Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


The origins of Judaism
by zeca
Today at 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:48 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 11:27 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:29 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 11:55 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
January 30, 2025, 10:33 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
January 29, 2025, 12:18 PM

Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Intervention in Libya?

 (Read 18573 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #90 - March 21, 2011, 02:23 AM

    Perhaps not entirely on-topic as this isn't in particularly about Libya, but America and her allies cannot win no matter what decision they make. The Libyans ask for help, people ask for the USA to take a more proactive role, either way they will be criticised for not doing enough or doing too much. If the USA gets itself involved, it'll receive the same negative criticism and add more fuel to the fire that has created such a backlash in recent years through its involvement in the Middle East.

    I used to hate the USA with a passion, or at least its foreign policies, but I've figured out that it's just so acceptable to hate the USA that most people don't even question it, and indeed I didn't myself. No matter what decision they make, I would have found a way to channel my frustrations.

    I'd put in a quote by Mark Steyn, who I do not like but who I do find some common things I can agree with:

    Quote
    All dominant powers are hated – Britain was, and Rome – but they’re usually hated for the right reasons. The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lapdancing and gay porn; the secular Europeans despise America because it's all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it's controlled by Jews. Too Jewish, too Christian, too Godless, America is also too isolationist, except when it's too imperialist.

    Too Christian, too Godless, too isolationist, too imperialist, too seductive, too cretinous, America is George Orwell's Room 101: whatever your bugbear, you will find it therein - for the Continentals, excessive religiosity; for the Muslims, excessive decadence; for Harold Pinter, excessively bleeding rectums.


    And that is the reality. No matter who you are or what you believe in, the sad reality is most people look to the USA to fix things, and also look to the USA to blame things. I want what is in the best interest for Libya and to see Libya turn into a prosperous democracy, but I do know that the USA would be damned either way, most probably by those who ask for her help now but will be angered at her intervention in seven months time.
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #91 - March 21, 2011, 09:45 AM

    agreed, many of the same people who were asking "where are the Americans now?" a week ago (Aphrodite types whistling2) will be the ones critisizing them for interfering in a few weeks time.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #92 - March 21, 2011, 10:00 AM

    Yeah, they surely will. However it looks like this time the Yanks are determined to keep things at arm's length as much as possible. It's not the same scenario as when Dubya and Co thought they could lay waste to a whole country and everything would sort itself out as soon as they'd finished. The current administration seems to have more sense (and could hardly have less).

    ETA: Oh and the Arab League are the first lot of wankers in line for complaining. I know why too. They're worried about their own auotcratic positions in the face of protests.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #93 - March 21, 2011, 10:11 AM

    Before I come to William Blum I'm glad that you now concede the imbecility of bandying about words whose meaning you ill-comprehend. That is supremely unwise.

    Onto William Blum. My assertions about the US complicity in the atrocitiess in East Timor and Turkey are not contingent on Blum. I gave you other sources to support my facts which you are welcome to contest. The book on on US foreign policy which I commend for your reading is bulging with footnotes and was reviewed favourably by the press. Every assertion therein is supported with mainstream citations. That however is one source among many.


    You are arguing with the guy that thought aliens built the pyramids of Giza. But then again he's arguing with a vegetarian who’s in support of state murder.

    You guys deserve each other Smiley
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #94 - March 21, 2011, 10:12 AM

    ETA: Oh and the Arab League are the first lot of wankers in line for complaining. I know why too. They're worried about their own auotcratic positions in the face of protests.

    This is what my thoughts were too. And also, seems like they don't want to be seen as supporting the west in their countries, to keep up the anti west sentiment that they normally use in their countries.
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #95 - March 21, 2011, 10:13 AM

    You are arguing with the guy that thought aliens built the pyramids of Giza. But then again he's arguing with a vegetarian who’s in support of state murder.

    You guys deserve each other Smiley


    +1
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #96 - March 21, 2011, 11:07 AM

    I'm just as much opposed to Gallic interventionism.

    Did you oppose NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo? I am not asking whether you found the justification for intervention officially given by NATO problematic or not, I am specifically asking if you disagreed and still disagree with the intervention (as a matter of principle?) especially when the outcome of it is considered?

    The "taliban" foot soldiers that I harbour sympathy for are the ones across the border who are fighting for their right for self-determination.

    What exactly do you mean by "their right for self-determination"?
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #97 - March 21, 2011, 12:36 PM

    agreed, many of the same people who were asking "where are the Americans now?" a week ago (Aphrodite types whistling2) will be the ones critisizing them for interfering in a few weeks time.


    Gaddafi has never been a close ally of the US so action against gaddafi was expected. I would say "where are the americans now?" regarding the protests in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi and even then if they practise what they preach (ie stop rubbing shoulders with dictators and support the protesters) 1 right doesn't make up for decades of wrongdoings. US influence in the region is declining now so I'm happy  parrot
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #98 - March 21, 2011, 12:39 PM


    What exactly do you mean by "their right for self-determination"?


    Ermmm............their right to not have their lives dictated by a military organisation from another continent and their puppets in power that happen to be ex northern alliance warlords?

    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/03/18/revealed-afghan-chief-accused-of-campaign-of-terror-is-on-us-payroll.html

    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/03/21/us-army-kill-team-in-afghanistan-posed-for-photos-of-murdered-civilians.html

    ^ Those are from a site of Afghan feminists, so don't accuse me of spreading jihadi propaganda or something.
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #99 - March 21, 2011, 01:28 PM


    As long as our old friend in Libya supports the actions being taken, personally speaking, I defer to his opinion on this issue.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #100 - March 21, 2011, 01:56 PM

    Ermmm............their right to not have their lives dictated by a military organisation from another continent and their puppets in power that happen to be ex northern alliance warlords?

    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/03/18/revealed-afghan-chief-accused-of-campaign-of-terror-is-on-us-payroll.html

    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/03/21/us-army-kill-team-in-afghanistan-posed-for-photos-of-murdered-civilians.html

    ^ Those are from a site of Afghan feminists, so don't accuse me of spreading jihadi propaganda or something.

    There is a small complication with your stance.

    Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't fighting for their right to self-determination. They are simply fighting for their 'right' to impose their reactionary, misogynistic, anti-modern, anti-egalitarian, anti-enlightenment bullshit bronze age values/views/ideology/religion onto others as they see fit. They only hate oppression when they are victims of it but are cheerfully oppressing others when given a chance.

    Are you saying that you support Taliban simply because they are fighting Americans and because of their anti-'West' stance in general?

    Btw you do know that Pakistan has a history of continuous meddling into the affairs of Afghanistan in order to spread its influence. Do you find that problematic as well?
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #101 - March 21, 2011, 07:10 PM

    There is a difference between the Afghan taliban and Pakistani taliban* and no I don't believe in a weird conspiracy about the mossad/raw funding the pak taliban to destabilise pakistan.

    Kenan even today Afghanistan has a govt. that can be described "misogynistic, anti-modern, anti-egalitarian, anti-enlightenment bullshit bronze age values/views/ideology/religion" the only difference is they are Pro-US kinda like the saudis and others and aren't pashtuns  Roll Eyes If you think that the US military is out to rescue muslimahs then you are severely mistaken, in Afghanistan they have bought to power men who are more repressive than the Taliban and in Iraq:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4loMOvzxaA ^ At least watch the last minute or so!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/15/basra-militias-killing-un_n_76973.html

    I support Afghans fighting an occupation--simple.

    The Pakistan influence hasn't been good, but without the influence/meddling the situation would be far worse. I'd prefer it if they stopped playing a double-game and decided to stop participating in any game  Smiley

    *The Pak taliban is made up of pashtun nationalists, pro-taliban tribes, sectarian groups, bandits paid to fight and prolly used protect certain arabs and now kashmiri jihadi fighters. Each group has its own interests and each group needs to be 'confronted' in a different manner. Drone strikes, Pakistani troops trying to secure the border etc. simply alienates the locals:

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/134864/north-waziristan-tribes-declare-war-against-us/
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #102 - March 21, 2011, 07:45 PM

    For the 500th time, the TTP has been conducting terrorist attacks against the general public of Pakistan. Without drone strikes they would be completely free to conduct these attacks, whereas right now they appear to be more disorganized/on the run.

    In late 2009 Pakistan was getting virtually one suicide attack in the major cities (lahore, islamabad) every 2-3 weeks, when the drone war and military operations were stepped up (and baitullah mehsood, TTP's leader, was taken out by a drone strike), it slowed down to now one attack per 5-6 months, or even less (in the major cities). I've seen the effects because I've lived here.

    Stop talking about things you have no idea about.
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #103 - March 21, 2011, 08:06 PM

    I don't believe in a weird conspiracy about the mossad/raw funding the pak taliban to destabilise pakistan.

    Haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

    Kenan even today Afghanistan has a govt. that can be described "misogynistic, anti-modern, anti-egalitarian, anti-enlightenment bullshit bronze age values/views/ideology/religion" the only difference is they are Pro-US.

    At least the current government put a stop to public executions of women in football stadiums and afaik wasn't trying to ban music etc. Sure, things are pretty bad out there and they do get away with a lot of shit because US and allies do not want to piss off their Afghan allies but it's a far cry from the rule imposed by taliban who were basically a bunch of ignorant savages completely opposed to even the very basic progressive reforms. In fact that was their raison d'être.

    If you think that the US military is out to rescue muslimahs then you are severely mistaken, in Afghanistan they have bought to power men who are more repressive than the Taliban and in Iraq.

    Of course I don't think that US occupied Afghanistan or Iraq to liberate local women. They did it for their own selfish interests. But the question is do US interests and the interests of the local population ever coincide? Like in Libya for example.

    I support Afghans fighting an occupation--simple.

    Not simple at all. When one says I 'support' something or the other what one says is essentially that one agrees with the wider narrative of the faction/side one 'supports'.

    In your case you are essentially saying that you 'support' a bunch of savages who would - if they had a chance - give you a few dozen lashes in public for inciting men to Zinah because of the way you dress or perhaps throw a brick in your face for not wearing a veil. Going to the uni? Yeah, forget about that. Did I mention the fact that you 'support' Afghan Taliban from a couch in UK living under circumstances most Afghan women can only dream about?

    Finally, why do you think that one must either support Afghan Taliban or US? There is a third way. The right one.

    Since the overthrow of the Soviet-installed puppet regime in 1992 the focus of RAWA’s political struggle has been against the fundamentalists’ and the ultra-fundamentalist Taliban’s criminal policies and atrocities against the people of Afghanistan in general and their incredibly ultra-male-chauvinistic and anti-woman orientation in particular.

    The US "War on terrorism" removed the Taliban regime in October 2001, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism which is the main cause of all our miseries. In fact, by reinstalling the warlords in power in Afghanistan, the US administration is replacing one fundamentalist regime with another.

  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #104 - March 21, 2011, 09:06 PM

    Quote
    Haven't got a clue what you are talking about.


    You should watch mainstream pakistani tv and zaid hamid the nutter! That's what they basically believe! That the Indians and Israelis want to destroy the "islamic bomb"  Cheesy

    Afaik the constitution of Afghanistan has Islamic/shariah principles that legitimise executions and stuff. All I know I'm not surprised (and no-one should be) when you read articles of afghans preferring taliban draconian laws to corruption and crimes of the 'democratically elected' govt.

    As I've explained before over and over again, the average foot soldier fighting NATO does NOT care about imposing taliban law or protecting osama, all he cares about is his country being independent and not having to fear his children becoming 'collateral damage'!!!!  finmad Now its ok for you to sit on your couch and say "oh they're wrong for fighting" coz its not your family living in a war zone! I KNOW what the taliban would do to me, defo put me in a veil, I'm not sure about the uni thing-I was told a different narrative of the women education thing as a muslimah by people who I would say have some sympathy for the taliban so I'm not too sure, will have to go through all that as an exxie. And in no way would I ever support oppression of any woman. Ever. And btw, by 'support' I simply mean I can UNDERSTAND why they use violence and refuse to call them "terrorists"

    I don't think its black and white (hence I differentiate between the taliban leadership and their foot soldiers!) and yes you're right RAWA is awesome! I think people should visit their site often to see REAL news regarding the war there.
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #105 - March 22, 2011, 01:29 AM

    .
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #106 - March 22, 2011, 01:36 AM

    ..
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #107 - March 22, 2011, 01:38 AM

    Quote
    If you think the United States bombed Yugoslavia to save human life, you will have to explain why it was giving military and diplomatic cover to Suharto and the Turkish generals at the exact same moment. Only the politically innocent would believe that America remotely cares about anything except narrowly defined geopolitical interests.


    I know this is in vogue, but it ignores the whole picture.  Why would America deny China most favored nation status for trade when it had become self evident for years that China would be a major trading partner? Why would the US made a stink about Libya if it wasn't, on some level, concerned with people getting slaughtered.   Human rights is a mediator in the US's affairs.  It isn't solely an object unto its self but neither is it an absent idea.  It fits in there, it just may be more complicated than either the "US is great!" or the " US is terrible" crowd want to admit.

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #108 - March 22, 2011, 01:42 AM

    @ Deu

    Bison has already answered your questions a few pages back. Try to actually read what he wrote.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #109 - March 22, 2011, 01:46 AM

    he already made the point that:

    Quote
    This ain’t about Libya. It’s about the health of military humanism

    .

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #110 - March 22, 2011, 01:46 AM

    Meh,  between the sexual innuendos and the multiple paragraphs of non nonsensical English language words put together I would rather just say what I say and let him respond again rather than go though pages of academic bullshit-erity

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #111 - March 22, 2011, 01:50 AM

    Quote
    Meh,  between the sexual innuendos and the multiple paragraphs of non nonsensical English language words put together I would rather just say what I say and let him respond again rather than go though pages of academic bullshiterity

     

    Ok, here's some straight words for you: even US foreign aid (2 thirds of which goes to arm Israel and her enemies) is meant to serve US imperialism.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #112 - March 22, 2011, 01:56 AM

    Nothing incorrect about that statement.  There are some cases that US aid isn't done in favor of US imperialism, but its a matter of degree rather than a objective statement of fact.

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #113 - March 22, 2011, 01:57 AM

    .
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #114 - March 22, 2011, 02:01 AM

    Quote
    Nothing incorrect about that statement.  There are some cases that US aid isn't done in favor of US imperialism, but its a matter of degree rather than a objective statement of fact.

     

    No, every single dollar paid in foreign aid is meant to serve US imperialism, even if the money results in purely humanitarian relief, it still is a part of the propaganda to polish the US image as the good cop.  

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #115 - March 22, 2011, 02:03 AM

    q
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #116 - March 22, 2011, 02:05 AM

    Quote
    If the driving impulse behind the US bombing of Yugoslavia was to to save the lives why was it at the exact same time shipping vast quantities of arms into the to Suharto in his mission to orchestrate the mass slaughter of 200,000 East Timorese and arming the Turkish generals to kill 40,000 Kurds?


    Quite frankly I don't know enough about that whole fuck up to give an opinion about Yugoslavia, Kosovo and the like.  I do know that the US did give arms and aid to Turkey to combat the PKK or whatever Kurdish separatist group it was called and also provided cover and aid to the Kurds who were being slaughtered by Saddam in Operation Provide Comfort.  

    Quote
    Going further, there is a dozen hotspots in the world that have claimed many more lives than Libya in which the US might profitably intervene, the Congo and Somalia being just two such places. The Congolese civil war has killed four million people. Why Libya? Answer: Black gold and politics.


    Meh, tribal politics are black hole to get into while Libya at least provided a  cover of dictator killing his own population who were protesting peacefully instead of tribes of equal strength neither of which had " the consent of the people" fighting to be heard. I sure there are dozens of other situations of which the US could conceivably be of better use as the world's policeman.  Conceded.  

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #117 - March 22, 2011, 02:08 AM



    No, every single dollar paid in foreign aid is meant to serve US imperialism, even if the money results in purely humanitarian relief, it still is a part of the propaganda to polish the US image as the good cop.  


    Well this becomes tautological.  The US gives aid to people in need.  People see the US as the good cop, ergo all US aid is part of an evil US plan to make it look like the good cop.  Come on debunker.  I would agree with you, but I can't when tautologies get in the way. 

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #118 - March 22, 2011, 02:22 AM

    .
  • Re: Intervention in Libya?
     Reply #119 - March 22, 2011, 02:43 AM

    .
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »