No, I don't take him at his word, but I don't see enough evidence against him either.
What was his motive? If he ordered it, for what reason?
He may have had bad information. The attack was carried out from orders received in East Germany. The four people responsible were found guilty, but they could not find any evidence against Qaddafi except for the communication from Tripoli to East Germany, that may not have originated from Qaddafi.
Are you ing kidding us?
Again?
You apparently still do not understand confirmation bias.
You have no idea how pleased i am to see that the kids coming into college today are not as stupid and misguided as you are. People like you need to be pushed aside.
Theres hope for the future even if there is none for you.
You didn't read the wiki link, yet again. It is there.
If you had, you might have read the part where they had to own up to the act, as well as a couple of other bombings, to normalize relations, the successful lawsuits by the victims against the Libyan government, as well as that motive.
The evidence was more than sufficient for Reagan to smack 'em, and for courts to find against the Libyan government.
LOL taking the word of a mildly crazy dictator over US intelligence and that of a US president. I can't help but wonder if this isn't some attempt at trolling or if you really are that much of a dupe.
LOL thinking that intelligence officers from a police state would take a piss without orders from above.
I'm surprised you missed this one, WC:
Libya to use Islamic law as source of legislationA few other links with various takes on this:CAIRO (AP) — Libya's new leaders said they intend to make Islamic Sharia law the main source of legislation and will nullify any laws that contradict its tenets, giving the country a more Islamist character in the post-Moammar Gadhafi era.
http://www.euronews.net/2011/10/25/l...rs-sharia-law/
http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-law-li...161200812.html
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/video...aw-427148.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10...nshot-to-head/
The ultimate outcome of how rabidly islamist the government will be is in question, but from what I read, what is being pushed for is fairly mild, along the lines of reforming the banking system to disallow for interest, and allowing for men to marry more than one woman.
The moderates in the country, and ultimate government will be unlikely, in my judgment, to put anything too objectionable to the West in place, given the need to operate its oil infrastructure, tourism, and cooperation to free up state assets held in western banks.
Even if the unproven assumptions were true, that was a long time ago. I never said Qaddafi was a good man. I have said he has mellowed over the years. Still no good reason to help in a civil war, where there are worse nations around the world is our stated goal was because of brutality, and i really don't get this helping conservative Muslim rebels.
I hope I'm wrong, but I am very certain things in Libya will now be worse than under Qaddafi.
Time will tell.
WC has a statute of limitations on murder.
He seems like a nice enough chap now. Let's fellate him with vigor.
Wild Chodebrah being so adamantly against attacking a "sovereign country
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/22...till-a-failureWhen dictatorships are violently overthrown, their successor regimes tend to devolve into some form of authoritarian government. Political culture, weak ins utions, and post-conflict disorder all make it unlikely that Libya will be that much freer in the years to come than it was under Gadhafi. As in Iraq, it is questionable whether the possible gains will be worth the real losses that have already been and will continue to be suffered. As in Kosovo, which is often wrongly held up as a model of "successful" intervention, the post-war regime is liable to be criminal and corrupt. Twenty years ago, the liberation of Eritrea and Ethiopia from the brutal dictatorship of Mengistu was an inspiring story that very soon degenerated into authoritarianism and war. There is no reason to think that Libya's story will be all that different.
Indeed. I'm surprised that his head hasn't exploded from sheer cognitive dissonance overload.Wild Chodebrah being so adamantly against attacking a "
Jabril didn't quit -- Qaddafi was captured and killed the next day.
Well, is Gabriel a good man?
Mahmoud Jibril and Gaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project; part of text:
I would argue that conservative Muslims already disliked Qaddafi's secular ways, and not only sharing the national oil wealth, but giving them more freedom, was blasphemy for which he had to die. I would also argue that if Qaddafi ever succeeded in unifying Africa, that would be a powerful force other nations would fear.Gaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project
Gaddafi had a wealth redistribution project inside Libya. U.S. Congressional sources in a report to the U.S. Congress even acknowledge this. On February 18, 2011 the report stated:
In March 2008, [Colonel Gaddafi] announced his intention to dissolve most government administrative bodies and ins ute a Wealth Distribution Program whereby state oil revenues would be distributed to citizens on a monthly basis for them to administer personally, in cooperation, and via local committees. Citing popular criticism of government performance in a long, wide ranging speech, [he] repeatedly stated that the traditional state would soon be “dead” in Libya and that direct rule by citizens would be accomplished through the distribution of oil revenues. [The military], foreign affairs, security, and oil production arrangements reportedly would remain national government responsibilities, while other bodies would be phased out. In early 2009, Libya’s Basic People’s Congresses considered variations of the proposals, and the General People’s Congress voted to delay implementation.
The Wealth Redistribution Project, along with the establishment of an anarchist political system, was viewed as a very serious threat by the U.S., the E.U., and a group of corrupt Libyan officials. If successful it could have created political unrest amongst many domestic populations around the world. Internally, many Libyan officials were working to delay the project.
Why Mahmoud Jibril Joined the Transitional Council
Amongst the Libyan officials who was opposed to this project and viewed it with horror was Mahmoud Jibril. Jibril was put into place by Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. Because of strong influence and advice from the U.S. and the E.U., Saif Al-Islam selected Jibril to transform the Libyan economy and impose neo-liberal economic reforms.
Jibril would become the head of two bodies in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the National Planning Council of Libya and National Economic Development Board of Libya. While the National Economic Development Board was a regular ministry, the National Planning Council would actually put Jibril in a government position above that of the equivalent of the prime minister–the Office of the General-Secretary of the People’s Committee of Libya. Jibril actually was one of the forces that opened the doors for privatization and poverty in Libya.
About six months before the conflict erupted in Libya, Mahmoud Jibiril actually met with Bernard-Henri Lévy in Australia to discuss forming the Transitional Council and deposing Gaddafi. He described Gaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project as “crazy” in minutes and do ents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Jibril believed that the masses were not fit to govern themselves and that an elite should control the fate and wealth of any nation. What Jibril wanted to do is downsize the government and layoff a large segment of the public sector, but in exchange increase government regulations in Libya. He would also always cite Singapore as the perfect example of a neo-liberal state. While in Singapore, which he regularly visited, it is likely that he meet with Bernard-Henri Lévy.
Why would anybody give a ?
Yes, a cilil war occurs that should have never started.
Why should anyone care.
Libya was a self sufficient country where the national resources were shared with the people rather just owned by the elite.
Why should anyone care.
Now, what becomes on Libya?
Why should anyone care.
The death toll of war will likely be 100,000+. Most of whom were people fighting for their cities as they were steamrolled over by the terrorist rebels.
Why should anyone care.
Why not? Ultimately, that wasn't our call. It started before the UN resolved the no-fly zone.
No troops on the ground, supporting our French and British allies under a UN resolution.
A lot less messy than Iraq, much quicker and now we don't have to deal with rebuilding.
Why are you mad? Nobody gave a about Lybia before this, nobody will give a after.
Page 1:
It would have never happened without help.
I will continue to say this was a mistake. The UN is not always right.
Then why are they still asking for help?
That's the problem You don't care about them. Only protecting your unruly UN, with the one world order in it's plans, which Qaddafi would have never complied with.
+1000wild chodebrah being so adamantly against attacking a "
Yes, you want the USA to be subordinate to a one world order.
you.
It started before we even went there. Fact.
I don't know if you get the hint yet, but your hypocrisy makes you completely non credible.
Please expand on the UN 'one world order' and 'it's plans' conspiracy... crofl
off you partisan hack... when Bush Sr complied with the no-fly zone UN resolution on Iraq you were the #1 fan of the UN.
Hypocrite
That was a different scenario entirely.
I am not being hypocritical.
What threat was Qaddafi to anyone outside his border? How many years ago was the last time he attacked a neighboring nation? When was the last time he had UN resolutions controlling his actions that he violated for years?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote