quote: “In fact, the country is in a worse situation than it was under Gadhafi, Fadel says. Militias, divided by region, by ideology, by tribe, now divide Libya, controlling what are essentially a series of city-states.”
Gkhan, you obviously disagree with the U.S. taking action against Qadaffi, but are you saying we should have actively supported him, provided him with arms, or intervened on his behalf? Or just stayed the fuck out of it?
I will say, from my perspective, there is pretty strong evidence that that fucker directly ordered C4 planted on a Pan Am flight that killed over 100 americans and that contributed to the demise of a great american airline, not to mention the German Disco he bombed. He also had direct ties to Moscow during the cold war and was at least as plugged in to Moscow as Castro was. He might have softened his tune in later years after getting crushed by sanctions and after the wall came down, but I just don’t see how we could provide arms or support to someone responsible for downing a U.S. commercial airliner with over 100 americans on it. Frankly, that’s not an act that I can forgive.
Generally, if two sides to a conflict are lead by terrorists or strongly connected to terrorists, I don’t see why we should be providing military support to either side. Qadaffi was a terrorist who committed terrorist acts–maybe the second worst terrorist act in U.S. history–directly against the U.S. and there was a reason Reagan ordered bombs dropped on that fucker’s house.
Stayed out of it. I mean, hell, we stayed out of Syria, didn’t we? Now we got ISIS taking a foothold in Africa. Do you think that’s better for the world?
Anyway, read my links, Qaddafi gave up his support for terrorism, gave up his nuke program, tried to make good with the West and was an active supporter on the war on terror because he was originally targeted for assassination by Al-Qaeda in the 90’s when they were based in Africa.
And for this, we basically killed him.
I don’t agree with North Korea having nukes and Iran wanting them, but I understand where they are coming from in light of what happened to Ukraine (who gave up their nuclear arms) and Libya.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Stayed out of it. I mean, hell, we stayed out of Syria, didn’t we? Now we got ISIS taking a foothold in Africa.[/quote]
Do you not see the enormous logical problem with invoking Syria here? “I mean, we stayed out of Syria, didn’t we?” Yes, we did, and the years-long civil war there, along with the decade-long, whirling clusterfuck that we created in Iraq, made Islamic extremism fat and happy. ISIS is a product of protracted, violent struggle, first in Iraq, then in Syria. There is every reason to believe that a bloodier, longer, and more intense civil war in Libya would have generated commensurately more energy for an ISIS or ISIS-like movement. Our intervention ended the intense fighting fairly quickly and, as a result, we haven’t seen in Libya what we’ve been seeing in Syria and Iraq – neither in magnitude nor number. Now that ISIS is coming in significant number to Libya, it’s seeping in with groups joining up with, and getting training from, a cancer that was created on the outside, in protracted, continuous wars of the kind we helped largely to avoid in Libya.
Now, I’ll take something you and JJ have been talking about and take it a step further. It’s possible that the best thing we could have done, in a bubble and only vis-a-vis ISIS and ISIS-like threats, would have been to join Qaddafi and crush the uprising in 2011. But that would have been basically impossible for a number of obvious reasons. Here’s the counter-intuitive part: so far as I can tell, the next-best thing was not to do nothing, but to help speed Qaddafi’s fall. Because the last thing we should be looking for, in any case, is a long civil war in the Middle East. That much has become crystal clear.
I agree, civil war in the Middle East is terrible and what you have said is true. Isis was further birthed by the resistance (al-qaeda, whether homegrown or formed from the the Afghanistan-Pakistan branch, in any event, they formed an allegiance and split and now formed ISIS which split with Al-Qaeda in Syria or Al-nursa.) in Iraq which probably would not have happened if we had not gotten involved there. So it’s like the domino effect of the Communist Threat happening again in reality only with Islamists instead of Marxists.
I’ve continued to think about this and I still hold firm to my position. Look at it logically. When angry black “youths” organise and complain of racism it’s pretty obvious that there’s likely going to be some race riots of some kind. Obama really had a responsibility to calm things down and prevent that. He could have used his close connection with the black community to make a difference. But he did the opposite. He fostered phoney grievances. He has blood on his hands plain and simple.
The crowd is Obama’s brown shirts. As we’re talking about loss of life and arson and so on, you have to consider the number of minds he(Obama) warped and washed. And they dutifully reelected him. Everyone knows the history of race riots in the United States. Everyone knew that a violent reaction was on the cards. Any other President would have ignored it because it’s a local matter and inappropriate for the President to get involved. But the Panthers in the WH and JD did way more than just stick their noses in. Team Holder started harassing and intimidating local law enforcement officers and making public declarations of internal “racial bias” and all the rest of it. I’ve had way more than I can take from your President. This is not just partisanism because Obama has no more elections. But I’m pointing out that I was right about him. He’s doing exactly what I’ve always said he would. He’s on the hard left - no doubt about it. And he’s(Obama) getting more radical each day.
Michael Brown�¢??s parents understand what it means to be constructive. The vast majority of peaceful protesters, they understand it as well.
[/quote]
Sure they do. And the vast majority of the crowd obviously understand this as well judging from this video and story:
[/quote]
Criminal thing to say. Also, said after Obama went to the press conference, so it’s got nothing to do with the quotation in question, which is plainly about nonviolence.
But it doesn’t matter. The things I quoted above are not part of remarks inciting violence (or remarks that leave blood on their maker’s hands) in any possible universe. This is plain and simple fact. That anybody is claiming different here is simply pathetic partisan fantasy, held to not because of evidence – there isn’t a fucking shred, as we’ve now seen again and again and again and again – or reality, but because oh I feelz it, I feelz it in tummy. When you say there has been an incitement to violence, or a remark leaving blood on its maker’s hands, and I ask you to reproduce it, and you can’t…not good for you. But then feelz politics are never good.
I never said Obama said anything to incite violence. I was never one of the people who said that on here.
The quote I gave originally was paraphrased as Travon could be my son, and I said it was a racially charged thing to say, an inappropriate comment for a President to make, inserting himself into a volatile situation, when in reality, much like the Libyan situation, he should have just stayed out of it.
Or at least don’t use the same rhetoric as the protesters.
For instance:
“Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement ? guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness,”
“There’s no black male my age, who’s a professional, who hasn’t come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn’t hand them their car keys,”
^ bullshit obama.
Or this gem from his wife
Even during their time in the White House, Mrs. Obama said, they haven’t been wholly insulated from subtler forms of prejudice.
“I tell this story - I mean, even as the first lady - during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf,” Mrs. Obama said. “Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new.”
^ so if we dont humble ourselves before the greatness which is the Obama’s, then you’re a racist? Cant just ask for help because help was needed, nope it’s subtle prejudice against black people.
This is the sort of bullshit that gets people all worked up about how everyone and everything is racist, and how everyone is a victim.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I never said Obama said anything to incite violence. I was never one of the people who said that on here.
[/quote]
This is your first post to me on the matter. Notice the post of mine it explicitly quoted:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Oh and what he said should, you know, actually incite people to violence.[/quote]
How about this…he did not just come out and say KEEL ALL ZEE JOOOS!!
But the angry folks in the black community felt empowered by how Obama and Holder rushed in and defended two black suspects simply because they were BLACK.
It might make a portion of the black population think “hey, we can kill whitey and the Prez has our back”[/quote]
Now we take a step back to “it might make a portion…think.” Not exactly inciting violence anymore. But we’re still not at the truth:
What might make them think that? What words – be specific – did Obama say that “might make a portion of the black population think ‘hey, we can kill whitey and the Prez has our back.’” Keep in mind that people are only responsible for what they say vis-a-vis their words as understood under the interpretation of a reasonable mind. That is, the Beatles aren’t responsible for the Manson Family murders.[/quote]
When Obama decided to turn the Trayvon Martin shooting into his own personal crusade, he could have foreseen that racial violence would ensue. A reasonable person would foresee that.[/quote]
So you don’t have any words inciting violence. OK.[/quote]
Paraphrase: Travon could be my son.
[/quote]
If you didn’t mean that “Trayvon could be my son” were “words inciting violence,” then you failed miserably at alerting any of us to this. I am hoping that at some point you will string together two posts without one or both of them being disingenuous at best and outright fallacious or untruthful at worst.
If you read the post you quoted above, you can clearly see that UtahLama said:
He clearly explained that (do I have to say it again) :
You are the one who demanded the words he used to incite violence. I merely backed up what UL said by paraphrasing Trayvon is my son. Which was racist and irresponsible to say as President. and could also explain how
You are the only one so far who has been fixated on the phrase
Which is entirely immaterial to anyone in regards to this subject excluding yourself, yet you will become fixated and come back with
To which I respond, who cares?
Since I said:
And all you can continue parrot is:
And now instead of addressing ANY of my points, you will probably just resort to an ad hominem attack once again.
SMH here’s the rub:
Obama can not say “People if you are unhappy that you have been mistreated by police burn Ferguson to the ground, kill every living creature there and sow salt into the ground where the town once stood.”
That kind of talk is not allowed if you’re President of the United States of America.
So, in your opinion, if Obama did not actually come right out on public TV and tell people to riot well then that’s that.
But there is a bigger picture here. It’s called responsibility. While it’s cool that he got on TV and called for calm, he should not have used the rhetoric of the same people he was attempting to calm down.
It’s possible that he used words and certain phrases which, taken the wrong way, could have been misconstrued to add to the violence, and were used by similar supporters of violence, like Sharpton, but since Obama didn’t actually TELL people to riot, it goes completely over your head, the relevance of this is totally lost on you.
Maybe someone else could pick up the torch and try to explain how exactly Obama’s words could have been used to incite violence cause I’m done here since I can’t explain it any more simpler, yet it’s meaning will invariably and ultimately be lost.
I just saw this and thought it relevant to some of the sloganeering and apologist rhetoric employed by many of what I like to call Neo Liberals.
Basically supposed liberals who go so far in their apologist rationalising and anti imperialist ideology that they end up calling anyone who criticises right wing, conservative movements or actions by people of minority ethnic or colour, racists, chauvinists or pro imperialist.
Gkhan (on my phone so unable to quote and be thorough):
You say, “So, in your opinion, if Obama did not actually come right out on public TV and tell people to riot well then that’s that.” But no, it isn’t that he didn’t tell people to riot…it’s that he told them not to, clearly and more than once. This is why anybody talking about Obama advocating, or being responsible, for violence is delusional. I mean that literally: it is a delusion.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yeah and who gives a crap if they hung these two terrorists or not? They were already on death row, the woman in particular for being part of an attack on a Jordanian hotel which killed 60 people. Shit, in my hometown there’s a guy who’s been on death row since the late 80’s and the crimes he committed against a small unarmed child would make for a good horror film but no one has the balls to end his life and he’s still alive almost thirty years later.
These ISIS terrorists are scum and should be treated as such. They cry when we bomb their “women and children” and yet showed a video of a little kid executing some Russians. If that’s the case, well your women and children are fair game. They burned this pilot alive and, as far as executing the two terrorists, sure it was an emotional response, sure it was a gut reaction and total revenge, but that’s the kind of thing ISIS understands, so I say go for it. After all Mohammad said attack your enemy the way they attack you, and finally, someone’s had the freaking balls to do it.[/quote]
The essence of democracy and Western idealism, universal freedom, is such that all lives are to be respected on a basic, fundamental level. This shouldn’t change even if the other guy commits something horrible.[/quote]
