The real reason Gaddafi was killed.. pic.twitter.com/j5AlMC1oaA
— Semitic Jew (@semitic_jew) February 18, 2025
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
We dId Gaddafi AND Libya Dirty
Thursday, January 9, 2025
Slavery Still Needs to be Stomped Out
https://converseer.com/20-year-old-naima-jamal-abducted-in-libya-faces-torture-as-traffickers-demand-6000-ransom/ETHIOPIAN MIGRANT TORTURED AND AUCTIONED IN LIBYA SLAVE MARKET
— African Stream (@african_stream) January 8, 2025
In this heartbreaking video going viral on social media, 20-year-old Naima Jamal of Ethiopia is the latest migrant to fall prey to Libya's notorious trafficking gangs.
Naima, tortured and undergoing unimaginable… pic.twitter.com/AV02TdH2Ny
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Muammar Gaddafi Killed, Captured In Sirte: Reports (GRAPHIC PHOTOS)
Image via WikipediaWow. What does it say about you when people have a party when you are brutally killed? I do not think Muammar Gaddafi was a good man, but it should be sad to see anyone dragged through the streets. Some think that the violence in Libya will begin to subside, but I'm not so sure.Muammar Gaddafi Killed, Captured In Sirte: Reports (GRAPHIC PHOTOS)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Richard Carrier Blogs: Is Obama a War Criminal?
It was thus absolutely necessary for Obama to tip the scales away from Qadaffi's success (it will be a disaster for us if he wins--we need him to fail, in every conceivable sense of the word). Who succeeds him is irrelevant, even if its someone ambivalent or hostile to the U.S. That's because we have bigger interests here: as long as the precedent is not established that Qadaffi's methods will go unhindered and unpunished, and as long as the precedent is set instead that America supports the democracy trend raging through the whole region even when we aren't assured of gaining an ally (and that we will not support, even by acquiescence, any anti-democracy regime's use of violence--not even in Bahrain, where we are otherwise helpless), then the entire balance of power in the region is shifted in America's favor, which will be a great benefit to us in the long run. Because an anti-American party elected into power today will, if democracy is sustained, be voted out eventually. In fact, that's the only way the region ever can move forward toward better relations with the U.S. We need democracy in the region. And we will not have it if we sit idly by and let Qadaffi holocaust his own citizens, and then, by extension, any other ruler who will take the hint and do the same, knowing we'll do nothing about it.
I have to agree with his assessment of why we had to intervene in Libya. The question I have is what about all the precedents where the United States did indeed sit idly by and let ____ holocaust his own citizens, and then, by extension, any other ruler who will take the hint and do the same, knowing we'll do nothing about it.? For there have been many. I don't really have answers for how to do this. It's got to be on a case-by-case basis - true - but who do you save and who do you sacrifice on the altar of American interests? What happens when we have to give an account for that?'
Truth is that Obama is not a war criminal. We live in an age where people make truly stupid judgments without really knowing what they talk about. This is a case in point and Richard Carrier has written a post explaining how
Here is a clip from the Daily Show that was mentioned in Carrier's post:
Richard Carrier Blogs: Is Obama a War Criminal?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #69 - Libya vs. Iraq
Unfortunately we have many people on polarized opposite views. And some people are being labeled as being racist just because they disagree with President Obama.
A. People who hate President Obama because of his race and desire to discredit him by whatever means he can.
B. People who support anything President Obama says either because they believe the hype without any critical thinking or because they are afraid of being called "racist".
C. People who disagree with President Obama's policies and decisions not because he is black but just because they think they are poor ideas.
D. People who agree with President Obama because they think he is making good decisions.
I can respect C and D but not A or B. During the Election, the media seemed to go out of its way to either demonize Obama or portray him as some kind of Messiah sent to save us from the Tyranny of George W. Bush. I think this is unfair. I didn't like or agree with much of Bush said or did and yes, I questioned his sanity and intelligence, but to be completely fair I can't says that he acted any worse than any other President in my lifetime. I'm a black man. It was a big deal to have a black President when I didn't think I would ever see such a thing in my life time or my children's lifetime - if ever. I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of Obama being looked at as some kind of Messiah - who is smarter, nicer, more honest, and more trustworthy - to save America. There is only one Messiah. Obama is not his name. But in our euphoria, it seems to me like a lot of black folk forgot that. There seems to be this desire to avoid stating the obvious: Barack Hussein Obama is a capable American politician - not the "second coming". He isn't really all that much different from the national politicians that are democrats, other than he happens to have had a father who was born and raised in Africa and was black. That is not really a terrible thing, but we can't seem to do better. The other extreme is just as silly: President Obama is not the Anti-Christ. He is just as secular and just as "Christian" as most of the Presidents we have had in the past several decades. On one hand this is something I hate, but I can't be mad, Obama made his position on religions crystal clear...and we voted him anyway.
As for the points raised in the video, I think the video is a little too critical of President Obama and praises Bush a little too much. However, it truly dismays me that people are not really looking at what's happening in Libya and not asking why is it okay for Obama to intervene but it was wrong for Bush to intervene in Iraq? If we can't answer that question then I think, as the video shows, we have as problem. I also thought that comments left on the video very interesting. Some of them point out some fundamental facts about how Iraq's situation is different than the one in Libya. I agree with them, but it still doesn't really explain why Obama is correct and Bush was wrong. I mean so what if Obama did not get congressional approval to bomb Libya? Bush didn't have it either when he started moving. So what if Obama hasn't used ground forces in Libya? We still have American in harms way and if this escalates we know American ground troops will be used. Face it, what President hasn't used troops without Congress declaring war since WWII? All of them.
Some people say that we should not have intervened in Libya or Iraq. I'm not sure about that. I think that we need to be honest about why we do what we do, and not claim it's solely humanitarian because we don't intervene everywhere and there is genocide and human civil right violations happening all over the world and we do nothing about it. Libya and Iraq have strategic and economic importance of higher priority than Sudan or Rwanda. It's more about dollars and cents than it is about racism but we can't pretend that racism has nothing to do with it.
Again the facepalm is invoked because we have people spouting ignorant rhetoric without really thinking about what they are saying and supporting and when someone tries to reasoned and logical questions, it is like talking to a wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)