I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
If they do it, it's always for humanitarian reasons or in self-defence - if others do it, it's always terrorism. That's the western mindset (also of the non-Muslim posters here).
I think thats such a simplistic view of the western mindset and the non-muslim posters here of which i am both. There is no such thing as a western mindset thats what freedoms about.
If you read my post carefully you will see im not that niave and neither are a lot of western people. But sadly there are people in the west who believe there is an Arab mindset that can't deal with democracy and can only be truley happy with a dictator as ruler and if given the chance to vote will cast the vote to hand over democracy for a dictatorship of theocracy. Now isn't that just silly too.
I think thats such a simplistic view of the western mindset and the non-muslim posters here of which i am both. There is no such thing as a western mindset thats what freedoms about.
The western mindset in this context is mindset of the western government. Obviously not all individuals agree with that; most of us here are in the west but that doesn't mean we also agree with the decisions made by our governments.
If the view is so simplistic then why has nobody answered why the governments are not going after other countries where far more of the population has been killed by corrupt leaders?
format_quote Originally Posted by 3rddec
If you read my post carefully you will see im not that niave and neither are a lot of western people.
format_quote Originally Posted by 3rddec
Love and Respect
Sadly I've read a few of your posts and they are rarely respectful.
Btw I am happy that Gaddafi's military power is being weakened. Hopefully this thing won't last much longer.
When Israel bombed Gaza at the end of 2008 in a brutal action which killed 1,300 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings, there was no question of the US allowing the UN to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza to protect its people, 50% of which are children.
Can We Get a No-Fly-Zone For Pakistan?
U.S. Kills as Many as 80 Civilians in Pakistan
By Xinhua
Pakistan's army chief said in a press release that it is highly regrettable that a jirga, or open-air meeting, of peaceful citizens including elders of the area was carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard to human life.
If you read through the thread only you have taken the words to mean that.
Members of the Israeli government themselves spoke of the defeat of Israel. I think you're on your own as to interpreting what those words mean. The majority of people don't need to play word games or argue over something which is quite plain.
I have read through it. Clearly you have not. OK, just one more time.
Post 216, Argamemnon.
Can somebody explain to me why the West doesn't want to get rid of the brutal Israeli regime?
Post 217, me
Because militarily it would be extremely difficult to do (as Arab armies have already discovered on several occasions).
Post 222, Argamemnon
Also, you seem to have forgotten that Hizbullah has defeated Israel on several occasions
Post 230, me
Hizbullah has not 'defeated Israel' at all in the sense you are talking about as Israel is still there, as is its regime neither of which Hizbullah ever remotely threatened. They are not my army, and they are not invincible, but if 'regime change' in Israel was quite so easy you don't think somebody might have managed by now?
Then after a repeat exchange of the same, you dropped in at 248. Now, if you and Argamemnon wish to believe that a regime still comfortably in place has been 'defeated', that the 2000 and 2006 conflicts somehow demonstrate that that regime could be easily and painlessly removed by anyone who wanted to try, or that Hizbollah could fire a few rockets, march in tomorrow and kick all the 'Zionists' into the sea, I'll leave you to you delusions.
Do you honestly that it is the reason why the West doesnt want to get rid of the brutal Israeli regime?
Wow.
Just wow.
And all this time we have been taking you seriously.
Wow.
Just wow.
So many people incapable of actually reading relevant posts before trying to be a smart*$$
If you could have been bothered to read the whole post, the number of which I thoughtfully provided (and you even quoted!), you would have observed I gave four reasons, of which that was one. Let me save you a few clicks. I've corrected the numbering typo that Dagless found so offensive :rolleyes:
1) Because it's rather less brutal than many others, and attempting to get rid of it would kill far more people than not attempting to do so.
2) It's very hard to get rid of a democratic elected regime and provide any alternative other than a dictatorship of some sort.
3) Because there are no votes in it, and no economic interests in it.
4) Because militarily it would be extremely difficult to do (as Arab armies have already discovered on several occasions).
I appreciate you'll probably babble on about Zionist influence, conspiracies and such; include that in 3) if you like.
I think I'll leave the thread there as, frankly, life is too short to keep fielding this sort of puerile rubbish. Might pop back if anyone actually wants to talk about Liyba again. You know, the subject of the thread.
Now, if you and Argamemnon wish to believe that a regime still comfortably in place has been 'defeated', that the 2000 and 2006 conflicts somehow demonstrate that that regime could be easily and painlessly removed by anyone who wanted to try, or that Hizbollah could fire a few rockets, march in tomorrow and kick all the 'Zionists' into the sea, I'll leave you to you delusions.
I know you hate Muslims passionately, nevertheless eventually Israeli oppression will end. Eventually Israel will have to accept a Palestinian state. That's all I'm saying, don't put words in my mouth. Also, much to your dislike, the balance of power in the region and in the world at large will change, it's inevitable and this change has already started. Keep hating the victims and supporting the oppressors, but it's all in vain.
kick all the 'Zionists' into the sea
This clearly reveals your sick mindset. No Muslim state wants to "wipe off Israel of the map and kill all Jews". Give me a break man. You are a very ignorant man full of hatred and prejudice against Muslims and have an extremely distorted view of historical events.
Last edited by Argamemnon; 03-21-2011 at 04:25 PM.
I would like to point out that you don't have to support Israel to oppose certain Islamic states, and vice versa. I have noticed a tendency here for people to assume that all non-muslims support Israel. It is a false apprehension.
Personally I would like to see Israel either drop the "Jewish state" and invite palestinian muslims as fully equal citizens, or make way for a Palestinian state. And by a Palestinian state I mean a fair division of the lands and resources, not some ghettoized useless piece of land.
I have noticed a tendency here for people to assume that all non-muslims support Israel.
Most of them do, fairly recent polls in the US at least suggest this to be the case (I'm too lazy to search for it, I'm doing 10 things at the same time at the moment, cleaning my room, reading books, posting on forums, making phone calls and so on! )
I don't hate muslims at all. And I'm afraid the only 'mindset' revealed is yours, in somehow managing to draw that conclusion from what I've said.
No Muslim state wants to "wipe off Israel of the map and kill all Jews". Give me a break man. You are a very ignorant man full of hatred and prejudice against Muslims and have an extremely distorted view of historical events.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice about putting words in people' mouths.. you have 'quoted' something I never said. If you can produce anything to justify that last sentence, other than your own stupidity and lack of comprehension, please do so. Otherwise, please mull over the fact that I have over 3,000 posts here over 5 years. In that time I've managed to accumulate exactly two infractions, one for insulting Islam (which was accidental) and one for insulting another member (which wasn't). While, thankfully, it can't be said that the moderators here rule with the proverbial rod of iron, they do not mess about in banning troublemakers. So if I am so full of hatred and prejudice against muslims, how come I'm still here? Is it that nobody else shares your deep insight and understanding of my character? Or could it just be that you are talking out of your backside?
You are wrong, of course the Israeli regime can be removed; just stop supplying them with weapons, or supply the Palestinians and Lebanese with the same weapons you supply Israel with. Or threaten Israel with nuclear annihilation instead of threatening Iran. It's much easier than you think. The truth is; Israelis are cowards, they can't fight like men. Ask those brave Hizbullah soldiers who fought in 2000 and 2006. Even Hizbullah's reserve soldiers defeated some of Israel's best trained units; the Givati Infantry Brigade. What does that tell you? I'm not fabricating stuff like you because I'm not a trumpet. I've read the details of these wars in Zionist and American reports in which very humiliating facts were frankly admitted. It was extremely humiliating for Israel, alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah).
Last edited by Argamemnon; 03-21-2011 at 04:19 PM.
U.S. adults nearly four times as likely to side with Israelis as with Palestinians
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians
format_quote Originally Posted by
I have noticed a tendency here for people to assume that all non-muslims support Israel. It is a false apprehension.
Not all non-muslims of course, but certainly most non-muslims, as polls after poll showed.
Then after a repeat exchange of the same, you dropped in at 248. Now, if you and Argamemnon wish to believe that a regime still comfortably in place has been 'defeated', that the 2000 and 2006 conflicts somehow demonstrate that that regime could be easily and painlessly removed by anyone who wanted to try, or that Hizbollah could fire a few rockets, march in tomorrow and kick all the 'Zionists' into the sea, I'll leave you to you delusions.
You're the only one who took it to mean that though. The rest of this thread, and the Israeli government confirmed it to be a defeat. You imagine the word "regime" in your head, add it on to what people are saying, and then have the nerve to call others deluded.
It also accurately demonstrated that Israel's army is not as strong as you seem to think. Certainly not a match for the US. Worse still you use that as a reason to not get rid of the regime.
People who don't know the reality behind many of the world conflicts feel the need to argue about it. Why comment and reveal your ignorance, why embarrass yourself by parroting Zionist and Western media propaganda?
"The rising up of the people ... and the conservative mind
James Baker served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's first administration and in the final year of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. He was also Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and Secretary of State under Bush. Thus, by establishment standards and values, inside marble-columned institutions, Baker is a man to be taken seriously when it comes to affairs of state. Here he is on February 3, during an interview by our favorite TV station, our very own shining beacon of truth, Fox News:
"We want to see the people in the Middle East have a chance at democracy and free markets ... I'm sorry, democracy and human rights." 3
Baker has a record of speaking his mind, whether Freudian-slip-like or not. When he was Secretary of State, on an occasion when the Middle East was being discussed at a government meeting, and Jewish-American influence was mentioned, Baker was reported to have said "**** the Jews! They don't vote for us anyway." 4
News flash: "Judge Mustafa Abdel Jallil, the Libyan justice minister who resigned last week in protest over the use of force against unarmed civilians, said he has proof that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. He would not disclose details of the alleged evidence." 5
Hmmm, let me guess now why he wouldn't disclose details of the alleged evidence ... hmmm ... Ah, I know — because it doesn't exist! How could Gadhafi's many enemies in Libya resist kicking him like this when he's down? Or perhaps the honorable judge is simply protecting himself from a future international criminal tribunal for his years of service to the Libyan state? If you read any more of such nonsense — and you will — reach for some of the antidote I've been providing for more than 20 years." 6
I don't know if this was posted before, but I'll post it anyway.
World Cheers as the CIA Plunges Libya Into Chaos
By David Rothscum
March 01, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- February 23, 2011 -- How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let us look at the facts for a moment.
Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.
People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the resources while the population starves, unlike countries like Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.
Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn't, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.
The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The current prime-minister is
Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the architect of Libya's current political system, a mixture of pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.
Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we speak. "Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in" youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5fLGNg0sk is gone. "Pro Gaddafi protests in front of Libyan embassy London" youtube.com/watch?v=pRwv0Ac8qbc Is gone. Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when it's from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it's viewers than chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.
Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the general people's congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?
The riots erupting now are not secular youth desiring change, or anything like we saw in Egypt and Tunisia. A group calling itself "Islamic Emirate of Barka", the former name of the North-Western part of Libya, has taken numerous hostages, and killed two policemen. This is not a recent development. On Friday, the 18th of February, the group stole 70 military vehicles after attacking a port and killing four soldiers. Unfortunately, a military colonel has joined the group and provided them with further weapons. The uprising started in the eastern city of Benghazi. The Italian foreign minister has raised his fears of an Islamic Emirate of Benghazi declaring itself independent.
So where does this sudden uprising come from? The answer is that the same groups the US has been funding for decades are now taking their chance to gain control over the nation. A group recently arrested in Libya consisted of dozens of foreign nationals that were involved in numerous acts of looting and sabotage. The Libyan government could not rule out links to Israel.
Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this organization that called for the "Day of Rage" that plunged Libya into chaos on February 17 of this year.
It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been opposed to Gadaffi's rule. It should be noted that the National Front for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this failed uprising.
Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent against the United States. This concept is called the United States of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the assasination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.
The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has historically been divided into various tribal groups.
This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans. The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.
Please remember at all times that the violent Libyan civil war unfolding now is not comparable to the revolutions seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Both of these revolutions involved peaceful protesters suffering from poverty, in opposition to their corrupt governments. The chaos in Libyan consists of a mixture of tribal conflicts, conflict over oil revenue (since most oil is in the east of the country), radical islamists opposed to Gadaffi's system of government, and outside destabilization by Western funded exile groups.
Gadaffi took control in a bloodless coup from a sick monarch away for medical treatment 41 years ago. His ideology is based on unification and he attempted to peacefully merge his country with Egypt and Syria. It would take a miracle for the violence unfolding now to lead to a single stable democratic government in Libya, with full control over the entire country. The country is more than twice the size of Pakistan, but with 6 million inhabitants. Endless deserts divide many of the cities in the nation. If anything we should ask ourselves how many more nations will be shattered into pieces in the coming months, as the world cheers.
Please visit David Rothscum Reports.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
)
:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks