argument, when in fact, as far as conflicts in the middle east are concerned you are clueless.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/us-libya-usa-intelligence-idUSTRE72S43P20110329
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And good to see you IGNORED my first post completely. I admitted that Libya is in a poorer state now than two years ago in terms of the people's living conditions, but that's the case with ANY civil war.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And what about this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/30/libya-maid-of-colonel-gaddafi-s-daughter-in-law-tortured-with-boiling-water-115875-23382040/Try to whitewash that. Go ahead. Say it never happened. Say she was asking for it. Say that there's some excuse for that.
Really, I want to laugh today. Go for it.
As they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. No good leader breeds that kind of repugnant cruelty in his own children. Only a corrupt leader who's only interested in his own power and believes that Might makes Right Absolutely instills those kinds of values.
What can I say about that - It's terrible and barbaric.
I also thing it's interesting you're bringing up unrelated story about Gaddafi's children to support your argument how barbaric NATO strikes were good for Libya.
I have nothing to whitewash there - awful, terrible people doing awful terrible stuff.
But I guess NATO killing Gaddafi's son and his three children by bombing their home, is humanitarian.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570
But please, do explain to me, how the merciful NATO's actions against Gaddafi's son and his three children was good. Please, please, do tell me about it.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
No they're not simple, but you also can't simply excuse a man for killing thousands of his own people just because the alternative to him ruling might be worse.
No, I am not making excuses for anybody - but I am a Gaddafi supporter.
Apart from having an all around aggressive and baiting tone because you indeed have no better argument, it is wise to reflect on your own leaders who committed atrocities against numerous populations around the world.
Gaddafi would have to have done a lot more killing in order to catch up with NATO and US death toll.
But that doesn't matter, right? American massacres are humanitarian.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
As a stereotype you'd be all about feelings and emotion, not logic and critical thinking. Since you're not, I like the cut of your jib. Brutality, killing, oppression, tyranny is all okay, so long as nothing better is foreseeable. You're playing in to my stereotype, which is unusual for a girl.
So it is.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, I am not making excuses for anybody - but I am a Gaddafi supporter.
Apart from having an all around aggressive and baiting tone because you indeed have no better argument, it is wise to reflect on your own leaders who committed atrocities against numerous populations around the world.
Gaddafi would have to have done a lot more killing in order to catch up with NATO and US death toll.But that doesn't matter, right? American massacres are humanitarian.
I'm not really following your thought process here. Why is it good when Gaddafi murders huge numbers people in the name of stability, human rights, and preventing even more severe campaigns of violence but bad when NATO does the same thing? Like, you seem to be falling into exactly the same fallacy you accuse OV of.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not really following your thought process here. Why is it good when Gaddafi murders huge numbers people in the name of stability, human rights, and preventing even more severe campaigns of violence but bad when NATO does the same thing? Like, you seem to be falling into exactly the same fallacy you accuse OV of.
It isn't. Both sides are wrong. The problem is the thought process which claims that NATO is NEVER wrong.
Even if someone is to suggest that NATO are wrong in a particular case and that their actions are wrong, it can't possibly be true, as they're the ''good'' guys and everyone they oppose MUST be dictators (regardless if they are, or they aren't).
I support Gaddafi over rebels. He has indeed proven to have been better for majority of Libyans than the rebels thus far.I don't think he should rule the world or that he's a model leader (far from it, he isn't) but due to absolutism that seems reign around here when it comes to NATO wars, I get sucked into a debate that appears as such.
EDIT: In fact, I let myself get sucked into it...when really I shouldn't.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Please state the sources of at least few of 'every reporter who's ever interviewed him''.
I'd really like to see this.
Actually, it's you that's spouting nonsense as you're totally ignorant of the entire situation.
you tend to google bits and pieces which you think would counter my argument, when in fact, as far as conflicts in the middle east are concerned you are clueless.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/us-libya-usa-intelligence-idUSTRE72S43P20110329
Interesting take. Very interesting. I would say you just did exactly what you accuse me of doing.
What can I say about that - It's terrible and barbaric.I also thing it's interesting you're bringing up unrelated story about Gaddafi's children to support your argument how barbaric NATO strikes were good for Libya.
I have nothing to whitewash there - awful, terrible people doing awful terrible stuff.
But I guess NATO killing Gaddafi's son and his three children by bombing their home, is humanitarian.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13251570
But please, do explain to me, how the merciful NATO's actions against Gaddafi's son and his three children was good. Please, please, do tell me about it.
No, I am not making excuses for anybody - but I am a Gaddafi supporter.
Apart from having an all around aggressive and baiting tone because you indeed have no better argument, it is wise to reflect on your own leaders who committed atrocities against numerous populations around the world.
Gaddafi would have to have done a lot more killing in order to catch up with NATO and US death toll.
If Qadaffi's military was operating on a global scale and had the capabilities of NATO...good lord I don't even want to think about it.
But that doesn't matter, right? American massacres are humanitarian.
But I can't ever imagine being a supporter of someone like Qadaffi or Al-Assad.
Originally posted by inimalist
so you essentially take a position against every revolution ever?
Isn't that what Nietzsche called Slave Morality, or am I getting that wrong? Been a while since I've read that old bastard.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It isn't. Both sides are wrong. The problem is the thought process which claims that NATO is NEVER wrong.
NATO is often wrong. They are also often the better alternative.
Like with most military and law enforcement agencies my primary issue with them is not that they do bad thing, no group avoids that, it's more that they subsequently get away
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I support Gaddafi over rebels. He has indeed proven to have been better for majority of Libyans than the rebels thus far.I don't think he should rule the world or that he's a model leader (far from it, he isn't) but due to absolutism that seems reign around here when it comes to NATO wars, I get sucked into a debate that appears as such.
But the new government hasn't done very much yet. The country is still reeling from a Civil War. It took the US four years to even get a Constitution made and it wasn't until four years after that, that the country enshrined a variety of important human rights in law (or perhaps they never did at all if you listen people like Ron Paul).
Your entire problem with Sharia seems to come from the delusion that it means the same thing to you as it does to everyone else. The fact that in 2012, after the constitution mentioned Sharia in the vaguest possible way (but, yes, that was my error they do talk about it), there were people trying to kill the head of the government for not instituting Sharia properly should be evidence against that.
Or we can delve straight into the text of their Constitution with guarantees both religious freedom for non-Muslims and full political and economic rights for female citizens. Again, though, the document isn't very specific. There's a lot of room to take it in any direction.
Originally posted by inimalist
so you essentially take a position against every revolution ever?
Not really. I support revolution done by the people of the country alone, not prompted by the NGOs of other random countries for reasons other than freedom of opression.
I can't image NATO helping Middle East to liberate them, because in order to do that, Saudi family should be removed first and foremost, as they are the worst violators of human dignities and rights and freedoms and main exporter of religious fundamentalism and terrorism. That then gets spilt over everywhere else in the Middle East and West.
Seriously, the day that NATO announces that they will be putting their efforts to fight the Al Shabab for example, will be the day I stop doubting NATO efforts in the Middle East and Africa.
Originally posted by LuciusJust talked to my friends from Damascuss on skype. They're sunni. Their entire block is throwing a party and blessing Russia and China. My other friends left Syria few days ago forever. Not because they're affraid of the old mean Assad, but because they're affraid of where the country is headed with the revolution. I used to visit them from time to time. They weren't opressed nor murdered. In fact their life was pretty good there, at some point I seriously concidered moving in for awhile. I have no illusions about Assad being a noble leader. He's a dictator, but he really did do a lot for the country. Media is blowing everything out of proportion. The majority really DOES support Assad. The minority (rebellions) suffer from Assad's troops but even more often get their asses kicked by Assad's supporters who are ordinary citizens who dont want their country turning into a hell hole for the sake of fitting in the modern democratic world.
"Hang in there Assad!"Really? Really, really? That sounds so absurd coming out of my mouth when I say it outloud . . . the man is a ruthless and murderous tyrant. What fantasy land do you live in?
@Sam, I'm fairly certain the majority of any country will support stability, that doesn't mean that the majority would be sad to see Assad go so much as worried about the future. And that's all assuming the majority really do support Al-Assad. I've heard too many conflicting reports to think it's as cut and dry as that. Or conversely that he's without supporters, that's also unrealistic.
A question I've never been able to answer to myself is this: would you rather the world burn or be enslaved?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. I support revolution done by the people of the country alone, not prompted by the NGOs of other random countries for reasons other than freedom of opression.I can't image NATO helping Middle East to liberate them, because in order to do that, Saudi family should be removed first and foremost, as they are the worst violators of human dignities and rights and freedoms and main exporter of religious fundamentalism and terrorism. That then gets spilt over everywhere else in the Middle East and West.
Seriously, the day that NATO announces that they will be putting their efforts to fight the Al Shabab for example, will be the day I stop doubting NATO efforts in the Middle East and Africa.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
NATO is often wrong. They are also often the better alternative.Like with most military and law enforcement agencies my primary issue with them is not that they do bad thing, no group avoids that, it's more that they subsequently get away
But the new government hasn't done very much yet. The country is still reeling from a Civil War. It took the US four years to even get a Constitution made and it wasn't until four years after that, that the country enshrined a variety of important human rights in law (or perhaps they never did at all if you listen people like Ron Paul).
Your entire problem with Sharia seems to come from the delusion that it means the same thing to you as it does to everyone else. The fact that in 2012, after the constitution mentioned Sharia in the vaguest possible way (but, yes, that was my error they do talk about it), there were people trying to kill the head of the government for not instituting Sharia properly should be evidence against that.
Or we can delve straight into the text of their Constitution with guarantees both religious freedom for non-Muslims and full political and economic rights for female citizens. Again, though, the document isn't very specific. There's a lot of room to take it in any direction.
You see, I don't believe they're the better alternative in many situations, as they're rarely where they're supposed to be (in terms or location/areas/countries and such).
Once the whole Russian cold war fiasco ended, NATO lost its actual purpose.
It has always seemed strange to me, that an organisation which had in fact done what it was originally meant to do, found a way to keep itself in the existence through random wars of aggression which were explained as a humanitarian intervention (every single time).
This has greatly impacted how I viewed NATO and their actions had not helped that (overall).
As for the new government - Shari'a law is not in line with democracy in any shape or form nor any sort of freedom. It is, as it's already been mentioned a theocratic dictatorship of the worst kind.
The problem here is that while we can point fingers at a particular dictator for doing disgusting thing, it becomes a lot more difficult to do so when the reasoning for such behaviour is ''God told us so''.
Also, because Libya is so tribal and divided amongst ethnic (but mostly tribal) lines, it's going to be (dare I say it) virtually impossible to put everyone together under one Libya. Gaddafi supporters are still strong, as I understand, and that won't go away...maybe for a really long time. Maybe....speculation here.
This is perhaps one thing that makes Libya a bit more different than other countries (such as Egypt for example).
Originally posted by Omega VisionPeople wouldn't go around beating the crap out of rebellions if they were just supporting stability. They support Assad. I ofcourse can't speak for majority. But I visited Syria so many times Ive been to most of its cities (doesnt take a lot of time even by car) and made plenty of friends (both christians and muslims) got a lot of contacts and talk to them all the time.
@Sam, I'm fairly certain the majority of any country will support stability, that doesn't mean that the majority would be sad to see Assad go so much as worried about the future. And that's all assuming the majority really do support Al-Assad. I've heard too many conflicting reports to think it's as cut and dry as that. Or conversely that he's without supporters, that's also unrealistic.A question I've never been able to answer to myself is this: would you rather the world burn or be enslaved?
That's the thing, people in Syria weren't being enslaved. It was nowhere near that bad. When you're oppressed you dont get to go to an airport anytime you want, buy a ticket and leve the country. But they ARE going to burn if the revolution is a success.
People hear "no democracy" they instantly assume the life is terrible there. Well, I live in Russia, ive been to America, Germany etc. You know what is the only difference I noticed? Frighed chicken tastes better in Syria. Also you can't choose a president (which is the same in Russia anyway). So the correct question here is: "Would I rather live with a leader I didnt choose but still have a great life OR overthrow the leader for the sake of some stupid democratic ideology but live in a dumpster afterwards?"
Originally posted by SamZEDSounds like utopian slavery.
People wouldn't go around beating the crap out of rebellions if they were just supporting stability. They support Assad. I ofcourse can't speak for majority. But I visited Syria so many times Ive been to most of its cities (doesnt take a lot of time even by car) and made plenty of friends (both christians and muslims) got a lot of contacts and talk to them all the time.That's the thing, people in Syria weren't being enslaved. It was nowhere near that bad. When you're oppressed you dont get to go to an airport anytime you want, buy a ticket and leve the country. But they ARE going to burn if the revolution is a success.
[b]People hear "no democracy" they instantly assume the life is terrible there. Well, I live in Russia, ive been to America, Germany etc. You know what is the only difference I noticed? Frighed chicken tastes better in Syria. Also you can't choose a president (which is the same in Russia anyway). So the correct question here is: "Would I rather live with a leader I didnt choose but still have a great life OR overthrow the leader for the sake of some stupid democratic ideology but live in a dumpster afterwards?"
[/B]
Originally posted by SamZED
People wouldn't go around beating the crap out of rebellions if they were just supporting stability. They support Assad. I ofcourse can't speak for majority. But I visited Syria so many times Ive been to most of its cities (doesnt take a lot of time even by car) and made plenty of friends (both christians and muslims) got a lot of contacts and talk to them all the time.That's the thing, people in Syria weren't being enslaved. It was nowhere near that bad. When you're oppressed you dont get to go to an airport anytime you want, buy a ticket and leve the country. But they ARE going to burn if the revolution is a success.
[b]People hear "no democracy" they instantly assume the life is terrible there. Well, I live in Russia, ive been to America, Germany etc. You know what is the only difference I noticed? Frighed chicken tastes better in Syria. Also you can't choose a president (which is the same in Russia anyway). So the correct question here is: "Would I rather live with a leader I didnt choose but still have a great life OR overthrow the leader for the sake of some stupid democratic ideology but live in a dumpster afterwards?"
[/B]
What I meant is that is that if you ultimately can't decide what to do with your life and only have what freedoms your government allows you, can you really be said to be free? (Note, I have the same concerns with America, how much of our "freedom" is actual freedom and how much is the illusion of freedom) I have the same problem with Theists who believe in an All Powerful God with a "Plan" for the world but still insist that free will exists.
I can't say what I would do if I lived in Syria. The truth is I'm something of a coward and given to complacency so I'd probably avoid taking a side, though I'm not proud to say that one bit.
But if you asked me who I'd admire more: a person who's willing to support a corrupt, brutal dictator due to fear of the unknown or a person who's ready to risk anything for what they believe in...I'd say at least on an abstract level I'd admire the second more.
Now it depends on how "noble" those ideals are, but for the most part the idea of self-determination is a noble one.
You argue the strangest things at times OV.
And while I don't know much about the situation in Syria, it all depends in the level of tolerance towards a certain amount of chaos, most of stable countries work in a pact-among-criminals implicit morality. If there is something wrong in Syria it would be that Assad is openly against some of those criminals instead of striving for complete stability, the main problem is that you don't just destroy your minorities, at some point they bounce back and you get screwed. If it's not this revolution, it will be the next one.
Originally posted by SamZED
People wouldn't go around beating the crap out of rebellions if they were just supporting stability. They support Assad. I ofcourse can't speak for majority. But I visited Syria so many times Ive been to most of its cities (doesnt take a lot of time even by car) and made plenty of friends (both christians and muslims) got a lot of contacts and talk to them all the time.That's the thing, people in Syria weren't being enslaved. It was nowhere near that bad. When you're oppressed you dont get to go to an airport anytime you want, buy a ticket and leve the country. But they ARE going to burn if the revolution is a success.
[b]People hear "no democracy" they instantly assume the life is terrible there. Well, I live in Russia, ive been to America, Germany etc. You know what is the only difference I noticed? Frighed chicken tastes better in Syria. Also you can't choose a president (which is the same in Russia anyway). So the correct question here is: "Would I rather live with a leader I didnt choose but still have a great life OR overthrow the leader for the sake of some stupid democratic ideology but live in a dumpster afterwards?"
[/B]
Yeah, people don't believe me about how good the life is in China, either.
cry
...
But seriously, each to their own, I suppose. I do love East and West for different reasons. Like Dubai...there's very little difference to the West...it's just a big concrete jungle in the desert...
*ducks for cover*