Libya today

[whisper]

Thanks you for random generalization, and taking me for a US citizen.....
Please, more.

[maturin]

Well even in Yugoslawia people weren´t that stupid to devastate cemeteries (at least not in croatia).
Those Lybians are a bunch of stupid, ignorant, uneducated and dumb fools.

I know, right? These dirty animals are so retarded and depraved that they are disrespecting dead people!

I pine for the good old days when they were killing living people like good civilized Europeans.

Sure, a few months ago Ghaddafi was firing DPICM at hospitals, but at least there wasn't *gasp* vandalism.

[ProfTournesol]

I'm not supporting war on Lybia in the slightest, nor was I a supporter of Gaddhafi, quite the opposite.

But I'm really baffled the above quote can be used as an argument to support brutal, autocratic regime which silenced any opposition for decades. Not even mentioning the state terrorism used by Gaddhafi himself.

"streets were clean and in proper order" .... The foul odor being this sentence is horrible.

Yep, i agree with you but i think the debate is worth being held, those arab countries (Irak, Lybia, Egypt, even Tunisia somehow) are extremely destabilized after the end of several decades of stable dictatorship, and are only discovering what freedom or democracy could mean. So the next step after dictatorship isn't occidental-like democracy but anarchy. It took a century for our country to reach something approaching democracy after the end of the monarchy, i'm afraid it won't take less than 50 years for them. If radical islam allows them to.

[froggyluv]

Sorry I disagree, there has been no freedom in Libya for decades. Now there is some, there will need to be a period of readjustment. These armed militias will continue and worse things will happen until they learn to trust a new government and work together. I think it's worth it. People who travel to dictatorships and enjoy the fruits of the suffering of millions of people are more than a little strange. Only someone who didn't experience day to day oppression or suffer personally could think that was ok.

I know, right? These dirty animals are so retarded and depraved that they are disrespecting dead people!

I pine for the good old days when they were killing living people like good civilized Europeans.

Sure, a few months ago Ghaddafi was firing DPICM at hospitals, but at least there wasn't *gasp* vandalism.

+1 these.

Do people really expect no transition and immediate dawn of Libyan do-gooderness? Kinda like when our Marines pissed on dead people - not pleasant but c'mon -they're there to kill people which would probably feel far more rude.

[Sanctuary]

I don't remember any armed, not peacefull, revolutions ending into a period of peace, harmony, friendship between all the people.
Usually the transition period of this kind of revolution has always been hell on Earth for people living on location, as shown through history.

The main question for the lybian people is how the rebels, that HQ had several guys from Al Qaeda (there must be a very lot of money to grab there to have motivated the NATO leaders to support them, as they knew long before who was at the rebellion helm), will establish their hold on Lybia, will they have a "Taliban Afghanistan II" kind of oppressive dictature or a half-dictature, half-republic like in Iran ?

[krzychuzokecia]

Hi all!

Some reading, about not-exactly-war-in-Libya: report by Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, about foreign fighters in Iraq (made in 2007). Figure 3: most of the Al Queda terrorists in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and Libya, from which 1/3 is from Benghazi. Benghazi is the centre of Libyan fundamentalism and was (is?) always fighting against secular Libya. When Ghaddafi got to power in Libya, his opposition (guys who were also shooting at civilians - but in the name of pro-western king Idris, so they were OK) also settled up in Benghazi. Benghazi fighters are the worst kind of fundamentalists - Wahhabists, who are unwelcome even in Iran (probably because Wahhabism was born in Saudi Arabia, Iran's opponent in world of Islam).

Ghaddafi was against Islamic fundamentalism, for what he took praise even from US - two countries have even co-operated during Operation Iraqi Freedom (involvment of Libyan intelligence)! It is totally opposite with people from Benghazi. Their ideal country is like Iran, but even worse. They're minority in Libya, but now they're in power. That means regime worse for other Libyans, then Ghaddafi was, because the rest of Libyan people are used to live in liberal (in terms of religion/morality, not politics) country. Well, just see what happened to black nomad people who were living in south-east of country. Ghaddafi was first who gave them right to education, but now they're exterminated by new "lords" - because they're not Arabs.

Sorry I disagree, there has been no freedom in Libya for decades.

I agree with you, but new government is just new regime. Thing is that Ghaddafi, who was somewhat obsessed with Marx theories (just like western politicians who were part of 1960s liberal movements), gave Libyan people some basic rights and really big social support. Now there is no other law than Sharia & AK-47, and there's no support because Libyan oil fields were sold to France and other European countries (Chinese are mad, because they bought some of that fields before the revolution broke out).

Do people really expect no transition and immediate dawn of Libyan do-gooderness?

Well, of course that democracy in Libya won't happen in a second, but look at Egypt - military took the power (in Libya military was destroyed), but there was no massive killing like in Libya. That's what I'd call "transition period". It's just like in Poland, instead of civil war there was agreement at Magdalenka signed during famous Round Table talks, and we had period when communist dictator Jaruzelski was president, but government was formed by opposition. Sorry, but civil war is not "transition period".

[ProfTournesol]

Sorry, but civil war is not "transition period".

Yes and no. Most revolutions begin with (1) kicking the dictator / king / Tsar etc. out, then (2) getting rid of its last supporters (ie civil war, as in France or Russia), then (3) an inner fight between revolutionaries (the biggest bloodshed usually) until the strongest (or most clever one) prevails. Most of the time, the fourth step is a time of stabilization again, close to dictatorship.

[krzychuzokecia]

Yes and no.

Well, that depends on interpretation. Incidentally, revolutions are part of my studies, and according to classical definition, revolution has 3 possible endings:
- fail - revolution is defeated, rebels are treated like criminals, leaders are going to be executed
- win - revolution wins, political program of rebels is put into practice, and new stable government is created
- draw - neither gov't nor rebels can win, compromise program is set for new government (founded from old politicians, and new revolution activists), both sides are not satisfied but they're also to weak to continue fights - situation like in Egypt, or Poland '89 (take note that Eastern European revolutions of 80s were peaceful - apart from Romania).

From this point of view, what you wrote:

Most revolutions begin with (1) kicking the dictator / king / Tsar etc. out, then (2) getting rid of its last supporters (ie civil war, as in France or Russia), then (3) an inner fight between revolutionaries (the biggest bloodshed usually) until the strongest (or most clever one) prevails.

is still revolution. Inner fights between rebels are considered as revolution, because old gov't has fallen, but there's no winning political program. But then again - am I completely right? Or are you completely wrong?

Yes and no.

I'm analyzing revolution process from political point of view, while you from historical. So we are both right, and there's no simple answer when revolution has it's end - when old dictator was "kicked" (so that's end of historical period of country), or when new stable government is founded (end of political period).

[PELHAM]

Some reading, about not-exactly-war-in-Libya: report by Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, about foreign fighters in Iraq (made in 2007). Benghazi fighters are the worst kind of fundamentalists - Wahhabists, who are unwelcome even in Iran.

Well, of course that democracy in Libya won't happen in a second, but look at Egypt - military took the power (in Libya military was destroyed), but there was no massive killing like in Libya. That's what I'd call "transition period". Sorry, but civil war is not "transition period".

You are labelling an entire country and government as Islamic Fundamentalists because 112 Libyan Jihadists turned up in Iraq? 112 out of 5.6 million? If they really are what you accuse them of surely they could have sent a few more?

The latest UN report states:
"current conditions" in Libya had to be understood against the background of "the damage caused to the fabric of the society by decades of corruption, serious human rights violations and sustained repression of any opposition."

Transition periods differ, you can't compare Libya with Egypt because the situations were completely different. In Libya after Gadaffi there was no government or NGO's of any kind, that is why things are not good. In Egypt the military, police, civil service etc remained in place. You see, completely different situation?

As for the rest - do you get this info somewhere or dream it up yourself? Some people are desperate to find evidence of Libya failing and curiously they are the same people that defended Gadaffi during the uprising.
Try this one: Libya is not a failed state in waiting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-waiting.html

@Sudayev, not safe? They are holding international football matches in Benghazi?
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...81J0FG20120220

[NacroxNicke]

Things have went different if the Libyan revolution didn't go armed after the first months. After the introduction of extremists parties in the movement things obviously changed. It could have help to derrocate Gaddafi itself, but at the cost of a more violent transition to democracy after it.