Libyan Air-force ordered to bomb protesters

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Look, Gadaffi is clearly mad, has spent lots of money funding terrorism, trained and equipped many African warlords etc etc etc. We've been looking for a way to get rid of him without looking really silly for decades and this conflict has provided the perfect opportunity. We've been trading with him for years because with all its faults his regime kept the country reasonably stable. The stability has now gone more or less permanently so it makes perfect social, economic and political sense to get involved and try to look like the good guys.

In my opinion the moment any government starts using deliberately lethal force on unarmed people they lose their legitimacy to govern, this includes every country in the world. It is the responsibility as members of the human race for anyone with the means to step in and stop/remove said government for the good of the country's population.

Ask yourself this, if you hear someone screaming "help help help" in the middle of the night would you run towards the sound or walk away saying it's none of your business?

[st_dux 26]

Ask yourself this, if you hear someone screaming "help help help" in the middle of the night would you run towards the sound or walk away saying it's none of your business?

Individual actions can never be used as direct analogues for political actions.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Individual actions can never be used as direct analogues for political actions.

So? Does that make intervening to stop the killing of civilians any more or less morally correct?

[st_dux 26]

So? Does that make intervening to stop the killing of civilians any more or less morally correct?

Yes, less.

Civilians are killed in more places than just Libya, by the way. The West is quite selective in where it decides to act as the World Police.

[Big Mac 19]

Civilians are killed in more places than just Libya, by the way. The West is quite selective in where it decides to act as the World Police.

Seems I'm not the only person here who doesn't have horse blinders on. Kudos ST Dux.

[1in1class 0]

FFS

Rebels doing wrong doesn't mean suddenly Gaddhafi is an angel and does everything right.

No it does not, but it does not make the rebles angel's neither! It's an issue that the US and the UN should not be involved in. Thats my point in this main talk. Like iv said befor, "the door is swinging both ways". Its someting that need's to be done with in the country itself, but with your words of innocent people getting shot that's on both parts, not just an one side story.

[Spokesperson 0]

Yeah, bombing civilian planes ftw!!! That's how politics should be handled!!

(/sarcasm, for those who miss it)

There's no proof of that. They had to confess in order to break up from isolation and to improve their economy, just like every other action Gadaffi has taken this past decade. Pragmatism is the leading word.

Now I read that west bombed Gaddafis home and killed one of his sons.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Spokesperson

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Yes, less.

Civilians are killed in more places than just Libya, by the way. The West is quite selective in where it decides to act as the World Police.

I never said it wasn't... The very fact that we're getting involved at all in anything is simply political hypocrasy but in some cases that can result in the right thing getting done.

[celery 8]

I never said it wasn't... The very fact that we're getting involved at all in anything is simply political hypocrasy but in some cases that can result in the right thing getting done.

I find it quite funny and sad that some people worry more about a few politicians' intellectual honesty than the lives and welfare of millions of people.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

I find it quite funny and sad that some people worry more about a few politicians' intellectual honesty than the lives and welfare of millions of people.

This

Exactly

[whisper 0]

No it does not, but it does not make the rebles angel's neither! It's an issue that the US and the UN should not be involved in. Thats my point in this main talk. Like iv said befor, "the door is swinging both ways". Its someting that need's to be done with in the country itself, but with your words of innocent people getting shot that's on both parts, not just an one side story.

And I've never said I was ok with UN / EU / US action, you thought I were, that's all.

I was just answering the sentence I quoted

@Spokesperson : He's been publicly supporting terrorist organisations, Red Army Faction, and such, for decades, saying it himself, and tried to pay his actions with money. You're just blind to evidence because it goes against your convictions.

Edited March 25, 2011 by whisper

[Spokesperson 0]

Intellectual honesty and the welfare of millions of people are interconnected.

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

And I've never said I was ok with UN / EU / US action, you thought I were, that's all.

I was just answering the sentence I quoted

@Spokesperson : He's been publicly supporting terrorist organisations, Red Army Faction, and such, for decades, saying it himself, and tried to pay his actions with money. You're just blind to evidence because it goes against your convictions.

So what evidence is there?

[whisper 0]

His public declarations, him admitting... No point discussing further, you will deny anything as being propaganda. Have a happy life in your little world, happily supporting terrorism and killing of innocents, draped in your "I'm holier than West's agenda of killing innocents". You're not any better

[ArmAriffic 10]

i never expected to get this many posts :)

[Spokesperson 0]

Libya admitted just to improve the relations, it is no proof. A lot of people have admitted to things they've never done. In this case it's a country. They even agreed to pay the victims of the US terror-bombing of Tripoli to get the foreign trade going.

[1in1class 0]

And I've never said I was ok with UN / EU / US action, you thought I were, that's all.

I was just answering the sentence I quoted

You was just answering your own sentence you quoted? What is your stand then? You say so many thing's but its realy not clear on what your going at. Iv point out were i stand as so did many other's on this topic, so with all your talk what is your standing in this?

[Rovka 14]

The world is crazy like a snackbar: People are the fries in the bag. Some like mayonaise, others like ketchup. The mayonaisians line their pockets, nibbling some fries.

The ketchuppians love them all red before they devour the whole nation if they're told to go.

And then there's the case of those preferring mustardsauce. That's when hypocrits like Nato bomb the place all the more, to so-called "liberate" the place (of oil etc, not for the people ofcourse as these are collateral side-dishes to them!) making it all extra spicy in the mean time..

And for last there is a growing minority which wisely keeps their noses out of other nations' policies and chosen roads they opt to follow themselves. I say let em fight it out for themselves. We'll get it back onto our own plates when we least expect it. Thank you now, and kill you later as far as these extremist bearded allah-abusing goons are concerned

Edited March 25, 2011 by Thani '82

[whisper 0]

Not my sentence, this kind of thing

I support Gadaffi over the rebels, because his kind of politics reflects my opinions to a larger extent.

triggered my sarcastic remark.

It's funny how hard it is for certain people to understand that things are not all black and white.

No, it is not simply about the white knight Gaddhafi being hit by oil-war mongering westerners.

It's about a tyrant reacting violently to an opposing tribe of his own country at a time where different personal and global interests make a reaction against the tyrant a "good move" for many. I can see some of my not so dear president's motives, as for the rest of coalition, I don't know, but it must be of the same level of stupidity.

Who's right? No-freaking-body. Does that make the tyrant any less of a tyrant? Not at all, he's reacted violently (read : by blood) in the past, there's no reason he hasn't done the same right now.

Does that make the UN intervention any useful? Not at all. It's an intervention which is more than probably going against the will of the majority of Libyan, to arbitrary promote 1 faction, and is going to raise the death toll.

But we are here right now. What are the ways out, it's to me far more important than bickering to know who's of the involved twats is less wrong than the others.

[Big Mac 19]

I find it quite funny and sad that some people worry more about a few politicians' intellectual honesty than the lives and welfare of millions of people.

Maybe it's because it's not about the lives and welfare of millions of people but the political agenda of a few men who are using the suffering of millions as a premises to further their political agenda. Don't be so naive...

[celery 8]

Maybe it's because it's not about the lives and welfare of millions of people but the political agenda of a few men who are using the suffering of millions as a premises to further their political agenda. Don't be so naive...

That's exactly what I mean. You think that a Libyan leader bombing his own freedom craving people is a lesser evil than a French president boosting his image for the next election by putting a stop to that bullshit. Frankly it shows how misanthropic you really are.

[Big Mac 19]

That's exactly what I mean. You think that a Libyan leader bombing his own freedom craving people is a lesser evil than a French president boosting his image for the next election by putting a stop to that bullshit. Frankly it shows how misanthropic you really are.

No actually it shows how in touch with reality I am. If Sarkozy or anyone else cared about stopping genocides they would have gone into Darfur, Chechnya, Cambodia, Rwanda, Liberia, Serria Leone, etc. when true genocides were taking place. A few strafing runs on civilians doesn't count as genocide my friend it just counts as as tyrant trying to keep control.

Sarkozy cares only about his political image and he's using the suffering of the Libyan people to get reelected. He doesn't care about them anymore than he cares about all the other civilians from the other countries in the middle east who were slaughtered by government forces just for speaking out.

Obama only cares about showing he's a team player so he gets America into a war that is no one's business except the Libyans. It's their civil war let them fight it out. If NATO wasn't already committed in Afghanistan and if America wasn't hurting socially, economically, and financially I might be of a different mind, but we are so unless Gadaffi starts trying to take over Africa itself Libya should be left to it's own devices.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Big Mac

[concurssi 11]

... than a French president boosting his image for the next election by putting a stop to that bullshit.

... If Sarkozy or anyone else cared about stopping genocides they would have gone into Darfur, Chechnya, Cambodia, Rwanda, Liberia, Serria Leone, etc. when true genocides were taking place...

Sarkozy cares only about his political image and he's using the suffering of the Libyan people to get reelected....

Big Mac, my friend, you should have read his post a little bit more closely.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

No actually it shows how in touch with reality I am. If Sarkozy or anyone else cared about stopping genocides they would have gone into Darfur, Chechnya, Cambodia, Rwanda, Liberia, Serria Leone, etc. when true genocides were taking place. A few strafing runs on civilians doesn't count as genocide my friend it just counts as as tyrant trying to keep control.

No offense but no on really cares about what happens to Africans, minus those countries in North Africa. I'm just keeping it real.

[Big Mac 19]

No offense but no on really cares about what happens to Africans, minus those countries in North Africa. I'm just keeping it real.

Didn't I just say that?

[STALKERGB 6]

If Sarkozy or anyone else cared about stopping genocides they would have gone into Darfur, Chechnya, Cambodia, Rwanda, Liberia, Serria Leone, etc. when true genocides were taking place.

Gaddafi funded (and still does) many of the African warlords.

The problem with intervening in many of the African nations is that it's damn hard to tell who is on what side. At least with Gaddafi it's a bit more obvious but with many African warlords you wouldn't know one from the other unless you had a very large presence on the ground.

Just because intervention didn't happen in previous country's problems, doesn't mean we shouldn't start now.

Edited March 26, 2011 by STALKERGB