What is really going on in Libya?

[Karl]

NATO is bombing Libya and putting out it's propaganda but does anyone here know the truth of the situation? I know that NATO do not care about saving civilian lives and all that bleeding heart nonsense they always use. Russian papers have other ideas but I would like to know the real truth.

[GuestFellow]

Salaam,

I have not been keeping up with the news. You need to do some research. Research the history between US and Libya and you will get an idea. Google Inter Press Service, they have good collection of interesting articles.

[Perseveranze]

Watch Al Jazeera, they'd be "closer" to the truth, aparently one of their reporters was taken in by the Libyan forces and they want him/her back.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Theres two threads on the subject,

one closed

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134304182 (Libya Protests))

and one live

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...h-libya-4.html

Lots of information, analysis, vidoes etc

Check them out

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Karl]

Watch Al Jazeera, they'd be "closer" to the truth, aparently one of their reporters was taken in by the Libyan forces and they want him/her back.

Al Jazeera is based in Qatar and they are buddys of NATO. They even bombed Libya. Al Jazeera comes across very Western these days. Probably Zionist.

[GuestFellow]

^ Salaam,

Do you have evidence for that? If you do, please post it.

[Karl]

Salaam

Theres two threads on the subject,

one closed

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134304182 (Libya Protests))

and one live

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...h-libya-4.html

Lots of information, analysis, vidoes etc

Check them out

Thanks Junon
Here is an interesting article from the Tehran Times.


U.S. trying to manipulate Arab uprising
By Afshin Davarpanah


Unlike what many analysts thought, the United States is making serious efforts to depose the government of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.


This change of strategy first became apparent in U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech on May 19, 2011, in which he said that some regional allies were not responding to the U.S. calls for change and this was now the case in Yemen. He asked Saleh to fulfill his commitments and asked him to resign.

This 180-degree reversal of strategy on recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa is not so strange and unexpected. In fact, after months of daily protests, of course the U.S. and Saudi Arabia welcome regime change in Yemen. However, the U.S. is trying to control the situation in order to better serve its interests.

The collapse of Saleh’s regime is inevitable, whether he returns to the country or not, and his time as president is finally over, even for the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which supported the Yemeni dictator until a few months ago, even long after the protests began.

The question is whether the U.S. stopped supporting dictators like Tunisia’s Ben Ali, Egypt’s Mubarak, and Yemen’s Saleh because they did not respond to the popular demands for change or because they stopped obeying the U.S. and stopped following its policies.

Now, almost everywhere, Saleh is called a dictator who led his country to despotism and corruption. However, until several months ago, the West regarded him as a friend. Ben Ali and Mubarak were in a similar situation. They were all regarded as the most important allies of the U.S. over the past few decades, and thus Washington remained silent and did nothing to hinder these authoritarian regimes.

Issues such as human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, civil and political liberties (such as the right to establish non-governmental organizations, political groups, parties, etc.), and minority and women's rights have been the main pretexts for interventions by the U.S. and Europe in various countries. In fact, these issues are frequently used as tools to interfere in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern states. The method used by the U.S. and its allies in dealing with the Arab uprising provides an example of this approach.

For example, many Arab countries that have a bad record in the area of human rights and related issues have been supported by Washington for decades, but all of a sudden, when there is no longer any chance for the Westerners to continue their support, they resort to the issue of human rights to justify their interference.

On the one hand, the West’s support for despotic regimes always created anti-Western sentiment in the region. Thus, by helping popular movements, the U.S. is trying to prevent more Islamic extremist ideologies and groups like Al-Qaeda from arising in the region.

On the other hand, the governments of the region are all facing a domestic and international crisis of legitimacy. The U.S. policy is to support change in order to respond to these crises and to better serve its interests.

To summarize all this, it can be said that the U.S. and its allies are only pursuing their national, regional, and international interests, and issues such as human rights and political and civil liberties are only used as pretexts to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. And thus, the United States is encouraging the popular movements of the Arab world, even though they are anti-U.S. in nature, in order to manipulate the situation in its favor so that it will be able to install new rulers who also will be subservient to the U.S. and follow its policies. This is the most efficient way to promote U.S. cultural and political hegemony in the future.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=242281

[Ramadhan]

Al Jazeera is based in Qatar and they are buddys of NATO. They even bombed Libya. Al Jazeera comes across very Western these days. Probably Zionist.

For once I agree with you. I don't know if al jazeera is zionist, but they are certainly more and more like western these days.

[KAding]

For once I agree with you. I don't know if al jazeera is zionist, but they are certainly more and more like western these days.

Well, Al-Jazeera has just been very much on the side of the demonstrators/protesters in the 'Arab spring' uprisings. That they are very much anti-Khadafi does not mean they are 'Western'. That would imply that the rebels in Libya are also 'Western' or that other anti-regime protesters in other Arab countries are also 'Western' somehow. I don't think that would be fair towards them.

Lets be honest here. The fact that Al-Jazeera happens to be on the same side as NATO in this conflict is what is making them supposedly 'Western'. One has to wonder who one can trust more, an outlet like Al-Jazeera or a regime-funded newspaper in Iran (which themselves had to deal with massive protests starting about two years ago!).

[Trumble]

Just maybe al jazeera tries actually tries to report the facts without being 'pro' or 'anti' anybody? Radical idea, I know. What on earth have they done to suggest they are 'zionist', or is that just a general term of abuse these days?

I'd stick to Press TV, Karl. They won't provide much information as to 'what is really going on' in Libya, of course, but they should keep you happy and totally untroubled about needing to revise your world-view.

[Maryan0]

I don't believe Al Jazeera has changed one way or the other... but I do remember reading somewhere that an Israeli tycoon was trying to buy a stake in it and that Al Jazeera was contemplating it because they've been facing financial difficulties. I don't know if the deal went through or not or if it was just a rumour...
When I looked it up on google only Jewish sites came up:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-...jazeera-1.6466
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...787007,00.html
Salam

[Ramadhan]

Well, Al-Jazeera has just been very much on the side of the demonstrators/protesters in the 'Arab spring' uprisings. That they are very much anti-Khadafi does not mean they are 'Western'. That would imply that the rebels in Libya are also 'Western' or that other anti-regime protesters in other Arab countries are also 'Western' somehow. I don't think that would be fair towards them.

Did I ever say that I think Al Jazeera is becoming like western because they are on the side of demonstrators or that they are anti Ghadaffi?
I am anti Ghadaffi and I don't consider myself western.

[Riana17]

Salam
I choose not to include my self in such politics, i guess its a waste of time
we'll never know whats the truth

[KAding]

Fair enough. So if we look at Libya, what aspects of Al-Jazeera reporting on the conflict would you consider 'Western'?

[sarah85]

For once I agree with you. I don't know if al jazeera is zionist, but they are certainly more and more like western these days.

What do you mean by 'Western'? That is an extremely loaded term to use and hardly ever accurate.

[Karl]

Also the rebels in North Africa and South West Asia want a western style democracy. They abandoned Islam. Why?

[Who Am I?]

Is democracy really that incompatible with Islam?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm an outsider, but wouldn't any government that allows Muslims equal participation and does not interfere with their freedom to practice their religion in peace be acceptable?

[Who Am I?]

I'm an outsider, but wouldn't any government that allows Muslims equal participation and does not interfere with their freedom to practice their religion in peace be acceptable?

That's what I want to know. I wasn't born a Muslim, so I fail to see where a Western style democracy would be a compromise of faith.

[Karl]

Islam is a total package, religion and political system. Caliphate is the only way ligitimate to the scriptures. The really big problem with democracy is that it is a farce and totally un Islamic. There is no real accountability in democracy, leaders can run the country into the ground and say "don't complain in a few years you can vote for the other guy" (who will be no better). If a Caliph performs poorly the people can get him to abdicate or he may end up decapitated if he tries to hang onto power...much more efficient than mucking about with elections. Democracy can work with little clubs and societies but is hopeless for nations.

[Futuwwa]

So instead of having an orderly procedure for removing bad leaders (re-election), we should count on the mob to remove them in a messy, violent way that only empowers those with the most guns?

Democracy is the most un-Islamic form of government there is, except for all the others that exist.

All governments where you have actual people in power (which would, incidentally, be every possible type of government) empower leaders to do un-Islamic things. Democracy is not special in that regard.

[Futuwwa]

And as for Libya, remember that it was France who started the intevention. Pretty much on its own, regardless of whether any NATO countries would join in. Is it really implausible to you that some of the coalition may actually be in it for the stated reason, to stop Gaddafi from massacring his own people?

The only possible American self-interest I can see in it would be to get on friendly terms with any emergent Arab democracies, rather than remain remembered as the country that propped up yesteryear's hated dictators. Well, some amount of that it will inevitably be, but better late than never. Wouldn't you want your country to be remembered later on for having been on the right side of history?

[Karl]

So instead of having an orderly procedure for removing bad leaders (re-election), we should count on the mob to remove them in a messy, violent way that only empowers those with the most guns?

Democracy is the most un-Islamic form of government there is, except for all the others that exist.

All governments where you have actual people in power (which would, incidentally, be every possible type of government) empower leaders to do un-Islamic things. Democracy is not special in that regard.

Yup that's how it's always been, guns and violence rules. But you must remember the ruler can abdicate, it doesn't have to get ugly.

I suppose a divine Anarchy would be nice but you would be conquored and enslaved by another State. Caliphate gives you peace, security and the Islamic way. Allah knows best.

[Futuwwa]

A Caliph can be corrupted just as easily, if not even more easily, than an electorats. The history of Islam is certainly full of unworthy caliphs. Any government is exactly as Islamic as the people in it. Allah knows best, but does Allah command a caliphate? I have seen no credible case for why it is so. The Prophet Muhammed, peace be with him, did not leave any instructions for his succession, regardless of him knowing well enough that his last sermon would indeed be his last.

[Who Am I?]

As you said, any government where men rule is going to be corrupt, because it is men who rule. Maybe this is my Western upbringing talking, but I would rather at least have a pretense of having a say in what goes on in government rather than some distant ruler who is completely out of touch with reality making decisions on my behalf.

That being said, I still didn't vote in the last election. But it was my choice not to do so.

[Karl]

Wow, Islam must be going down the gurgler if no one wants a Caliphate. Anyone here not poisoned by the Infidels? Stick up for the Islamic way not the kafir way. I'm getting disollusioned by this board. Is it sponsered by the CIA to turn Muslims gay or what? Caliphate is Islamic way, democracy is gay feminist kafir way, end of story.

[Who Am I?]

Wow, Islam must be going down the gurgler if no one wants a Caliphate. Anyone here not poisoned by the Infidels? Stick up for the Islamic way not the kafir way. I'm getting disollusioned by this board. Is it sponsered by the CIA to turn Muslims gay or what? Caliphate is Islamic way, democracy is gay feminist kafir way, end of story.

Some of us are new Muslims who were raised in a Western democratic society. You try undoing 35 years of living one way and see how far you get in 2 weeks. Give us a break, man.

[Futuwwa]

Wow, Islam must be going down the gurgler if no one wants a Caliphate. Anyone here not poisoned by the Infidels? Stick up for the Islamic way not the kafir way. I'm getting disollusioned by this board. Is it sponsered by the CIA to turn Muslims gay or what? Caliphate is Islamic way, democracy is gay feminist kafir way, end of story.

First you'll have to convince me that a Caliphate is actually required by Islam and commanded by Allah and his prophet. Rather than something that was simply established after the Prophet's death.

[sister herb]

In Libya is civil war. Both Qaddafi nd NATO out from there.

:raging:

Let Libyans decide they matters. Alone!

[SFatima]

Some of us are new Muslims who were raised in a Western democratic society. You try undoing 35 years of living one way and see how far you get in 2 weeks. Give us a break, man.

well thats why things don't happen in 2 weeks, it takes years and years to bring a change. And people who root for the current system /lifestyle majorly running in the entire world at this moment really need to broaden their vision and see it for its true worth , which sadly is only destruction.

[GuestFellow]

:sl:

I'm getting disollusioned by this board. Is it sponsered by the CIA to turn Muslims gay or what?

Don't be so silly LOL. This forum is not sponsored by the CIA to turn Muslims gay.

Caliphate is Islamic way, democracy is gay feminist kafir way, end of story.

Democracy is not gay or feminist. It basically means the public can decide what type of government that they want and have a say in policy the government introduces. If the majority oppose gay marriage, then that is what will happen in a democracy.

[Karl]

And as for Libya, remember that it was France who started the intevention. Pretty much on its own, regardless of whether any NATO countries would join in. Is it really implausible to you that some of the coalition may actually be in it for the stated reason, to stop Gaddafi from massacring his own people?

The only possible American self-interest I can see in it would be to get on friendly terms with any emergent Arab democracies, rather than remain remembered as the country that propped up yesteryear's hated dictators. Well, some amount of that it will inevitably be, but better late than never. Wouldn't you want your country to be remembered later on for having been on the right side of history?

France is an Imperialist nation it has been kicking arse (genociding) in Africa and Arab lands for hundreds of years. "Money is the root of all evil" that is the key to all the Western meddling, attacks and invasions. Democracy is the Zionist tool for global imperialism.

[Trumble]

Wow, Islam must be going down the gurgler if no one wants a Caliphate.

Who did you have in mind for the job?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

And as for Libya, remember that it was France who started the intevention. Pretty much on its own, regardless of whether any NATO countries would join in. Is it really implausible to you that some of the coalition may actually be in it for the stated reason, to stop Gaddafi from massacring his own people?

The only possible American self-interest I can see in it would be to get on friendly terms with any emergent Arab democracies, rather than remain remembered as the country that propped up yesteryear's hated dictators. Well, some amount of that it will inevitably be, but better late than never. Wouldn't you want your country to be remembered later on for having been on the right side of history?

Really? Do you really believe that France, UK, USA of all countries looked over yonder and heard the cries of the Libyan people for freedom and decided to expend millions (eventually billions) of pounds 'rescue' them?

Given the past record of western powers in the Middle East (Iraq? Gaza massacre? Lebanon 2006? Palestine? What about Frances record in Algeria? Or Italy's past record in Libya? etc etc ad infinitum) to even entertain this thought is a serious delusion.

There goal is to subvert the revolutions to guide them in a direction that suits their interests nothing more. Question is whether they will succeed.

[Futuwwa]

French and Italian colonialism belongs to history, and has been denounced by almost complete consensus in those countries. You cannot use past record as definite proof of current intentions when it comes to democratic countries. Democratic countries don't have any single unified will or agenda, just countless different wills, influences and forces trying to drag the country in its own direction. There is no reason to presume that a democratic country would have to conduct consistent foreign policy.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Ah yes, lets forget about the lessons from history, for good reason, you learn to much.

For instance Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman revealed British colonial motives in the middle east. . .

'There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilisation and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another. . . . .Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects'

And it continues to this day, of course using more politically correct terminology (freedom, human rights, democracy).

Western powers have conducted a remarkably consistent foreign policy, with the goal of keeping the Middle East (particularly from the US point of view) subordinated to their interest with varying rates of success.

One example is that they are strongly oppossed to Arabs creating governments of their own choosing, after all cant have the oil producing regions of the world getting any ideas of their own.

This is all massively documented, For instance USA style itself as a promoter and exporter of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Is it?

http://killinghope.org/

[Futuwwa]

If the fact that it happened one way in the past implies that it does so now too, we'd still be under feudalism.

Who is Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, and who died and empowered him to decide eternally about British foreign policy?

[KAding]

There goal is to subvert the revolutions to guide them in a direction that suits their interests nothing more. Question is whether they will succeed.

To be fair, without Western intervention the Libyan revolution would likely have been beaten into the ground month ago.

I also do not see how the West can really 'subvert the revolution' (let alone others in the Arab world) by using air power in Libya. I suppose you believe this will be followed up by an invasion force of some kind?

[User29123]

The oil is running out, in Iraq and Afghan so Obama needs to move on,

if you keep up to date with AlexJonesChannel on Youtube you can see he speaks the truth, there was something about Gadaffi ordering troops to rape women, but it came out to be untrue, second is he still has like 2million supporters here watch these:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLz8...layer_embedded (WATCH FIRST)


http://www.infowars.com/human-rights...roops-to-rape/ (THEN READ THIS)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIpfet1QlOE (THEN WATCH THIS)

btw if it is true its, the US did more crimes a group of soldiers raped a 14yr girl (gang rape) and shot her family and 5yr sister...that reports is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJNyLSNDBQ

[Who Am I?]

:sl:

I think it's pretty obvious that this is nothing more than yet another Western land grab under the guise of "protection of freedom and democracy". Once again, religion is just being used as the means to accomplish that end, just like the so-called "War on Terror".

The real tragedy here is that thousands of innocent Libyans are being exploited, and many of them don't even realize it.