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.
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.
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.
Do you have evidence for that? If you do, please post it.
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.
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.
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!).
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks