What is really going on in Libya?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Karl
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 39
  • Views Views 7K
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.
 
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?
 
Futuwwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

:raging:

Let Libyans decide they matters. Alone!
 
King of Nines said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
:sl:

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Futuwwa said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Salaam

Futuwwa said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
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?
 
Junon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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=ISLz8Fv0eik&feature=player_embedded (WATCH FIRST)


http://www.infowars.com/human-rights-group-no-evidence-gaddafi-encouraged-troops-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
 
Last edited:
: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.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top