[Sceptic]

Freedom of speech suppression:

•Jamal el-Haji and Faraj Saleh Hmeed, detained since February 2007 for attempting to organize a peaceful demonstration, were released on 10 March. Jamal el-Haji was arrested on 9 December and charged with insulting the judiciary after he complained about his treatment in detention.[1]
•Fathi el-Jahmi, a renowned critic of the political system detained as a prisoner of conscience almost continuously since March 2002, during which he had access to only sporadic and inadequate medical care, was flown from Libya to Jordan for urgent medical treatment on 5 May. He died on 21 May. No independent investigation was known to have been opened by the Libyan authorities into the circumstances leading to the deterioration of his health and the cause and circumstances of his death.[1]
•Abdelnasser al-Rabbasi, arrested in January 2003 and serving a 15-year prison sentence for “undermining the prestige of the Leader of the revolution” for writing an email critical of Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi to the Arab Times newspaper, remained in Abu Salim Prison.[1]
•‘Adnan el-‘Urfi, a lawyer, was arrested on 9 June following his call to the radio programme Good Evening Benghazi in May, in which he recounted human rights violations endured by one of his clients and criticized Libya’s judicial system. He was cleared of all charges by a court in Benghazi in September. The prosecution appealed; he remained at liberty pending the outcome of the appeal.[1]

Treatment of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers:

•On 10 August, security forces reportedly used excessive force, including live ammunition, knives and sticks, against up to 200 foreign nationals seeking to escape from the Ganfouda Detention Centre near Benghazi, reportedly causing deaths and serious injuries. Most of the escapees were recaptured and returned to Ganfouda. Some inmates were reported to have been assaulted by security officials following the escape attempt.[1]

Abu Salim prison massacre:

•On 26 March, three members of the Organizing Committee of Families of Victims of Abu Salim in Benghazi were arrested. Fouad Ben Oumran, Hassan El-Madani and Fathi Tourbil were at the forefront of the demonstrations by families of victims. They and two others arrested on 28 March were released days later without being formally charged.[1]

Women rights abuse:

•On 21 October, a group of women from a state-run care centre in Benghazi demonstrated against alleged sexual harassment by officials at the centre. Following the demonstration, officials reportedly put pressure on the women to retract their allegations. On 26 October, defamation charges were initiated against Mohamed Al-Sarit, the journalist who reported on the protest, apparently on the basis of complaints made by some of the women. Investigations were reported to have been initiated into the women’s allegations of sexual harassment but no suspected perpetrators were tried. [1]

More information on the history of Gadaffi's rise to power and his repressive ideology [2].

1. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/libya/report-2010
2. http://www.meforum.org/878/libya-and-th ... nrepentant

is it really that surprising that it is a unique topic in which Fascists and Marxists can find some common ground?

The more intellectual Fascists and Marxists on this forum actually find a lot of common ground. I understand the difference and do not wish to conflate far-right with left on grounds of 'statism' like certain Libertarians would do but the two are very much collectivist, illiberal ideologies so some similarities are inevitable.

If you read into most of those who supported it, the overwhelming majority are liberals in some form of another. On the other hand, I know that Potemkin was strongly against it, as was I.

One could have been opposed to Libyan intervention but simultaneously opposed to Gaddaffi's illiberalism and human rights atrocities.

It was neither a positive thing for Libya or the West in the long-term, and I would say the same about intervention against any country which manages to remove itself from the present globalist liberal order.

Well Libya was one of many North African countries to overthrow its leaders, the remainder without any direct foreign intervention. I don't think the causes are easily simplified. In any case, Gaddaffi's dictatorship was bolstered by military support which many of the other North African countries had and Libya itself is a divided tribal system, so political unity and cohesive revolution was more difficult by nature. I don't think he had any particular public authority. Of course, his own tribe, whom he benefitted at the exploitation of other tribes loved him.

[Far-Right Sage]

It is an endlessly interesting topic and I'm glad it has been brought to this section, but I'm not sure that anyone here is denying that Qaddafi's Jamahiriya was an illiberal dictatorship. Rather, that is only one among the many reasons for support.

Freedom of speech suppression:
Jamal el-Haji and Faraj Saleh Hmeed, detained since February 2007 for attempting to organize a peaceful demonstration, were released on 10 March. Jamal el-Haji was arrested on 9 December and charged with insulting the judiciary after he complained about his treatment in detention.[1]

This happens in the West all the time. There are two separate discussion topics about a fifty-man police raid on homes in England over comments made on the internet, which seems a bit more inflammatory.

Fathi el-Jahmi, a renowned critic of the political system detained as a prisoner of conscience almost continuously since March 2002, during which he had access to only sporadic and inadequate medical care, was flown from Libya to Jordan for urgent medical treatment on 5 May. He died on 21 May. No independent investigation was known to have been opened by the Libyan authorities into the circumstances leading to the deterioration of his health and the cause and circumstances of his death.[1]
•Abdelnasser al-Rabbasi, arrested in January 2003 and serving a 15-year prison sentence for “undermining the prestige of the Leader of the revolution” for writing an email critical of Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi to the Arab Times newspaper, remained in Abu Salim Prison.[1]
•‘Adnan el-‘Urfi, a lawyer, was arrested on 9 June following his call to the radio programme Good Evening Benghazi in May, in which he recounted human rights violations endured by one of his clients and criticized Libya’s judicial system. He was cleared of all charges by a court in Benghazi in September. The prosecution appealed; he remained at liberty pending the outcome of the appeal.[1]

Yes, all examples of the suppressions of individual dissidents, and all expected and welcome within any proper authoritative system. Again, I don't believe anyone denies this. We are simply disagreeing with its implications.

On 10 August, security forces reportedly used excessive force, including live ammunition, knives and sticks, against up to 200 foreign nationals seeking to escape from the Ganfouda Detention Centre near Benghazi, reportedly causing deaths and serious injuries. Most of the escapees were recaptured and returned to Ganfouda. Some inmates were reported to have been assaulted by security officials following the escape attempt.

Reason for further support, rather than condemnation. What should foreign nationals escaping from lockup and potentially wreaking havoc in any country be met with other than force and live ammunition? Pajama parties? Again, this would happen in many countries and in no way is a negative.

On 26 March, three members of the Organizing Committee of Families of Victims of Abu Salim in Benghazi were arrested. Fouad Ben Oumran, Hassan El-Madani and Fathi Tourbil were at the forefront of the demonstrations by families of victims. They and two others arrested on 28 March were released days later without being formally charged

Fathi Tourbil is an Islamist zealot who should have been shot on site back when the Libyan government had its chance. If anything, one of the key failures of the Qaddafi government, in my opinion, has been the softness when dealing with hardcore Islamists and other dangerous opponents who obviously were not going to put their weapons down even after Saif al-Islam's supposedly benevolent mediation. These people are sworn enemies of Arab socialism, Arab nationalism, the Jamahiriya, and the secular nationalist state that Qaddafi set about building from the moment he toppled King Idris in '69 to the declaration of the Jamahiriya and the Basic People's Congresses in '77, to the glorious martyrdom and self-sacrifice in Sirte of '11. They should have been met with extreme brutality and harshness, and the propensity of certain elements of the Qaddafi family toward compromise ultimately did them in.

Furthermore, there is no definitive proof of the size, scope, or even existence of the Abu Salim prison "massacre". When parts of Libya fell to NATO and its collaborators, CNN medical experts traveled to the site of Abu Salim prison and excavated portions of the remains, but were unable to find anything but bones that "did not appear to be human".

On 21 October, a group of women from a state-run care centre in Benghazi demonstrated against alleged sexual harassment by officials at the centre. Following the demonstration, officials reportedly put pressure on the women to retract their allegations. On 26 October, defamation charges were initiated against Mohamed Al-Sarit, the journalist who reported on the protest, apparently on the basis of complaints made by some of the women. Investigations were reported to have been initiated into the women’s allegations of sexual harassment but no suspected perpetrators were tried.

A case of sexual harassment on the part of some corrupt officials and a typical blackmail he-said/she-said escapade? This is a sign of tedious drama which plays out in Western cities, and I would imagine most cities in the world, everyday; it's not an indictment of any government.

I must say that whether one considers himself a nationalist, a Marxist, a liberal, or what have you, the demonized portrayal of Qaddafi and his state begins to unravel the moment it is met with close inspection. We do not have to travel pack to the classic imperial era to surmise and understand that even within a modern context, nay especially within a modern context, the United States, Britain, and France have contributed to and directly oversaw and ordered far more deaths than the Libyan state ever did. I am not saying this as some whiny liberal brat, but as a realist. Qaddafi has essentially been labeled a monster and a terrorist. What actions of the Libyan government last year and throughout its history even approached the level of terrorism practiced by the world's most powerful nations on a routine basis?

Attempting to create a gold African dinar currency, contributing more than any other power toward Africa's first independent satellite, essentially laying the groundwork for and building the modern African Union, supporting nationalist struggles in many countries throughout the world, bringing Libya to the highest state of human development on the African continent, creating the Great Man Made River, and shifting the political and economic gravity centre of his country away from the dominant global forces - This apparently renders one a demon and a madman.

Yes, I would rather have a Goldman Sachs banker installed in my country a la Mario Monti as opposed to the man born in a tent who promised every Libyan a home before his own parents and died fighting alongside his people in a manner no modern Western leader (operative of global finance) ever would.

Respect is earned. In the Reagan era, when Libya was bombarded, I couldn't have cared less about Qaddafi and was relatively ignorant as to the complete modern history of Libya. It's a shame that so many were blinded too late in the game, as I feel humanity has lost a truly noble soul and one of the world's last vestiges against neoliberalism and the neo-colonialist project of global elites who themselves are entirely anti-Western entities.

"This is my will. I, Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bin Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi, do swear that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammad is his Messenger, peace be upon him. I pledge that I will die as a Muslim.

Should I be killed, I would like to be buried, according to Muslim rituals, in the clothes I was wearing at the time of my death but with my body unwashed, in the cemetery of Sirte, next to my family and relatives.

I would like that my family, especially the women and children, to be treated well after my death. The Libyan people should protect its identity, achievements, history and the honourable image of its ancestors and heroes. The Libyan people should not relinquish the sacrifices of the free and best people.

I call on my supporters to continue the resistance, and fight any foreign aggressor against Libya, today, tomorrow and always.

Let the free people of the world know that I could have sold out our cause in return for a secure and stable personal life. I received many offers to this effect but chose to be at the vanguard of the confrontation as a badge of duty and honour.

Even if we do not win immediately, we will provide a lesson to future generations that choosing to protect the nation is an honour and selling it out is the greatest betrayal that history will forever remember, however they try to portray this.”

The more intellectual Fascists and Marxists on this forum actually find a lot of common ground. I understand the difference and do not wish to conflate far-right with left on grounds of 'statism' like certain Libertarians would do but the two are very much collectivist, illiberal ideologies so some similarities are inevitable.

Collectivist and illiberal, yes, although the two are marching toward two entirely irreconcilable realities.

One could have been opposed to Libyan intervention but simultaneously opposed to Gaddaffi's illiberalism and human rights atrocities.

Absolutely. However, on the second point, one would have to at least equally be opposed to the "human rights atrocities" of major world powers, and assumedly shrug at their destruction when it comes.

Well Libya was one of many North African countries to overthrow its leaders, the remainder without any direct foreign intervention. I don't think the causes are easily simplified. In any case, Gaddaffi's dictatorship was bolstered by military support which many of the other North African countries had and Libya itself is a divided tribal system, so political unity and cohesive revolution was more difficult by nature. I don't think he had any particular public authority. Of course, his own tribe, whom he benefitted at the exploitation of other tribes loved him.

Which tribes were exploited exactly?

Humans are tribal beings, particularly in Libya and similar places. Qaddafi channeled this energy better than anyone and managed to transform a collection of rival desert-dwellers into a coherent national entity with an advanced standard of living by regional standards.

[Sceptic]

I am not as knowledgable as other forum members, I am merely opening this topic up for debate, so if someone else wishes to join in, they are welcome to do so. I will put my hands up and confess that this is a weak argument.

There is another element I would like to discuss (or be discussed) and that is the political ideology of Gaddafi but I would like to intertwine it with the discussion about his alleged state-sanctioned oppression so I will save this for my next post when I have had time to think.

This happens in the West all the time. There are two separate discussion topics about a fifty-man police raid on homes in England over comments made on the internet, which seems a bit more inflammatory.

Could you point me towards a citation of these instances? What were the comments? Were they racist or bigoted opinions as such? Were these people detained in the same manner, with the same alleged abuse?

Not that this would justify said police raid but the circumstances would be more understandable. In any case, I think that pointing towards evil in liberal societies doesn't rectify the same evil in any other regime. Naturally, suppression of free speech alone is not sufficient grounds for intervention but given the other factors...

Yes, all examples of the suppressions of individual dissidents, and all expected and welcome within any proper authoritative system.

I don't understand, are you saying that the following circumstances are perfectly justifiable:

'renowned critic of the political system detained as a prisoner of conscience almost continuously since March 2002, during which he had access to only sporadic and inadequate medical care ... He died on 21 May. No independent investigation'
'Abdelnasser al-Rabbasi ... serving a 15-year prison sentence [for] writing an email critical of Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi to the Arab Times newspaper, remained in Abu Salim Prison.'

As you are critiquing liberal democracy, is this sufficient reason for politicians to throw you in jail wthout medical care, or sentence you to 15 years inside?

Reason for further support, rather than condemnation. What should foreign nationals escaping from lockup and potentially wreaking havoc in any country be met with other than force and live ammunition? Pajama parties? Again, this would happen in many countries and in no way is a negative.

It depends upon the reason for the lock-ups and what constitutes 'reasonable force' that is proportionate in self-defence - i.e. the force initiated by said foreign nationals. I would have to research this.

However, they were migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, not petty crooks.

Furthermore, there is no definitive proof of the size, scope, or even existence of the Abu Salim prison "massacre". When parts of Libya fell to NATO and its collaborators, CNN medical experts traveled to the site of Abu Salim prison and excavated portions of the remains, but were unable to find anything but bones that "did not appear to be human".

I don't know about said excavation, however the refusal of any regime or democracy to call for an independent investigation is at least partially indicative of their guilt. If not guilt, then dishonesty on some level.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/346

Furthermore,

'In October, the authorities announced plans to demolish Abu Salim Prison, prompting an outcry by some families of victims who feared the destruction of evidence.' - source

A case of sexual harassment on the part of some corrupt officials and a typical blackmail he-said/she-said escapade? This is a sign of tedious drama which plays out in Western cities, and I would imagine most cities in the world, everyday; it's not an indictment of any government.

More important is the following: 'Following the demonstration, officials reportedly put pressure on the women to retract their allegations...Investigations were reported to have been initiated into the women’s allegations of sexual harassment but no suspected perpetrators were tried.'

We do not have to travel pack to the classic imperial era to surmise and understand that even within a modern context, nay especially within a modern context, the United States, Britain, and France have contributed to and directly oversaw and ordered far more deaths than the Libyan state ever did.

Well, there are two elements to atrocities: the magnitude of said atrocity and the nature of the circumstances. Was torture involved and to what degree? Was it for the purpose of national security or for victimising and using evidence against political opposition? Was the invasion on humanitarian grounds or was it purely reactionary - i.e. acting out against women's rights, against racial equality and so forth?

Liberal democracies have perpetrated brutish offences, I will grant you this, however, are they comparable?

Yes, I would rather have a Goldman Sachs banker installed in my country a la Mario Monti as opposed to the man born in a tent who promised every Libyan a home before his own parents and died fighting alongside his people in a manner no modern Western leader (operative of global finance) ever would.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not... Actually, on second thoughts this most probably is sarcasm, yes.

I think that using your own logic, we can agree that the executive bonus culture of neoliberalism would have been replicated to some degree in Gaddafi's own state. In fact, let's not forget the wealth and decadence Gaddafi himself and his family lived under.

"I call on my supporters to continue the resistance, and fight any foreign aggressor against Libya, today, tomorrow and always.

Let the free people of the world know that I could have sold out our cause in return for a secure and stable personal life. I received many offers to this effect but chose to be at the vanguard of the confrontation as a badge of duty and honour.

Even if we do not win immediately, we will provide a lesson to future generations that choosing to protect the nation is an honour and selling it out is the greatest betrayal that history will forever remember, however they try to portray this.”

I'm not sure it is wise to examine Gaddafi as an individual: the political make up of the regime as a whole is far more crucial in understanding the allegations of human rights violations, furthermore this quote is just political rhetoric so it doesn't have much relevance to the implications of an illiberal regime such as Gaddafi's.

Collectivist and illiberal, yes, although the two are marching toward two entirely irreconcilable realities.

Marx and Engels had some relatively right-wing social beliefs between them, regarding homosexuality and the break down of the traditional family unit as the product of the liberal-capitalist tradition, furthermore a lot of these socially conservative ideals were replicated in the Stalinist regime and despite the Libertarian Marxist interpretation of Marx's works as decentralisation of political and economic capital, the Soviet Union was very anti-democratic. Economically, the two ideologies could not be further apart of course, although the corporatism of the far-right political wing balances out the inegalitarianism of the laissez-faire tradition. The only remaining Marxist critique of this is along the same lines of the critique of the social democratic preservation of the capitalist mode of production.

I believe that these irreconcilable realities, while characterised by stark differences at the same time are characterised by certain undeniable similarities.

Absolutely. However, on the second point, one would have to at least equally be opposed to the "human rights atrocities" of major world powers, and assumedly shrug at their destruction when it comes.

Only if one is in favour of revolution: for example the same type of liberal who was in opposition to western intervention into Libya could be in favour of reform.

Note that I am not taking any side in this particular dispute, as I have not made up my mind. I think only time can tell if western intervention/Libyan revolution has helped.

Also note that the Western intervention amounted to a no air zone - the idea being to allow any revolutionary feeling felt within the masses to take its own natural course rather than allow it to be suppressed by Gaddafi's military dictatorship, or to take unwarranted action in removing the dictatorship without mass support. It was more reasonable on those grounds.

Which tribes were exploited exactly?

This requires further research and I cannot find anything at the minute but I am sure there was something about this in the news. In any case, one could not deny the crimes against civilians [1] during the political upheaval of the Gaddafi regime. Furthermore, Gaddafi did not simply target military bases but spilled innocent civilian blood in small villages and towns.

1. 'The Arab League “condemns crimes against the current peaceful popular protests and demonstrations in several Libyan cities,” Secretary General Amr Moussa told reporters in Cairo today after the group met. He said the security forces’ use of live rounds, heavy weapons and foreign mercenaries is a “grave breach of human rights.” ' -> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-2 ... imes-.html

[Far-Right Sage]

I am not as knowledgable as other forum members, I am merely opening this topic up for debate, so if someone else wishes to join in, they are welcome to do so. I will put my hands up and confess that this is a weak argument.

No, the discussion is an important one, and perhaps others will join in. When thinking critically, we all have something to contribute.

Could you point me towards a citation of these instances? What were the comments? Were they racist or bigoted opinions as such? Were these people detained in the same manner, with the same alleged abuse?

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=139956

I'm sure they were expressing opinions which can be described as "racist", although this is completely irrelevant to the equation. All the information is there. The point is that governments throughout history and throughout the world today silence inappropriate or potentially disruptive (to their own ideology and the political status quo) speech on a routine basis.

Not that this would justify said police raid but the circumstances would be more understandable. In any case, I think that pointing towards evil in liberal societies doesn't rectify the same evil in any other regime. Naturally, suppression of free speech alone is not sufficient grounds for intervention but given the other factors...

The problem here is that the characterization of the act of suppressing certain forms of speech in the public arena as "evil" is entirely subjective, and a view which I and many others do not adhere to. In the example you cited, I would be far closer to praising the action in Libya rather than even giving a verbal condemnatiion of it.

I don't understand, are you saying that the following circumstances are perfectly justifiable:

'renowned critic of the political system detained as a prisoner of conscience almost continuously since March 2002, during which he had access to only sporadic and inadequate medical care ... He died on 21 May. No independent investigation'
'Abdelnasser al-Rabbasi ... serving a 15-year prison sentence [for] writing an email critical of Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi to the Arab Times newspaper, remained in Abu Salim Prison.'

Yes.

Furthermore, I stand in support of rather than opposition to extinguishing the lives of those who actively impede our work in creating a united and harmonized revolutionary system of cooperation and statecraft. In the greatest of society, which Libya admittedly had some work to go through before achieving, there would be a definitive and direct means provided for the liquidation of such rabble.

As you are critiquing liberal democracy, is this sufficient reason for politicians to throw you in jail wthout medical care, or sentence you to 15 years inside?

If those within the power structure of our neoliberal regime had the tools and will to carry this out, I wouldn't at all be surprised by the motives; it would make logical sense. Of course as a veteran and someone who today doesn't pose much of a realistic threat to their order, it would seem a bit odd.

It depends upon the reason for the lock-ups and what constitutes 'reasonable force' that is proportionate in self-defence - i.e. the force initiated by said foreign nationals. I would have to research this.

However, they were migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, not petty crooks.

Most likely either those who had no right to be on Libyan soil, those who otherwise caused problems through their actions once on Libyan soil, or both. Under the circumstances, yes, extreme brutality without prejudice seems the appropriate response to a security breach.

I don't know about said excavation, however the refusal of any regime or democracy to call for an independent investigation is at least partially indicative of their guilt. If not guilt, then dishonesty on some level.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/346

Furthermore,

'In October, the authorities announced plans to demolish Abu Salim Prison, prompting an outcry by some families of victims who feared the destruction of evidence.' - source

Yes, this is a murky issue and I will not say that no extrajudicial executions were carried out at Abu Salim prison; only that CNN medical experts were unable to find more than animal bones at the site before and after the fall of Tripoli and there is no definitive proof on the subject either way.

In reference to Amnesty International, I generally discount this organization as an operating tool of its handlers - Notice it was nowhere to be found during the month-long siege and carpet bombing of Sirte? Perhaps October was the month they took a Jamaican holiday?

More important is the following: 'Following the demonstration, officials reportedly put pressure on the women to retract their allegations...Investigations were reported to have been initiated into the women’s allegations of sexual harassment but no suspected perpetrators were tried.'

Well, again, this is an incident of corruption, perhaps on the part of some officials who were disgracing their posts and not carrying out their duties honorably or effectively, but hardly an indictment of the political system on the local or national levels. This is unfortunate, but a completely minor incident.

Well, there are two elements to atrocities: the magnitude of said atrocity and the nature of the circumstances. Was torture involved and to what degree? Was it for the purpose of national security or for victimising and using evidence against political opposition? Was the invasion on humanitarian grounds or was it purely reactionary - i.e. acting out against women's rights, against racial equality and so forth?

Liberal democracies have perpetrated brutish offences, I will grant you this, however, are they comparable?

How many have died around the globe in the past fifty to sixty years by actions, either military or terroristic in nature, undertaken by the U.S., British, and French governments, as opposed to the Libyan government since Colonel Qaddafi's coup in '69?

Also, for the benefit of common sense, I urge you to tell us what invasions have ever been conducted on "humanitarian grounds"?

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not... Actually, on second thoughts this most probably is sarcasm, yes.

In what way could this be interpreted as sarcasm? My statement was one of utter seriousness.

I think that using your own logic, we can agree that the executive bonus culture of neoliberalism would have been replicated to some degree in Gaddafi's own state.

As I wrote earlier, starting in early 2004 with the decision of Qaddafi to reconsider relations with the major Western powers following the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein's deposition, and his capture in December of 2003, a series of neoliberal reforms were enacted under the guidance of senior government ministers which many Libyans and many of us today do not agree with. This was a pragmatic decision, considering the massive oil reserves (specifically light and sweet crude) and nightmareishly indefensible flat desert territory, and the context of the ongoing Iraq War and Libya's own fledgling nuclear weapons program. In retrospect, this was a terrible mistake (just as the endeavor of nuclear disarmament proved to be).

The "revolution" was a foreign-directed rebellion of those forces which had already tried to drag the Libyan state closer to neoliberalism now acting to set up an alternative (puppet) regime without mere neoliberal ties, but entirely based in neoliberalism. This is evidenced in their declaration of a new (IMF-connected) Central Bank mere days after the "revolution" began and while Benghazi was still in chaos, the promise of one-third of all Libyan oil reserves to French companies without so much as a negotiated settlement, and the attempted introduction of a Western-mirror "liberal democracy" with two or a few toothless factions all functioning as representatives of liberal policy.

This is a nightmare for the Libyan people, and should be a cause of worry for those of us in other lands as well who are menaced by such prospects.

In fact, let's not forget the wealth and decadence Gaddafi himself and his family lived under.

This can be stated with respect to almost any leadership in history, and again, no leadership is perfect. The average citizen however had much greater understanding and notions of social justice and responsibility than the average American or Englishman, irrespective of the precise size of the White House or 10 Downing Street compared to the residence of anyone connected to Qaddafi.

Once again, if wealth and luxury were the chief priorities of Qaddafi, a fueled up jet was waiting to take him from Tripoli to Caracas a year ago where nightly banquets and a private harem could await.

I'm not sure it is wise to examine Gaddafi as an individual: the political make up of the regime as a whole is far more crucial in understanding the allegations of human rights violations

I don't believe in "human rights" other than the rights we, and by extension, the state take, but that aside, nothing the Libyan government did before or during the so-called Libyan Civil War can be described as even approaching the severe level of NATO-footsoldier (rebel) actions, which included forcing tied up men to kiss the severed heads of dead dogs, ethnically cleansing a town off the map (the town of Tawergha, in which thousands of homes were looted and the people driven out by those claiming to be "the brigades for purging slaves and black skin", beating a Libyan soldier to death and then decapitating him with a sword, cutting out the heart of a man and trampling it, hanging soldiers and civilians without trial in front of mosques, and other extreme, and some could say "grotesque", acts.

furthermore this quote is just political rhetoric so it doesn't have much relevance to the implications of an illiberal regime such as Gaddafi's.

This quote is not "political rhetoric" so much as the last will and testament of Muammar Qaddafi. It would not be read until after his death, and so there is no attempt at grandstanding or intention of personal gain.

Marx and Engels had some relatively right-wing social beliefs between them, regarding homosexuality and the break down of the traditional family unit as the product of the liberal-capitalist tradition, furthermore a lot of these socially conservative ideals were replicated in the Stalinist regime and despite the Libertarian Marxist interpretation of Marx's works as decentralisation of political and economic capital, the Soviet Union was very anti-democratic. Economically, the two ideologies could not be further apart of course, although the corporatism of the far-right political wing balances out the inegalitarianism of the laissez-faire tradition. The only remaining Marxist critique of this is along the same lines of the critique of the social democratic preservation of the capitalist mode of production.

I believe that these irreconcilable realities, while characterised by stark differences at the same time are characterised by certain undeniable similarities.

Which is why theories of syncretic nationalism are such a valuable force.

I essentially agree with this point. In other respects Marxism is as far from traditional Fascism and Fascist thought as one could get, but there is one general agreement that Liberalism and its institutions, social mores, system of morality, and other trappings, should be smashed by the coordination and uprising of a revolutionary collective force, and shown no mercy.

Only if one is in favour of revolution: for example the same type of liberal who was in opposition to western intervention into Libya could be in favour of reform.

Reform is not the same thing as turning over the keys of one's country to a coalition of neoliberals, Islamists, and people who are simply blatantly on the payroll of foreign governments. This is treason, not reform, and I thank the Lord that Qaddafi went down heroically in opposition to such a bleak and dishonorable future rather than disgrace his people and ever consider the notion of surrender.

Note that I am not taking any side in this particular dispute, as I have not made up my mind. I think only time can tell if western intervention/Libyan revolution has helped.

It has set the country back to complete third world status and smashed all its institutions of social support.

I believe time has already told that was has happened is a disgrace and I would urge the Libyan people to understand that the path of resistance, even to the last child and bullet in every home, school, and mosque, is preferrable than integration to the globalist yoke which awaits if it is not disrupted by extreme violence and upheavel.

NATO's collaborators in this country should be targeted with extreme harshness, and killed on the spot with any primitive weapon available.

Also note that the Western intervention amounted to a no air zone - the idea being to allow any revolutionary feeling felt within the masses to take its own natural course rather than allow it to be suppressed by Gaddafi's military dictatorship, or to take unwarranted action in removing the dictatorship without mass support. It was more reasonable on those grounds.

Are you serious on this point?

A no-fly zone? There were not intelligence agents and thousands of special forces on the ground (I believe Qatar alone admitted to 1,000 soldiers on the ground)? British SAS in Tripoli dressed in Arab civilian clothing? Massive NATO bombardment of every building with a green flag? The aerial bombardment of entire cities such as Tripoli and Sirte with 63 independent sorties against Bab al-Azizia alone?

The actual operation that was undertaken had nothing to do with a no-fly zone. It was the most flimsy "legal" cover ever demonstrated before to carry out a widescale war against both the Libyan military and civilian population.

What was the no-fly zone justified by? There remains to be absolutely no proof that Libyan military jets ever bombed civilians. According to the highest U.S. officials, there was an is "absolutely no confirmation whatsoever" of this fantastical notion.

This can be learned from merely pulling oneself away from CNN, FOX, the BBC, Al-Jazeera and all other media organizations directly under the influence of the participating regimes.

This requires further research and I cannot find anything at the minute but I am sure there was something about this in the news. In any case, one could not deny the crimes against civilians [1] during the political upheaval of the Gaddafi regime

There were no "crimes against civilians".

It is laughable that armed men with RPGs and heavy weaponry under CIA and MI6 coordination were referred to as "civilians" for not days, but months in the Western media.

Furthermore, Gaddafi did not simply target military bases but spilled innocent civilian blood in small villages and towns.

Evidence?

The Arab League “condemns crimes against the current peaceful popular protests and demonstrations in several Libyan cities,” Secretary General Amr Moussa told reporters in Cairo today after the group met. He said the security forces’ use of live rounds, heavy weapons and foreign mercenaries is a “grave breach of human rights.” ' -> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-2 ... imes-.html

Again, these "protests" were armed terroristic movements which they could see at the time if they merely looked beyond CNN.

The word of the Arab League on this matter or anything else is entirely fit for the scrap heap, as this is an organization dominated and controlled by Saudi Arabia and its proxies which actively instigated and waged an aggressive war against the Libyan state.

[QatzelOk]

Thank you so much, Sceptic, for that hand-picked list of reasons to attack Libya.

All that sweet crude will now taste twice as sweet.

[roxunreal]

The implications of Gaddafi's regime are the implications of every regime where a self-important ruler for life is in power, claiming to be in service to his people yet never asking them if they approve of what he is doing, and of course when the people don't like or god forbid criticise his rule, they get hanged or imprisoned and tortured. That the people rebelled against this regime is no strange thing, and no conspiracy theories are needed to try and explain such an obvious course of events.

The west merely butted in like it always does for possible political or financial gain, and did an exceptionally good job at saving the civilans of Misrata and the Nafusa region from loyalist sieges and shelling. The bombing in Tripoli was predominantly targeting the huge Gaddafi compoind which is not a civilian area, and Sirte was given three weeks for civilians to leave town, and was not any more destroyed than Misrata was during Gaddafi's 2 month shelling, those who claim Sirte was "wiped off the map" claim so with their only proof being a single image of several destroyed buildings on the main street where most of the ground fighting occured. More than 70% of Sirte residents have already returned to the city by April, and this will only rise as repairs are under way.

Comparing the regime to the western liberal regimes because of a few sporadic incidents where "50 cops endered someone's home because of a facebook comment" is trivial and petty and completely out of context. This is an knee-jerk overreaction/mistake and an exception in the west, and I'm pretty sure that the person in question was promptly let go. In regimes like the Libyan one, this is the rule, and freedom of thought that deviates even slightly from the government laid narrative is inexistent. People try to use small flaws or incidents in liberal regimes to try to make them seem "all the same, just a different packing" to regimes where oppression is the norm. Nobody said liberal regimes are perfect. Only better.

[Far-Right Sage]

That the people rebelled against this regime is no strange thing, and no conspiracy theories are needed to try and explain such an obvious course of events.

Actually, it is a clear cut lie which you have been taken to task to before, and no "conspiracy theory" is necessary to explain what is clearly shown on video - "rebels" beating men with whips, locking them in cages, cutting out the hearts of men and trampling them, torturing and executing (beheading) soldiers (the hallmark of Islamist partisan movements), the ethnic cleansing of an entire town off the map (Tawergha) which government/real Libyan people's forces never did, the advancement toward Sirte fighting against old men and children of their own background under NATO aircover, etc. These are not "conspiracy theories", but facts documented on video and in the arena of independent journalism.

The Libyan rebels are fucking scum and the footsoldiers of a dystopia NATO and the World Bank would thrust upon all our societies; much is already underway, and it is people of your background who will actively aid the realization of such trash through your unyielding ignorance.

[roxunreal]

I was referring to the conspiracy theories about these protests being incited by the west and not by Libya's own people, the later being clearly evident if one followed the events through their unfolding when most of Libya was under protester/rebel control until Gaddafi recovered from his initial shock and sent the "Libyan" or better to say *his* army and mercenaries.

Atrocities happen in wars and their aftermaths, though not in the hyperbolic way in which you pathetically describe limited incidents as the rule. Old men and children fighting rebels in Sirte? Must be the rebels' fault Gaddafi sent these people to fight. Tawergha? The traitors that sided with Gaddafi and offered their town as a staging point for the 2 month torture and destruction of Misrata? They can be happy they got away with their lives.

[Far-Right Sage]

I was referring to the conspiracy theories about these protests being incited by the west and not by Libya's own people, the later being clearly evident if one followed the events through their unfolding when most of Libya was under protester/rebel control until Gaddafi recovered from his initial shock

Islamists and those who desired to set up a neoliberal puppet regime and had been receiving Western assistance from very early on, yes. No other reason to set up an IMF-tied "new Central Bank" before you barely control any territory.

and sent the "Libyan" or better to say *his* army and mercenaries.

Not a single mercenary was shown and proven to exist on camera.

The Libyan Army was just that...the Libyan Army and defender of the Libyan people and Libyan nation; nothing to do with Qaddafi's personal anything.

Atrocities happen in wars and their aftermaths, though not in the hyperbolic way in which you pathetically describe limited incidents as the rule. Old men and children fighting rebels in Sirte? Must be the rebels' fault Gaddafi sent these people to fight.

The Libyan military sent no civilians to the fight. Video evidence clearly depicts civilians organizing their own rallies and training to resist NATO/rebel advances, in Sirte, Tarhuna, Bani Walid, and other places throughout the country.

I do enjoy your logic. If civilians in Misrata who give coordinates to NATO warplanes are fighting, they are innocent and great patriots. If civilians resisting the NATO/rebel advance are fighting, they are Qaddafi mercenaries. Absolutely ridiculous and inane logic.

Tawergha? The traitors that sided with Gaddafi and offered their town as a staging point for the 2 month torture and destruction of Misrata? They can be happy they got away with their lives.

Traitors? Laughable. Yes, they are traitors for siding with the will of their own government and what most of their people wanted as opposed to non-traitorous Libyans who actively collaborated with French, British, and American intelligence, and gave foreign warplanes coordinates to bomb in their neighboring towns.\

You deny that Tawergha was ethnically cleansed by the brigade "for purging slaves and black skin"? And you excuse this?

If Qaddafi committed 1/100th of "rebel" crimes you would accuse him of being a genocidal devil.

[Sceptic]

QatzelOk: crude oil is what helps to make wars on humanitarian grounds economically viable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRS: I'm not sure if we can find any consensus here because the disagreement doesn't seem to be about facts, rather values, as I for one do not believe in the same kind of harsh or brutish punishment for offenders. Having said that though, I personally think that the concept of 'free speech' is not inalienable, for example we wouldn't want to allow paedophiles the right to express their viewpoints in public because it would be inherently harmful.

I haven’t addressed all your points yet because I want more facts but this post is a start. By the way, who is your avatar a picture of? Mine is of theatre song-writer, Cole Porter.

If those within the power structure of our neoliberal regime had the tools and will to carry this out, I wouldn't at all be surprised by the motives; it would make logical sense. Of course as a veteran and someone who today doesn't pose much of a realistic threat to their order, it would seem a bit odd.

It would make logical sense from anyone within a position of power and hierarchy to resort to whichever illiberal measures were necessary to maintain their power and hierarchy but my question was is this justifiable from your perspective? I am using role reversal because it is a useful tool on which to debate ethics which you pointed out yourself are subjective, so I am wondering whether expression of views that are different from the mainstream political apparatus would be sufficient moral reason to suppress that person's own freedom of speech under a neoliberal economy/liberal democracy with the equivalent degree of force used against dissenters under Gaddafi's regime?

Most likely either those who had no right to be on Libyan soil, those who otherwise caused problems through their actions once on Libyan soil, or both. Under the circumstances, yes, extreme brutality without prejudice seems the appropriate response to a security breach.

I would like to see evidence that they caused problems on Libyan soil, furthermore one cannot consistently argue against immigration let alone asylum seekers if they have any sense of international identity or wish for global peace, prosperity and the free exchange of cultural identity and education (comparative advantage) and international trade.

Yes, I would rather have a Goldman Sachs banker installed in my country a la Mario Monti as opposed to the man born in a tent who promised every Libyan a home before his own parents and died fighting alongside his people in a manner no modern Western leader (operative of global finance) ever would.

In what way could this be interpreted as sarcasm? My statement was one of utter seriousness.

You seemed to be implying that installing a Goldman Sachs banker would be less preferable than an honourable man - as you seem to believe - such as Gaddafi. I see that this was not sarcasm, so I apologise although I didn't mean to indict you of immaturity, I was merely confused over the content of the statement. I am in full realisation of the corruption in our executive bonus culture however it seems most prudent to reward productive bankers so the economic reasoning behind neoliberalism is not totally out of whack.

This can be stated with respect to almost any leadership in history, and again, no leadership is perfect. The average citizen however had much greater understanding and notions of social justice and responsibility than the average American or Englishman, irrespective of the precise size of the White House or 10 Downing Street compared to the residence of anyone connected to Qaddafi.

Once again, if wealth and luxury were the chief priorities of Qaddafi, a fueled up jet was waiting to take him from Tripoli to Caracas a year ago where nightly banquets and a private harem could await.

I only said this as I thought you were criticising the wealth and decadence of Goldman Sachs bankers, so I withdraw this statement although I do believe that wealth and decadence ought to be earned, whatever one may believe about materialism and consumerist society.

I don't believe in "human rights" other than the rights we, and by extension, the state take

The collective is an abstraction which serves a useful purpose in examining complex social mechanisms that cannot possibly be understood on individual levels, however one cannot speak of 'rights' for such an abstraction. Rights themselves are derived from human artifice so this defines the boundaries of their inherent rationality.

Either way, both the idea of 'collective rights' and 'individual rights' are abstraction. I would rather be humane and empathetic in the way I treat individuals than categorise them as blips in the 'means to an end' objective good.

In any case, if it is some form of collective good one is advocating, then can you not see how ironically narrow minded it is to only consider that on national scale? Why can it not be an international, global scale that we are all interested in obtaining? I am a citizen of the world.

This quote is not "political rhetoric" so much as the last will and testament of Muammar Qaddafi.

Yes, I mean I can't see what relevance it has - I was trying to be polite .

It has set the country back to complete third world status and smashed all its institutions of social support.

Reform can be a bumpy ride: look how long it took France to recover from the scars of revolution.

Are you serious on this point? A no-fly zone?

The point I was trying to make was that in a time in which revolutions were happenng all over North African countries, Libya was the only country with a military dictatorship powerful enough and loyal enough to Gaddafi to supress the will of the people. The philosophy of western intervention was not to impose a revolution but to alow it to take its natural course. Considering how divided Libya's tribal system is, not to mention the numerous different Islamic fractions and the political clash with the liberal intelligensia, I can't say that this was necessarily a smart move because nothing is to say a stable liberal democracy will ensue.

By the way, you may be surprised to know that I treat democracy and liberalism with scepticism myself, I would just much prefer those things to a regime like Gaddafi's.

[roxunreal]

Islamists and those who desired to set up a neoliberal puppet regime and had been receiving Western assistance from very early on, yes.

Still doesn't prove that the west instigated these popular protests. They merely helped the Libyan people along in ridding themselves of an oppressive despot who could only really hold on because he had money and control of the most armed group in the country.

Not a single mercenary was shown and proven to exist on camera.

You must be kidding right? Or do you expect sub-saharan mercenaries carry signs "mercenary" when people film them in the war or in captivity? There were a myriad of reports of mercenaries utilized from Gaddafi who didn't even speak the language, both from within Libya, from Chad, Niger and other countries where they were recruited, as well as countries farther away (I remember reading about Serbian mercenaries, and a Croat one in particular as well).

The Libyan Army was just that...the Libyan Army and defender of the Libyan people and Libyan nation; nothing to do with Qaddafi's personal anything.

The "Libyan" army didn't defend the Libyan people or nation, the majority of which clearly wanted Gaddafi out - they shelled them at Gaddafi's command across the country for 9 months to safeguard the ruling person's interests. It was an armed force loyal to one and only person, not the people or the country. I can only extend my utmost respect to the heroes who saw beyond blind loyalty to a single narcissistic personality over the people and defected at their own and their families great risk.
The true armies of the people and the nation are the armies in Tunisia and Egypt which refused to side with only one man against the wave of national disillusionment.

The Libyan military sent no civilians to the fight. Video evidence clearly depicts civilians organizing their own rallies and training to resist NATO/rebel advances, in Sirte, Tarhuna, Bani Walid, and other places throughout the country.

You can't be serious Or is the private TV of a dictator who controls it 100% considered as evidence now? All those videos of "brave Libyan women training to also join the fight for their dear Muammar"
And before you draw the parallel to western media, sorry, it may not be perfect but it's still a thousand times more decentralized, free and unbiased than the TV in direct control of a dictator which is basically a direct proxy of his own tongue.

Traitors? Laughable. Yes, they are traitors for siding with the will of their own government and what most of their people wanted as opposed to non-traitorous Libyans who actively collaborated with French, British, and American intelligence, and gave foreign warplanes coordinates to bomb in their neighboring towns.

Indeed, giving info to bomb a man's army which fights against the will of the nation can only be considered patriotic. Or is patriotism now considered loyalty to the regime and government and not the people/nation?

Again, that most Libyans supported Gaddafi is a preposterous assumption given the fact that before he sent his army out most of populated Libyan land was under the people's and not Gaddafi/Loyalist's control.

You deny that Tawergha was ethnically cleansed by the brigade "for purging slaves and black skin"? And you excuse this?

Tawergha was cleansed because it was a stronghold from which Misrata was shelled for over two months instead of a stronghold that defended it, it has nothing to do with ethnicity in its root cause. That most of its inhabitants were black, along with that most mercenaries were black, is the unfortunate reason why the Misrata brigade came to hate them, not the other way around. It may be backwards but they sure didn't come to that opinion just because they hate blacks out of the blue, but because blacks backing Gaddafi shelled them, destroyed their homes and killed their families. War breeds hate, it's sad but that's how it works, and you would do well to remember that the people of Misrata didn't start that hate by shelling Tawergha.

If Qaddafi committed 1/100th of "rebel" crimes you would accuse him of being a genocidal devil.

He did far worse than kill a few blacks and make a small town of collaborators homeless, just unlike with the rebels, any kind of media in Loyalist areas was unable to report on anything but the color of the wallpaper in the hotel rooms in Tripoli and government-led walks to what the government wanted them to see - probably because nothing bad happened right? We all know how dictatorships keep their power, and it's rather different from the romantic portrayal you seek to promote.

[roxunreal]

The point I was trying to make was that in a time in which revolutions were happenng all over North African countries, Libya was the only country with a military dictatorship powerful enough and loyal enough to Gaddafi to supress the will of the people. The philosophy of western intervention was not to impose a revolution but to alow it to take its natural course.

This.
I would only say that the motive of the intervention was political and possibly economic, though I support it simply because it allowed what you mention in the last sentence above, the beginning of the realization of the will of the people.

Considering how divided Libya's tribal system is, not to mention the numerous different Islamic fractions and the political clash with the liberal intelligensia, I can't say that this was necessarily a smart move because nothing is to say a stable liberal democracy will ensue.

As they say, it needs to get worse before it gets better. They also say Rome wasn't built in a day. Libya under Gaddafi didn't even have a constitution. It took 100-200 years for modern democracy to develop in the west, but this is only because they were the first democracies. I trust that in 5 to 10 years Libya will be a respectable and prosperous country.

By the way, you may be surprised to know that I treat democracy and liberalism with scepticism myself, I would just much prefer those things to a regime like Gaddafi's.

Again completely agreed. Western regimes today are by no means perfect, far from it, but they are the most advanced, most non-oppressive and the most people-supported systems in the world, and thus the least bad.

[Sceptic]

I would only say that the motive of the intervention was political and possibly economic

I agree, but when people against liberal interventionism or just war theory usually say this, I often point out that it doesn't *necessarily* matter if the interests of the state are corrupted if the action still leads to a positive outcome, though I realise you share the same view.

As they say, it needs to get worse before it gets better.

Indeed, see the part where I wrote about the French revolution.

edit - oh, well I never wrote about the French revolution but I had meant to mention the fact it took France such a long time to recover from it's scars of revolution and arguably, still recovering.

[Far-Right Sage]

FRS: I'm not sure if we can find any consensus here because the disagreement doesn't seem to be about facts, rather values, as I for one do not believe in the same kind of harsh or brutish punishment for offenders. Having said that though, I personally think that the concept of 'free speech' is not inalienable, for example we wouldn't want to allow paedophiles the right to express their viewpoints in public because it would be inherently harmful.

My apologies for the delayed response. I have had visiting relatives over for the week, and so it has indeed been a balancing act.

I will completely agree with your comments concerning the danger of unrestricted speech.

I haven’t addressed all your points yet because I want more facts but this post is a start. By the way, who is your avatar a picture of? Mine is of theatre song-writer, Cole Porter.

Ah, respectable indeed.

I have employed the image of the great Mircea Eliade.

It would make logical sense from anyone within a position of power and hierarchy to resort to whichever illiberal measures were necessary to maintain their power and hierarchy but my question was is this justifiable from your perspective? I am using role reversal because it is a useful tool on which to debate ethics which you pointed out yourself are subjective, so I am wondering whether expression of views that are different from the mainstream political apparatus would be sufficient moral reason to suppress that person's own freedom of speech under a neoliberal economy/liberal democracy with the equivalent degree of force used against dissenters under Gaddafi's regime?

Yes, I believe it would of course be justified if one's interest and goal lies in maintaining the stable continuation of the neoliberal regime and present order. This is both justifiable and rational from such a perspective. Likewise, as a lifelong and militant opponent of such a system, it is both natural and prudent for me to support those domestic and international strains (movements, organizations, paramilitary squadrons, philosophers, ideas, etc.) which run completely against such a current. One can recognize the logical motivations of the enemy and simultaneously have no qualms with resolving to fight until he or you lay dead.

I would like to see evidence that they caused problems on Libyan soil, furthermore one cannot consistently argue against immigration let alone asylum seekers if they have any sense of international identity or wish for global peace, prosperity and the free exchange of cultural identity and education (comparative advantage) and international trade.

I have no evidence of that as I'm not aware of the individual cases, but I would take the opportunity to point out that my opinion on asylum seekers is no higher than any other classification of unwanted and unwelcome outsiders. I also have no desire for global "peace" (stagnation), which guarantees the forceful administration of an order which may appear utopian to some and entirely dystopian to others, including myself. Nor do I desire the forward march of what the liberal regimes of today call "free trade" while they strip the country bare and without shame. People propagating these ideas must be opposed with all means still at our disposal.

I am in full realisation of the corruption in our executive bonus culture however it seems most prudent to reward productive bankers so the economic reasoning behind neoliberalism is not totally out of whack.

I would argue that only in the current system can policies and practices which are destructive to the economy, the environment, and indeed, the whole people, be considered "productive" or "successful". Is Goldman Sachs the model for success and productivity on an international level? Even the most savvy of the FOX News shills would have difficulty selling that one to anyone.

The collective is an abstraction which serves a useful purpose in examining complex social mechanisms that cannot possibly be understood on individual levels, however one cannot speak of 'rights' for such an abstraction. Rights themselves are derived from human artifice so this defines the boundaries of their inherent rationality.

My reference to the role of the state was primarily to illustrate my general opposition to the concept of "rights" - natural rights, human rights, etc. I have only the rights I am willing to take in this world, and why should my national community fare differently?

Either way, both the idea of 'collective rights' and 'individual rights' are abstraction. I would rather be humane and empathetic in the way I treat individuals than categorise them as blips in the 'means to an end' objective good.

This brings up the interesting looming conflict with respect to politicized language. Why has it been deemed "humane" to advocate for a class of mental incompetents and the malformed to remain alive as an untouchable gaggle of prizes?

In any case, if it is some form of collective good one is advocating, then can you not see how ironically narrow minded it is to only consider that on national scale? Why can it not be an international, global scale that we are all interested in obtaining? I am a citizen of the world.

In terms of cooperation on certain issues relating to the natural environment which must be shared by Earth's inhabitants, this is both possible and very much desired. Otherwise, I have no desire to lower my society or artificially raise another to meet some Marxian dystopic equilibrium. I would love to see the best come out of men, and conflict has always been the inspiration and the driver of this innate urge and will to live. The weeding out of weaker societies and eventually the transformation of whole systems is a requisite planetary cleansing process.

Yes, I mean I can't see what relevance it has - I was trying to be polite

I would venture to say that the character of one of the central themes of this discussion is very much relevant and crucial.

Reform can be a bumpy ride: look how long it took France to recover from the scars of revolution.

Your statement is (of course) steeped in the notion that the French Revolution, the Jacobins, the Reign of Terror, and other spasms were beneficial for France and Europe. I would put forth that they were the single greatest death blow for Western civilization since the advent of the Enlightenment.

The point I was trying to make was that in a time in which revolutions were happenng all over North African countries, Libya was the only country with a military dictatorship powerful enough and loyal enough to Gaddafi to supress the will of the people.

The point ultimately however is that there is absolutely no proof that Qaddafi suppressed or attempted to suppress the "will of the people", as there is less than zero evidence that Qaddafi's deposition was the "will of the people". A few thousands rats on Western news cameras do not make up a country, and have not even paralleled the will of the people clearly displayed here:

[youtube]lTy5U0mJT8Y[/youtube]

What was imposed was the illegitimate (attempt at) rule of a gang of rats in Tripoli under the cover of the foreigners they prostrated before the feet of.

The philosophy of western intervention was not to impose a revolution but to alow it to take its natural course.

Why then were so many leaders of this so-called "revolution" fighting outside of Libya, present in Islamist struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, and with extensive Western intelligence contacts, as a matter of publc record?

Considering how divided Libya's tribal system is, not to mention the numerous different Islamic fractions and the political clash with the liberal intelligensia, I can't say that this was necessarily a smart move because nothing is to say a stable liberal democracy will ensue.

Without a capable and effective Green guerrilla resistance, not just in south Libya, but throughout the country, the state of the state will be murderous anarchy a la the Somali crisis throughout and beyond the decade without a glimmer of light.

By the way, you may be surprised to know that I treat democracy and liberalism with scepticism myself, I would just much prefer those things to a regime like Gaddafi's.

Understood. I of course disagree. Qaddafi wasn't perfect; no leadership in either the present or in all of recorded history is, but his government, the state of the masses in Libya, was one of the last respectable states left on Earth only to have its collective dream and vision bombed and burned from above.

Still doesn't prove that the west instigated these popular protests. They merely helped the Libyan people along in ridding themselves of an oppressive despot who could only really hold on because he had money and control of the most armed group in the country.

Let's stop calling terrorist agitations "popular protests" with nothing to back up such assertions. The Libyan military was in a poor state, but the rats, even with, according to some sources, what constituted more firepower than that possessed in neighboring countries, along with the full aerial and naval might of NATO behind it, it took these disgusting thugs months to impose their will violently where it clearly wasn't wanted - throughout much of Libya.

You must be kidding right? Or do you expect sub-saharan mercenaries carry signs "mercenary" when people film them in the war or in captivity? There were a myriad of reports of mercenaries utilized from Gaddafi who didn't even speak the language, both from within Libya, from Chad, Niger and other countries where they were recruited, as well as countries farther away (I remember reading about Serbian mercenaries, and a Croat one in particular as well).

Again, no mercenaries were shown on camera. There was however, an excellent video which surfaced some time ago of black Libyans fleeing NTC terror near the Egyptian border speaking out against the rats who forced them to pose as mercenaries and dress in Libyan military regalia. Many of these people were later taken in as refugees, and were indeed migrant workers from Chad, Niger, and other areas.

As for the Serbian mercenaries, I believe you're distorting that information. There were reports of a number of Serbian and Croatian patriots, heroes, and martyrs who fought and died alongside Libyan forces against the onslaught of NATO's cocksuckers in Misrata. Some gave their lives in battle for a beautiful cause. Others were summarily executed by NTC militias in Misrata, but achieving martyrdom all the same. There were no reports of these people on any payroll.

The "Libyan" army didn't defend the Libyan people or nation, the majority of which clearly wanted Gaddafi out

Source? A lie which will gain credence amongst the ignorant proles and fools within the masses perhaps, but not with me no matter how often it is repeated.

they shelled them at Gaddafi's command across the country for 9 months to safeguard the ruling person's interests.

They shelled foreign agents and traitors unworthy of life for nine months to safeguard the sovereignty of the Libyan people and their state.

It was an armed force loyal to one and only person, not the people or the country. I can only extend my utmost respect to the heroes who saw beyond blind loyalty to a single narcissistic personality over the people and defected at their own and their families great risk.

You can read interviews of even the college students in Tripoli who loved Qaddafi and the dedication and heroism he brought to their city and country in the short but blessed time he enjoyed in this world. I can only extend my greatest wish that those who took up arms with NATO and continue to illegally occupy their own country on behalf of overseas handlers die in the most terrible and grisly of manners in front of the eyes of their bastard children.

The true armies of the people and the nation are the armies in Tunisia and Egypt which refused to side with only one man against the wave of national disillusionment.

The IMF coup in Libya is totally unrelated to the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions in substance.

You can't be serious
Or is the private TV of a dictator who controls it 100% considered as evidence now? All those videos of "brave Libyan women training to also join the fight for their dear Muammar"

And before you draw the parallel to western media, sorry, it may not be perfect but it's still a thousand times more decentralized, free and unbiased than the TV in direct control of a dictator which is basically a direct proxy of his own tongue.

What are you attempting to say here?

Libyans loved Qaddafi and died for their country to serve their state, their Jamahiriya. It is a beautiful event in history, as beauty is a known companion to terrible destruction.

Indeed, giving info to bomb a man's army which fights against the will of the nation can only be considered patriotic. Or is patriotism now considered loyalty to the regime and government and not the people/nation?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that what has occured and is still occuring in Libya in any way represents the "will of the nation"? Yes, Libyans hate Qaddafi and their system because CNN and the BBC say so.

Again, that most Libyans supported Gaddafi is a preposterous assumption given the fact that before he sent his army out most of populated Libyan land was under the people's and not Gaddafi/Loyalist's control.

This is because groups which are shown in all videos to be armed stormed most of the military camps throughout the country in a coordinated process at the onset of the conflict. There were civilians organizing patriotic demonstrations in Benghazi against the NTC/uprising as early as February 15th, and the videos exist to document this.

Tawergha was cleansed because it was a stronghold from which Misrata was shelled for over two months instead of a stronghold that defended it, it has nothing to do with ethnicity in its root cause. That most of its inhabitants were black, along with that most mercenaries were black, is the unfortunate reason why the Misrata brigade came to hate them, not the other way around. It may be backwards but they sure didn't come to that opinion just because they hate blacks out of the blue, but because blacks backing Gaddafi shelled them, destroyed their homes and killed their families. War breeds hate, it's sad but that's how it works, and you would do well to remember that the people of Misrata didn't start that hate by shelling Tawergha.

There was no brigade for "purging slaves and black skin"? If Qaddafi even approached such a level of unchained brutality you would chastise him as the devil incarnate.

Fact: The Libyan Army never committed ethnic cleansing. The NTC/NATO footsoldiers did.

He did far worse than kill a few blacks and make a small town of collaborators homeless, just unlike with the rebels, any kind of media in Loyalist areas was unable to report on anything but the color of the wallpaper in the hotel rooms in Tripoli and government-led walks to what the government wanted them to see - probably because nothing bad happened right? We all know how dictatorships keep their power, and it's rather different from the romantic portrayal you seek to promote.

Both sides in a war kill people. This is well known. Which side in this particular conflict committed ethnic cleansing?

[roxunreal]

Let's stop calling terrorist agitations "popular protests" with nothing to back up such assertions.

Of course, that must also be why Gaddafi's army elements defected and why others were exectued by loyalists because they refused to fire on these people. Again, refused to fire on people that were supposedly "clearly violent terrorists attacking them and endangering their lives"

The Libyan military was in a poor state, but the rats, even with, according to some sources, what constituted more firepower than that possessed in neighboring countries, along with the full aerial and naval might of NATO behind it, it took these disgusting thugs months to impose their will violently where it clearly wasn't wanted - throughout much of Libya.

It tends to happen when you have a force of mostly ill equipped fromer civilians set up against a military which held most of the heavy weapons. There is no mystery here, and that the heavilly armed military could hold its own for a while is absolutely no proof that Gaddafi had the majority of support.

The rebels were horribly under-equipped until somewhere around late july and early august when first provable stories about oudside arming appeared. You will notice this also roughly coincides with major rebel advances.

Again, no mercenaries were shown on camera. There was however, an excellent video which surfaced some time ago of black Libyans fleeing NTC terror near the Egyptian border speaking out against the rats who forced them to pose as mercenaries and dress in Libyan military regalia. Many of these people were later taken in as refugees, and were indeed migrant workers from Chad, Niger, and other areas.

Anyone who has lost, was on the wrong side and is being prosecuted for it can make up a story that they were forced to pretend that they were what is in their interest to deny they were, but I don't really see it proving anything. I won't deny that there are most likely migrant workers being held suspected to be mercenaries, but this does not negate that there were indeed real mercenaries in Libya fighting for the loyalists.

A lot of things in modern history were not shown on camera, luckilly we have a myriad of other evidence sources to confirm it to be true, like countless reports about mercenaries from within Libya, reports from Chad, Mali, Niger and elsewhere of loyalists recruiting mercenaries, confessions from Croat and Serb mercenaries, Libyan ambassador in Libya confirming that this was the case due to military defections, as well as knowing that Gaddafi had more than enough funds to pay for these services.

Again how do you imagine a mercenary being shown on camera that the viewer could see he was a mercenary? Do they wear signs depicting them as such?

As for the Serbian mercenaries, I believe you're distorting that information. There were reports of a number of Serbian and Croatian patriots, heroes, and martyrs who fought and died alongside Libyan forces against the onslaught of NATO's cocksuckers in Misrata. Some gave their lives in battle for a beautiful cause. Others were summarily executed by NTC militias in Misrata, but achieving martyrdom all the same. There were no reports of these people on any payroll.

This is a ludicrous rationalization. Even if your fantasy about "patriots" from the Balkans gallantly streaming overseas to fight and risk their health and lives for some Arabs who are utterly alien to most of them for no gain to themselves wasn't beyond silly, there were reports about paid mercenaries from the Balkans fighting for Gaddafi. I read it the first time in a newspaper in my country, and now a quick google search yielded a similar article:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 05,00.html

Source?

You didn't notice most of populated Libya under rebel control before Gaddafi got his act together and made an organized counterattack?
Most of a country doesn't get under control of a "handful of terrorists" in a few days, nor do a handful of terrorists manage to overwhelm dozens of military barracks and soldiers armed to the teeth across more than half of the country.

They shelled foreign agents and traitors unworthy of life for nine months to safeguard the sovereignty of the Libyan people and their state.

Are those the same foreign agents that put hallucinogenic pills in Libyan youth's Nescaffe according to Gaddafi?
Make no mistake, this was a revolution of the Libyan people, which only recieved outside support later due to them being pitted against an organized and heavilly armed military force, and the west siding with them for political and economic gains.

Oh and don't bother re-posting the Tripoli loyalist gathering video as some sort of proof of massive Gaddafi love across the country or capital, I have already linked to articles in the past proving and explaining that there are 15-20 thousand people on that square at most, not a million as loyalist supporters like to imagine in their waking dreams

You can read interviews of even the college students in Tripoli who loved Qaddafi

I have no doubts you can read a lot of things from a dictator's propaganda outlet. Remember what happened if you said no to Gaddafi All autocrats are always "loved". That's why they have to be autocrats and use heavy repression of expression and differing lines of thought.

That's not to say that there were not people that loved Gaddafi, they just apparently weren't representative of the collective national sentiment.

The IMF coup in Libya is totally unrelated to the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions in substance.

As I said, the militareis of Tunisia and Egypt sided with the people they are supposed to protect and serve. The Libyan military protected and served one person, as is the case in Syria and Bahrein as well. Imagined "IMF coups" have little to do with this simple fact.

What are you attempting to say here?

That quoting news from a dictator's TV and presuming it automatically true is against all logic or reason if you know anything about dictatorships at all.
And no need to compare it to or bash the objectivity of western news, it may be partially biased and somewhat manipulative but it is nowhere near the same category as the "news" of the likes of Gaddafi or Assad.

Libyans loved Qaddafi and died for their country to serve their state, their Jamahiriya. It is a beautiful event in history, as beauty is a known companion to terrible destruction.

It's only beautiful if you appreciate the beauty of explosions and fires and smoke plumes, to which I can relate, but it quickly fades when the human cost accompanying it becomes evident.
Death and maiming of human beings can only be beautiful to a sadist suffering from an illness of the mind, though it's no wonder that you would be attracted to mass death as you do your best to aggressively defend massacres, war crimes and other injustices against innocents in war whenever Germans weren't on the receiving end.

The Libyan war was a tragic event in which, like so many times in history, thousands died for the sake of one man and his greed and narcisism masqueraded in excuses like "protecting the nation against [insert outside enemy]" or similar blanket statement nonsense that megalomaniacs sprew to discredit legitimate popular movements and which their admirers lustfully consume whole with eyes wide shut.

This is because groups which are shown in all videos to be armed stormed most of the military camps throughout the country in a coordinated process at the onset of the conflict.

Any "organized" resistance didn't start until a few days into the uprising. And as I said, to overwhelm heavilly armed and manned military barracks and the repression machine of a dictatorship across vast portions of the country one needs more than a minority of "foreign agents" fighting "everyone" who loves Gaddafi. One needs the people, and the people is what happened indeed. If most Libyans supported and Gaddafi in the way and numbers often described by people like you, the east would never have even had the chance to break Gaddafi's control over it, not even for a day, let alone most of the Libyan coast as happened in the first days of the movement.

There were civilians organizing patriotic demonstrations in Benghazi against the NTC/uprising as early as February 15th, and the videos exist to document this.

Obviously not more that those that protested against him. I never said no one loved Gaddafi, just no nearly as many as the ones that didn't love him.

There was no brigade for "purging slaves and black skin"? If Qaddafi even approached such a level of unchained brutality you would chastise him as the devil incarnate.

Fact: The Libyan Army never committed ethnic cleansing. The NTC/NATO footsoldiers did.

You'd better read my post again then, since you're obviously too blunt to understand that Tawarga wasn't ethnically cleansed, it was cleansed because it was a stage for the two month terror bombardment of Misrata with compliance by its citizens. That is the motive, not ethnicity.

And trying to present one racist slogan painted on a Tawargan house by some annonymous Misratan fighter as something of an "official" slogan of the Misrata brigade is also rather pathetic.

[Sceptic]

I will completely agree with your comments concerning the danger of unrestricted speech.

Or the dangers of completely restricted speech? Would you agree that there needs to be a middle ground?

I have employed the image of the great Mircea Eliade.

From what I have read so far, he sounds like an interesting author, so I intend to read some of his works if I get a chance.

Yes, I believe it would of course be justified if one's interest and goal lies in maintaining the stable continuation of the neoliberal
regime and present order. This is both justifiable and rational from such a perspective. Likewise, as a lifelong and militant opponent of such a system, it is both natural and prudent for me to support those domestic and international strains (movements, organizations, paramilitary squadrons, philosophers, ideas, etc.) which run completely against such a current. One can recognize the logical motivations of the enemy and simultaneously have no qualms with resolving to fight until he or you lay dead.

Well, then I cannot argue against this: 'two men, fighting for their principles to the death, both men of equal honour and integrity' - unless of course it is possible, or within reason that these men can find some form of compromise and live peacefully. I think it needs to be illustrated that this is not the case: have neoliberal regimes not brought great wealth, prosperity and liberties to the western world since their establishment? Are they not without merit?

I have no evidence of that as I'm not aware of the individual cases, but I would take the opportunity to point out that my opinion on asylum seekers is no higher than any other classification of unwanted and unwelcome outsiders. I also have no desire for global "peace" (stagnation), which guarantees the forceful administration of an order which may appear utopian to some and entirely dystopian to others, including myself. Nor do I desire the forward march of what the liberal regimes of today call "free trade" while they strip the country bare and without shame. People propagating these ideas must be opposed with all means still at our disposal.

First of all, I'd argue that as a general principle, our own interests must be balanced against the interests of others, otherwise we'd have no ethics (if we always placed ourselves first) and no survival (if we never put ourself first). I'd apply this logic to immigration and in particular, asylum seekers, for whom the stakes are higher, and can eventually be deported if absolutely necessary.

Second, I'm not entirely clued in on how fascists view war - all I know is that it is essential to the growth of the military-industrial complex and nation, so a central theme of fascism - so I can't comment on global peace, which personally I view as desirable. All I would argue is that again, if global peace is impossible, which it is in this day and age, that again, the nation's interests ought to be weighed against the interests of others, in the fashion of the first highlighted principle, for moral and practical purposes.

However, I can at least sympathise with your position on free trade. How about I rephrase - international trade with regulations to protect vulnerable third world nations? This would not exactly be the same as protectionism.

My reference to the role of the state was primarily to illustrate my general opposition to the concept of "rights" - natural rights, human rights, etc. I have only the rights I am willing to take in this world, and why should my national community fare differently?

I don't exactly believe in rights either, but I do believe in the therapeutic effect of strong moral principles and by deduction, virtue ethics. I believe a man should respect the 'rights' of his neighbour to improve his own sense of virtue and self-respect. It is a kind of Zen philosophy, a karmic aproach to the world, if you like. I appreciate the beauty of the world around me and I believe that others will live a better life if they do the same. The subjective view of morality is flawed in my view, because sometimes the principles (or lack of principles) we live by is self-destructive.

Morals, when applied correctly, heal our soul and the world around us. Through meditation, you learn that the basic essence of one's 'self' and the world around him are the same - well, 'neither one, nor two but both two and one'. So, embracing a nihilistic state of affairs is not actually damaging for morality or social decorum. Treat it as an aesthetic approach, if you like.

This brings up the interesting looming conflict with respect to politicized language. Why has it been deemed "humane" to advocate for a class of mental incompetents and the malformed to remain alive as an untouchable gaggle of prizes?

People who treat other people as means to an end, well that is how they themselves tend to view the world and maybe even their own being. They don't see the beauty in life and nature, or put pride of place on human emotions. They are suffering from a shallow, holistic lack of perception; they themselves are diseased and malnourished of right view and right intention.

Also, if we are really going to take a strictly social darwinist view, then 'mental incompetents' and 'malformed' can often have hidden potential when treated and aided as equals, do not think that they cannot necessarily contribute.

In terms of cooperation on certain issues relating to the natural environment which must be shared by Earth's inhabitants, this is both possible and very much desired.

Or international economy? Political stability? Civic values?

I would venture to say that the character of one of the central themes of this discussion is very much relevant and crucial.

Well, maybe but in reality the 'dictator' is like the figurehead for a car - representation and political diplomacy of the State, very important roles - but take it away and leave the rest and the engine, gears, paintwork and wheels all stay the same. Having said that, I realise that the dictator has much more power over the political economic plan through dirigisme under fascism, but to what extent was this true of Libya.

A few thousands rats on Western news cameras do not make up a country, and have not even paralleled the will of the people clearly displayed here:

Wait, didn't that video turn out to be a hoax?