NATO attack ensures Libyan rebels will never be legitimate

Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 10:55 am

Inuyasha wrote:

Depending on how this turns out the radicals may or may not be able to seize power if Qaddafi is removed. If the secular part of the rebellion can get themselves organized, then the Muslim Brotherhood might not be able to seize power.

If Obama had supported the rebels in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood might not have been as serious of an issue.


And if my grandmother had testicles she would be my grandfather.

ruveyn



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

22 Mar 2011, 11:24 am

Tensu wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
If the rebels win, it will only be a matter of time before the militants take root in the government and Libya becomes a terrorist state and the training camps return. I've been saying it a lot lately; middle eastern society is not evolved enough to support democracy. They might as well be cavemen, and what the progressive crowd is hoping they can accomplish in building a democracy is basically tantamount to having a bunch of cavemen nominate representatives to the interim government, and having these cavemen write up a constitution that will ensure stability and human rights, and then have these cavemen arrange national elections for the new government and protect them from being rigged.


That... sounds pretty racist to me. Your proposal is like a parent who never lends their teenage offspring the car because "they haven't proved they're responsible"... but never gives them a chance to prove they are responsible. I think risking one's life on a revolutionary war proves you're ready for the responsibility of a democratic republic... after all, that's how we proved we were ready.


Browning is correct. Arab societies are not socially developed to sustain a democracy. Their social structures are stuck in the 12th century; meaning they still retain a form of nobility and kings as their leadership and their religious institutions are deeply ingrained with the political structure.

In short, a perfect concoction for the self-perpetuating cycle of power, wealth and privilege among the political and monetary elite and the religious institution which stands on the backs of the common people century after century.

They have rebellions and uprisings which, as Browning mentioned, inevitably end up supporting yet another set of political and monetary elites ..why? because the religious institutions are NOT harmed during those rebellions and it is those institutions that re-create the triad of power and control in the post-rebellion times.

Look at Europe for example. The Church was the sole keeper of power for kings because the priests were untouchable and controlled the masses. When rebellions happened (and it happened lots) it was the priests that put things back together by supporting a new king and nobility. If it had not been for Martin Luther and Henry the 8th the Church would have never lost its power & Europe would be no different than the arab world is today.

Separation of Church and State is the key to sustaining a democracy. This is why democracy will never take hold in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia... their societies have NOT broken loose from their religious institution. Oh, they may call themselves democracies and ape the western world, but the inner workings are the same ol' triad of power: fat cats, politician-kings and priests (sometimes all three in one person).

What makes Islam particularly resistant to being kicked out of its power is that it does not have a centralized management like the Church had in Rome/Vatican with the Pope; instead Islam operates (ironically) very much like terrorist cell networks: independent small units of priests which hold local influence+power over their own little section of the world. They only get together to perpetuate their own power base when the time calls for it..otherwise they operate independently.

Tensu: You are correct in one aspect: a democracy cannot be born unless the people rise against the king-entity and demand rule of the people. However, you will notice Gadafi is in power because the islamic priests sided with him..and you will notice those same priests will side with whoever wins the conflict because it is the only way they will guarantee their own power base. I can guarantee you that if a large number of islamic priests in Libya went on TV, condemned Gadafi and sided with the rebels then Gadafi's army will dissolve as the few priests left on his side will either defect as well and it would create a void in any claim of power gadafi may have & his army will dessert him.

But that won't happen. The islamic priests hold two of the three cards of arab world political power: fat cats ($$$) & religious political power. Under such conditions democracy will never, ever function since the priests will always be there pulling the strings on their own favor..it will never be a rule of the people.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 11:31 am

Tensu wrote:

That... sounds pretty racist to me. Your proposal is like a parent who never lends their teenage offspring the car because "they haven't proved they're responsible"... but never gives them a chance to prove they are responsible. I think risking one's life on a revolutionary war proves you're ready for the responsibility of a democratic republic... after all, that's how we proved we were ready.


No racism. The Muslim folk have never had a tradition of democracy.

In Europe where it was invented, it took the English from 1215 and the signing of Magna Carta limiting the King's power to the middle of the 19th century to evolved a decent notion of rights and democratic rule. So even the people who invented it need 700 years or so to get it right.

ruveyn



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

22 Mar 2011, 1:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Tensu wrote:

That... sounds pretty racist to me. Your proposal is like a parent who never lends their teenage offspring the car because "they haven't proved they're responsible"... but never gives them a chance to prove they are responsible. I think risking one's life on a revolutionary war proves you're ready for the responsibility of a democratic republic... after all, that's how we proved we were ready.


No racism. The Muslim folk have never had a tradition of democracy.

In Europe where it was invented, it took the English from 1215 and the signing of Magna Carta limiting the King's power to the middle of the 19th century to evolved a decent notion of rights and democratic rule. So even the people who invented it need 700 years or so to get it right.

ruveyn


I still don't think we've gotten it right

I made the mistake of reading over John's post and thinking 'this is kind of racist' but after re-reading I see what he's saying here. Democracy isn't really even encouraged by the Koran (afaik) let alone the countries of the area


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

22 Mar 2011, 2:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Tensu wrote:

That... sounds pretty racist to me. Your proposal is like a parent who never lends their teenage offspring the car because "they haven't proved they're responsible"... but never gives them a chance to prove they are responsible. I think risking one's life on a revolutionary war proves you're ready for the responsibility of a democratic republic... after all, that's how we proved we were ready.


No racism. The Muslim folk have never had a tradition of democracy.

In Europe where it was invented, it took the English from 1215 and the signing of Magna Carta limiting the King's power to the middle of the 19th century to evolved a decent notion of rights and democratic rule. So even the people who invented it need 700 years or so to get it right.

ruveyn


Hmm.. ancient Athens invented democracy and the anglo-saxons had written version of magna carta before the magna carta itself but yes, it took the British centuries to crack the power of the monarchy... and that went at the same pace as the loss of power of the roman church. Nifty timing eh?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 2:44 pm

Dantac wrote:

Hmm.. ancient Athens invented democracy and the anglo-saxons had written version of magna carta before the magna carta itself but yes, it took the British centuries to crack the power of the monarchy... and that went at the same pace as the loss of power of the roman church. Nifty timing eh?


Only 1/6 the population of Athens hand any power or rights in their "democracy" The other 5/6 were slave, women or aliens permitted to do commerce in Athens.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 2:45 pm

Dantac wrote:

Hmm.. ancient Athens invented democracy and the anglo-saxons had written version of magna carta before the magna carta itself but yes, it took the British centuries to crack the power of the monarchy... and that went at the same pace as the loss of power of the roman church. Nifty timing eh?


Only 1/6 the population of Athens hand any power or rights in their "democracy" The other 5/6 were slave, women or aliens permitted to do commerce in Athens.

The "democracy" of Athens sentenced Socrates to death for exercising the right of free speech. Some democracy that was.

ruveyn



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

22 Mar 2011, 4:10 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Only 1/6 the population of Athens hand any power or rights in their "democracy" The other 5/6 were slave, women or aliens permitted to do commerce in Athens.

The "democracy" of Athens sentenced Socrates to death for exercising the right of free speech. Some democracy that was.

ruveyn


Freedom of Speech came along much later in history with the Rights of Man...so I don't really see how you can judge their democracy as less worthy.

Slavery was common practice in those days and it was actually a LOT more civilized than the slavery of the 1500->1800's era. Women didn't get the right to vote until very recently (1920 in the US.. which is perhaps the first modern democracy) all things considering.

Male citizens were the only ones allowed to vote that's true. That however, still meant that neither wealth or social background made their vote count less or more than another free man's vote. In this context they also had the first free speech... as any voter could stand in front of the rest and speak his piece.

In those days, that was as big an achievement as putting a man on the moon.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

22 Mar 2011, 4:16 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Dantac wrote:

Hmm.. ancient Athens invented democracy and the anglo-saxons had written version of magna carta before the magna carta itself but yes, it took the British centuries to crack the power of the monarchy... and that went at the same pace as the loss of power of the roman church. Nifty timing eh?


Only 1/6 the population of Athens hand any power or rights in their "democracy" The other 5/6 were slave, women or aliens permitted to do commerce in Athens.

The "democracy" of Athens sentenced Socrates to death for exercising the right of free speech. Some democracy that was.

ruveyn


true it wasnt a complete democracy as we think of it today, but democracy is only an idea born from the thousands ideas and ideologies before them.
which is why i think that democracy, while a huge challenge, might be possible in middle eastern countries, it only requires the right enviroment, one that to my perception is slowly building in the whole region.
im not saying it will ever be a western democracy but it could come close given enough time.
improbable, maybe, possible, very much so, we are dealing with some people here that thinks the propaganda from gaddaffi is a form of comedy, i can relate to that, comedians have a field day everytime that bat cave opens.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Mar 2011, 5:18 pm

Quote:
the middle eastern society is not evolved enough to support democracy.



When I read this, I used the F word for you, maybe I should have typed all of it , but just imagine it that I said it to your face.

*close your eyes and use your imagination ....here .....in your imagination I am telling you the F and the U two magical words*


Good , now we're even, shall we continue the debate normally?

And what do you think about this: "Gaddafi says could join al-Qaeda in "holy war" against the West"
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... t-the-West


The "Al Qaeda and their likes will rule if the dictator falls" myth has been debunked in Tunis and Egypt, we can all see that the Muslim brotherhood there will not make a force significant enough to rule the country alone as it was always portrayed by the regime and the west's media.

Al Qaeda was always a tool used by those dictators against foreign targets, they don't give them much maneuver inside their countries (sometimes they chase them) but they use them as a scarecrow against their people ("if I fall, those will rule") and they give them support abroad to use them when they need to blow up something elsewhere, best examples of dictators who use a such strategy are Al Gaddafi and Al Assad. You think those dictators are what's protecting you from al Qaeda, but in reality they are the ones who were feeding them all along.

And oh...... say goodbye to your oil-sucking-deals with Gaddafi , best upcoming scenario for you is sharing the Libyan oil with the NATO and the Libyan people...no american exclusivity anymore . Don't fret, you still have Iraq and KSA.*tapping on your back*



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 22 Mar 2011, 6:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Mar 2011, 5:35 pm

xenon13 wrote:
It's well-established now that the Libyan rebels are agents of Western intelligence whose task was to use the Arab protest movement to shoot their way to power in Tripoli. When Qaddafi stopped them a while back, their patrons were forced to intervene to save their project. This has exposed them. If they take power in Tripoli, they'll always be known as having taken power with the decisive intervention of Western guns. They'll always be known as clients, as stooges.

Qaddafi right now can pose as the guarantor of independent Libya and the only leader ever of independent Libya and his green flag as the only true flag of independent Libya. If he succumbs in this fight, it will be fighting for independent Libya against a bunch of stooges with the might of the Western world leading the fight. If the stooges take power, they'll forever be stooges. They'll be Karzais, they'll be Diems, they'll be Thieus, they'll be like those Communist regimes in the east bloc outside Yugoslavia. They will never play this down. They have lost. All except the Al-Qa'eda types. They can say they always hated the West but they used the West to get rid of Qaddafi to have a surer path to power. Just as the pro-Iranian fundamentalists were able to similarly claim legitimacy to rule in Iraq after the invasion there.

When NATO got involved, this has proven Qaddafi to be right when he says he's fighting for independent Libya, this proves that the rebels are stooges. Why, the rebels petitioned for a Chapter Seven resolution at the UN Security Council which guarantees Libya to be a colonial plaything for decades to come, so should the major powers choose. This is fraudulent because the internal affairs of Libya are not a threat to international peace and security. Compare this to Security Council Resolution 242 promulgated after Israel attacked its neighbours in 1967 and began the reign of atrocity in the West Bank and Gaza that has inflamed situations around the world. That was passed under Chapter Six, considered not to be a threat to international peace and security!

It's interesting to see how Fidel Castro has been proven right. He called it at the very beginning. Qaddafi's anger at these events included his claim that these people are foreign agents. He knows very well that the east Libya has had a lot of those types of people for years. They knew what was going on. Now they're being proven right and those who said that they were crazy are being proven wrong. The rebels' patrons are openly supporting a rebel advance. Clearly they don't want a ceasefire, they want the rebels to shoot their way to Tripoli. So much for protecting civilians.


Oh dear, stop crying and whining, your dear Qaddafi is finished..... and hopefully soon your dear Saleh , your dear Assad and other of your dear dictators will follow ...hopefully without external military intervention (mubarak scenario).



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

22 Mar 2011, 7:09 pm

Dantac wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Only 1/6 the population of Athens hand any power or rights in their "democracy" The other 5/6 were slave, women or aliens permitted to do commerce in Athens.

The "democracy" of Athens sentenced Socrates to death for exercising the right of free speech. Some democracy that was.

ruveyn


Freedom of Speech came along much later in history with the Rights of Man...so I don't really see how you can judge their democracy as less worthy.

Slavery was common practice in those days and it was actually a LOT more civilized than the slavery of the 1500->1800's era. Women didn't get the right to vote until very recently (1920 in the US.. which is perhaps the first modern democracy) all things considering.

Male citizens were the only ones allowed to vote that's true. That however, still meant that neither wealth or social background made their vote count less or more than another free man's vote. In this context they also had the first free speech... as any voter could stand in front of the rest and speak his piece.

In those days, that was as big an achievement as putting a man on the moon.


Well a lot of states had property requirements to vote so the amount of disenfranchisement in America was not nil at its founding. Aka there where some wealth and social barriers for voting, that didn't involve race or sex. Being free and male did not guarantee you would be voting during the next election.

EDIT: Not sure why I assumed you where talking about America.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Mar 2011, 7:43 pm

The only way this "no fly zone" can end is by ground troops and foreign occupation, there is no rebel force waiting to take over. We're not going to do jack squat about these other countries killing their own people, what makes Libaya so special? This intervention has more to do with the fact that Libya is a major oil producer and led by a man who the west is not too fond of. Obama is a neocon and a war criminal who should be impeached.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

22 Mar 2011, 8:13 pm

Dantac wrote:
Browning is correct. Arab societies are not socially developed to sustain a democracy. Their social structures are stuck in the 12th century; meaning they still retain a form of nobility and kings as their leadership and their religious institutions are deeply ingrained with the political structure.


Wait wait. Doesn't the UK also does this? <.< As well as a few little European states? <.< Pot, meet kettle.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 8:16 pm

phil777 wrote:
Dantac wrote:
Browning is correct. Arab societies are not socially developed to sustain a democracy. Their social structures are stuck in the 12th century; meaning they still retain a form of nobility and kings as their leadership and their religious institutions are deeply ingrained with the political structure.


Wait wait. Doesn't the UK also does this? <.< As well as a few little European states? <.< Pot, meet kettle.


The actual rule of Britain is with Parliament and the Courts. The King/Queen thing is mostly ceremonial. The King/Queen reigns but does not rule. Also the concept of rights is well developed in Britain and embodied in English common law and equity. In Islam there are no rights as we in the west conceive them. There are obligations and duties.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

22 Mar 2011, 8:29 pm

I still don't like this evolutionnist line of thought that Dantac seems to embrace (or rather, apply to societies). Socities do not move in a set path y'know. =.=

edited to add what's in parenthesis.