This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Libya
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
804522
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
804522
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
From where? The Green Book?
If so, show me where, and show me by what legitimate means it came to be the source of authority.
As far as I'm aware, the Gaddafi government is recognised to be the ruling authority in Libya by the UN. You can argue about how it came to be the source of authority and whether such methods are legitimate or not until the cows come home, but it's fairly clear that in the eyes of the international community, he's in charge.
As for where in the Green Book it states that they can forcibly remove you from a public location, I would argue that in Libya, where there is no constitution post-coup, the government is entitled to do whatever it damn well wants, and the onus is actually on
you
to demonstrate why it doesn't have said powers.
The process doesn't matter. It's the fact that the government opened fire on protesters
with live #$%^ing ammunition
.
Difference in society. In any event, if "
civilians
" opened up on police forces with lethal force, I don't see why they shouldn't use similar force to regain control. What do you expect them to do, walk in with riot shields when there are molotov cocktails being thrown overhead (for example)?
As soon as one party escalates violence (assuming that the protesters were the first to start being physically violent by rejecting removal), I believe that they lose the moral high ground. If a person punches a military officer at a military base, he can't cry poor if he gets shot in the ensuing attempt to subdue him. If someone attacks a police officer in the street, I don't think anybody would object if they used their firearm to protect themselves from a lethal attack. I don't see this situation as being much different.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
From where? The Green Book?
If so, show me where, and show me by what legitimate means it came to be the source of authority.
As far as I'm aware, the Gaddafi government is recognised to be the ruling authority in Libya by the UN. You can argue about how it came to be the source of authority and whether such methods are legitimate or not until the cows come home, but it's fairly clear that in the eyes of the international community, he's in charge.
As for where in the Green Book it states that they can forcibly remove you from a public location, I would argue that in Libya, where there is no constitution post-coup, the government is entitled to do whatever it damn well wants, and the onus is actually on
you
to demonstrate why it doesn't have said powers.
So forcible action against the government is legitimate? That's how Gaddafi came into power and you seem to recognize his authority as legitimate. So then why aren't the actions of the rebels legitimate? In fact, why isn't any action legitimate? The only thing left is just simple brute power to enforce your will. So, I think you're wrong to say that they have the "authority" mow down people.
So then the question is no longer a legal question (as both sides are equal in that regard) but a moral one. And I think most ethicists would agree that killing people for protesting is immoral.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
804522
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm tired of U.S.and European imperialism.
Imperialism is an interesting word to be used... I guess I don't understand what you're saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
Post by
804522
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Interesting stuff (thanks for the link, Hyperspacereble)! Sort of like Emmanuel Wallerstein's Core-Periphery relationship stuff?
Well, sure, the world-systems analysis is one possible way of analyzing and explaining certain aspects of modern imperialism. I don't think it's the only valid system, but it works.
Post by
804522
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Wow this is close.
Captcha: Overall success. Hmm?
Post by
Skreeran
A. That's not quite comparable. Gitmo is at least supposed to be for terrorists, whereas in Libya it's normal citizens that are being tortured and raped by their government.
Just to be clear here. The 'civillians' have illegally taken control of major cities by force and are shooting at Gaddafi's troops when they move in to try to take back control.
As far as the Libyan authorities is concerned, those people *are* terrorists.I'm not talking about rebel combatants. I'm talking about normal people minding their own business who are getting bombs dropped on them, or who are getting raped by the police.
I was going to, for a while, but since I want to be a Doctor, I thought going Medic would let me be a ground soldier while also getting medical experience.
You don't have the temperament to be a doctor. You're too emotional about things, sorry to say.That's kind of an assholish thing to say. What the hell do you know about who I really am?
Post by
Squishalot
So forcible action against the government is legitimate? That's how Gaddafi came into power and you seem to recognize his authority as legitimate.
http://countrystudies.us/libya/28.htm
The RCC advised diplomatic representatives in Libya that the revolutionary changes had not been directed from outside the country, that existing treaties and agreements would remain in effect, and that foreign lives and property would be protected. Diplomatic recognition of the new regime came quickly from countries throughout the world. United States recognition was officially extended on September 6.
...
Within days of the coup, however, Hasan publicly renounced all rights to the throne, stated his support for the new regime, and called on the people to accept it without violence.
That's why I recognise his authority as legitimate.
His action to obtain power may not have been within the laws of the country, and the authorities of the time would have been well within their rights to take action against him. They didn't / couldn't, and thus, the rest is history.
So then why aren't the actions of the rebels legitimate? In fact, why isn't any action legitimate? The only thing left is just simple brute power to enforce your will. So, I think you're wrong to say that they have the "authority" mow down people.
You're living in a country that rebelled against British rule, and you're asking me that? Is the American Government legitimate?
So then the question is no longer a legal question (as both sides are equal in that regard) but a moral one. And I think most ethicists would agree that killing people for protesting is immoral.
Again - it is my belief (and let me make it clear:
belief
, as in, I don't claim this necessarily as
fact
, but rather what I think is the most likely version of events) that the Gaddafi regime retaliated with violence against protesters in response to violence instigated by the protesters who objected to being told to go away. In that respect, the regime's soldiers who retaliated would have acted in self defense. What subsequently spiraled out of control, with cities being taken and air strikes and so forth, is irrelevant to the initial flashpoint.
I'm not talking about rebel combatants. I'm talking about normal people minding their own business who are getting bombs dropped on them, or who are getting raped by the police.
Same goes both ways. You think that the UN airstrikes are only hitting military targets?
That's kind of an assholish thing to say. What the hell do you know about who I really am?
Just expressing an opinion. You've made yourself known on these boards to have a hot head and to get emotional about things. As a doctor, you need to compartmentalise all the emotional crap away in order to deal with things rationally. It's not something that everybody can do, and it's not a slur on you; I just don't think you're suited for it, for that reason. If who you are online isn't anything like what you're really like in real life, then who really cares what I say?
Post by
557539
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Same goes both ways. You think that the UN airstrikes are only hitting military targets?They should be, and are, as far as I know.
Just expressing an opinion. You've made yourself known on these boards to have a hot head and to get emotional about things. As a doctor, you need to compartmentalise all the emotional crap away in order to deal with things rationally. It's not something that everybody can do, and it's not a slur on you; I just don't think you're suited for it, for that reason. If who you are online isn't anything like what you're really like in real life, then who really cares what I say?I am
passionate
when it comes to certain debate topics. That does not mean that I am unable to react appropriately to a crisis when I have to. I would ask you to refrain from making judgments about what professions I am and am not suited for just based on my attitude when debating.
There's U.S towns that have had to cut over 1/2 their police force, but we can afford to drop half million dollar bombs to the tune of over $70m in just days in
another
country we have
no f#*^ing business
being in.Our standard of living is far higher than most countries. I am not a nationalist, and if I have to choose between saving a hundred American lives or a thousand foreign lives, I would have to choose the option that conserves the most human lives, regardless of what country they happened to be born in.
I find myself imagining if I had been born in Libya and was now risking my life to keep my family safe from oppression. I would damn sure appreciate a little help by one of those rich countries with the big militaries whose majority of people already live safe and happy.
Post by
Squishalot
They should be, and are, as far as I know.
You'll probably dismiss it as Gaddafi propaganda, but Libyan news outlets were reporting civilians were hit and brought to hospitals.
I am passionate when it comes to certain debate topics. That does not mean that I am unable to react appropriately to a crisis when I have to. I would ask you to refrain from making judgments about what professions I am and am not suited for just based on my attitude when debating.
I can only speak about what I observe. For example, I know that HSR wants to be a teacher - he'd make a great teacher, except for his tendency to pick on small things and get sidetracked. Now, it could be that when he does eventually become a teacher, he won't succumb to evil students like me who'll lead him down that path. But it's not represented here on this thread, which is the only evidence I have to draw from about who HSR is.
On a side note - you don't need to be dispassionate to deal with things unemotionally. Doctors can be passionate about saving lives, but not let their emotions cloud their actions. I'm sure HSR is a passionate Catholic, but that doesn't affect his philosophical arguments. (Most of the time ;))
I find myself imagining if I had been born in Libya and was now risking my life to keep my family safe from oppression. I would damn sure appreciate a little help by one of those rich countries with the big militaries whose majority of people already live safe and happy.
For the same reason that I wouldn't join a protest or workers union strike here in the developed world, if I had been born in Libya, I wouldn't be risking my life at all, because putting myself in a place where I could get myself killed won't help my family
Post by
557539
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I am not a nationalist
Implying that I am?
You quote a statement I made and comment, but won't answer my questions?. Where does it end? Should we be in Syria, Bahrain and the Congo too? I'm sure you have Libya's best interests at heart, but do you seriously think all parties involved in this intervention are committed solely for the purpose of saving the Libyan people? You seriously think NATO won't kill any civilians? Look at Afghanistan and Iraq.All I can say is that I think that we should try everything in our power to minimize the slaughter of civilians.
I really don't care about the monetary cost if the alternative is simply sitting back and watching it happen. That's my stance, and I will always apply that stance.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.