And So, Gaddafi Falls!

Byrnzie

Adios asshole!

ONCE DEVIDED

Byrnzie wrote:

Adios asshole!

you have a way with words bynzie
glad to hear his reign has ended

Prince Of Dorkness

It's about time.

And you just KNOW the Republicans are going to try to take credit for this somehow.

dikdavis

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It's about time.

And you just KNOW the Republicans are going to try to take credit for this somehow.

Please, tell me how the devil-Repubs will take credit for this and how you expect a radical fundamentalist Islam faction taking over a North African country to be a positive?

Byrnzie

dikdavis wrote:

a radical fundamentalist Islam faction

Is that what they are? This is what Gaddafi has claimed, though the truth may be something else altogether.


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2 ... k_anderson


'...The hard core of the fighters has been the shabab—the young people whose protests in mid-February sparked the uprising. They range from street toughs to university students (many in computer science, engineering, or medicine), and have been joined by unemployed hipsters and middle-aged mechanics, merchants, and storekeepers. There is a contingent of workers for foreign companies: oil and maritime engineers, construction supervisors, translators. There are former soldiers, their gunstocks painted red, green, and black—the suddenly ubiquitous colors of the pre-Qaddafi Libyan flag.

And there are a few bearded religious men, more disciplined than the others, who appear intent on fighting at the dangerous tip of the advancing lines. It seems unlikely, however, that they represent Al Qaeda. I saw prayers being held on the front line at Ras Lanuf, but most of the fighters did not attend. One zealous-looking fighter at Brega acknowledged that he was a jihadi—a veteran of the Iraq war—but said that he welcomed U.S. involvement in Libya, because Qaddafi was a kafir, an unbeliever.

Outside Ajdabiya, a man named Ibrahim, one of many émigrés who have returned, said, “Libyans have always been Muslims—good Muslims.” People here regard themselves as decent and observant; a bit old-fashioned and parochial, but not Islamist radicals. Ibrahim is fifty-seven. He lives in Chicago, and turned over his auto-body shop and car wash to a friend so that he could come and fight. He had made his life in the United States, he said, but it was his duty as a Libyan to help get rid of Qaddafi––“the monster.”

In the past month, men like Ibrahim have rushed into combat as if it were an extension of the street protests, spurred by bravado and defiance but barely able to handle weapons. For many of them, the fighting consists largely of a performance—dancing and singing and firing into the air—and of racing around in improvised gunwagons. The ritual goes on until they are sent scurrying by Qaddafi’s shells. In the early days of Qaddafi’s counterattack, youthful fighters were outraged that the enemy was firing real artillery at them. Many hundreds have died.

The reality of combat has frightened the rebels, but it has also strengthened the resolve of those who have lost friends or brothers. Outside Ajdabiya, I met Muhammad Saleh, a young mechanic armed with only a bayonet. Just an hour or two earlier, he had seen his younger brother die. A few days later, he told me that he was planning to buy black-market weapons and, with a group of ten friends, return to the battlefield. With professional training and leadership (presumably from abroad), the rebels may eventually turn into something like a proper army. But, for now, they have perhaps only a thousand trained fighters, and are woefully outgunned. Last week, a former Army officer told me, “There is no army. It’s just us—a few volunteers like me and the shabab.”

Significant questions remain about the leaders of the rebellion: who they are, what their political ideas are, and what they would do if Qaddafi fell. At the courthouse on Benghazi’s battered seafront promenade, the de-facto seat of the Libyan revolution, a group of lawyers, doctors, and other professionals have appointed one another to a hodgepodge of “leadership councils.” There is a Benghazi city council, and a Provisional National Council, headed by a bland but apparently honest former justice minister, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who spends his time in Bayda, a hundred and twenty-five miles away. Other cities have councils of their own. The members are intellectuals, former dissidents, and businesspeople, many of them from old families that were prominent before Qaddafi came to power. What they are not is organized. No one can explain how the Benghazi council works with the National Council. Last week, another shadow government, the Crisis Management Council, was announced in Benghazi; it was unclear how its leader, a former government planning expert named Mahmoud Jibril, would coördinate with Jalil, or whether he had supplanted him.

It gets more confusing: there are two competing military chiefs. One is General Abdel Fateh Younis, who was Qaddafi’s interior minister and the commander of the Libyan special forces until he “defected” to the rebel side. Younis has been publicly absent, and he is distrusted by the shabab and by many council members. The other chief, Colonel Khalifa Heftir, is a hero of Libya’s war with Chad, in the nineteen-eighties; he later turned against Qaddafi and, until recently, was in exile in the U.S. Unlike Younis, he elicits widespread admiration in Benghazi, but he, too, has kept out of sight, evidently at a secret Army camp where he is preparing élite troops for battle.

Mustafa Gheriani, a businessman and rebel spokesman, acknowledged the ragtag inefficiencies of the revolutionary councils but urged me not to believe Qaddafi’s charges of extremism. “The people here are looking to the West, not to some kind of socialist or other extreme system—that’s what we had here before,” he said. “But, if they become disappointed with the West, they may become easy prey for extremists.”

...Some things are clear, though. In Benghazi, an influential businessman named Sami Bubtaina expressed a common sentiment: “We want democracy. We want good schools, we want a free media, an end to corruption, a private sector that can help build this nation, and a parliament to get rid of whoever, whenever, we want.” These are honorable aims. But to expect that they will be achieved easily is to deny the cost of decades of insanity, terror, and the deliberate eradication of civil society.'

dikdavis

Byrnzie wrote:

dikdavis wrote:

a radical fundamentalist Islam faction

Is that what they are? This is what Gaddafi has claimed, though the truth may be something else altogether.


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2 ... k_anderson


'...The hard core of the fighters has been the shabab—the young people whose protests in mid-February sparked the uprising. They range from street toughs to university students (many in computer science, engineering, or medicine), and have been joined by unemployed hipsters and middle-aged mechanics, merchants, and storekeepers. There is a contingent of workers for foreign companies: oil and maritime engineers, construction supervisors, translators. There are former soldiers, their gunstocks painted red, green, and black—the suddenly ubiquitous colors of the pre-Qaddafi Libyan flag.

And there are a few bearded religious men, more disciplined than the others, who appear intent on fighting at the dangerous tip of the advancing lines. It seems unlikely, however, that they represent Al Qaeda. I saw prayers being held on the front line at Ras Lanuf, but most of the fighters did not attend. One zealous-looking fighter at Brega acknowledged that he was a jihadi—a veteran of the Iraq war—but said that he welcomed U.S. involvement in Libya, because Qaddafi was a kafir, an unbeliever.

Outside Ajdabiya, a man named Ibrahim, one of many émigrés who have returned, said, “Libyans have always been Muslims—good Muslims.” People here regard themselves as decent and observant; a bit old-fashioned and parochial, but not Islamist radicals. Ibrahim is fifty-seven. He lives in Chicago, and turned over his auto-body shop and car wash to a friend so that he could come and fight. He had made his life in the United States, he said, but it was his duty as a Libyan to help get rid of Qaddafi––“the monster.”

In the past month, men like Ibrahim have rushed into combat as if it were an extension of the street protests, spurred by bravado and defiance but barely able to handle weapons. For many of them, the fighting consists largely of a performance—dancing and singing and firing into the air—and of racing around in improvised gunwagons. The ritual goes on until they are sent scurrying by Qaddafi’s shells. In the early days of Qaddafi’s counterattack, youthful fighters were outraged that the enemy was firing real artillery at them. Many hundreds have died.

The reality of combat has frightened the rebels, but it has also strengthened the resolve of those who have lost friends or brothers. Outside Ajdabiya, I met Muhammad Saleh, a young mechanic armed with only a bayonet. Just an hour or two earlier, he had seen his younger brother die. A few days later, he told me that he was planning to buy black-market weapons and, with a group of ten friends, return to the battlefield. With professional training and leadership (presumably from abroad), the rebels may eventually turn into something like a proper army. But, for now, they have perhaps only a thousand trained fighters, and are woefully outgunned. Last week, a former Army officer told me, “There is no army. It’s just us—a few volunteers like me and the shabab.”

Significant questions remain about the leaders of the rebellion: who they are, what their political ideas are, and what they would do if Qaddafi fell. At the courthouse on Benghazi’s battered seafront promenade, the de-facto seat of the Libyan revolution, a group of lawyers, doctors, and other professionals have appointed one another to a hodgepodge of “leadership councils.” There is a Benghazi city council, and a Provisional National Council, headed by a bland but apparently honest former justice minister, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who spends his time in Bayda, a hundred and twenty-five miles away. Other cities have councils of their own. The members are intellectuals, former dissidents, and businesspeople, many of them from old families that were prominent before Qaddafi came to power. What they are not is organized. No one can explain how the Benghazi council works with the National Council. Last week, another shadow government, the Crisis Management Council, was announced in Benghazi; it was unclear how its leader, a former government planning expert named Mahmoud Jibril, would coördinate with Jalil, or whether he had supplanted him.

It gets more confusing: there are two competing military chiefs. One is General Abdel Fateh Younis, who was Qaddafi’s interior minister and the commander of the Libyan special forces until he “defected” to the rebel side. Younis has been publicly absent, and he is distrusted by the shabab and by many council members. The other chief, Colonel Khalifa Heftir, is a hero of Libya’s war with Chad, in the nineteen-eighties; he later turned against Qaddafi and, until recently, was in exile in the U.S. Unlike Younis, he elicits widespread admiration in Benghazi, but he, too, has kept out of sight, evidently at a secret Army camp where he is preparing élite troops for battle.

Mustafa Gheriani, a businessman and rebel spokesman, acknowledged the ragtag inefficiencies of the revolutionary councils but urged me not to believe Qaddafi’s charges of extremism. “The people here are looking to the West, not to some kind of socialist or other extreme system—that’s what we had here before,” he said. “But, if they become disappointed with the West, they may become easy prey for extremists.”

...Some things are clear, though. In Benghazi, an influential businessman named Sami Bubtaina expressed a common sentiment: “We want democracy. We want good schools, we want a free media, an end to corruption, a private sector that can help build this nation, and a parliament to get rid of whoever, whenever, we want.” These are honorable aims. But to expect that they will be achieved easily is to deny the cost of decades of insanity, terror, and the deliberate eradication of civil society.'

I would caution against the use of a publication that has no history in the area to use as your Rosetta Stone of History of the Area. It's possible that ,"The New Yorker" doesn't know sh1t from shinola.

Byrnzie

dikdavis wrote:

I would caution against the use of a publication that has no history in the area to use as your Rosetta Stone of History of the Area. It's possible that ,"The New Yorker" doesn't know sh1t from shinola.

What makes you think The New Yorker has no knowledge of the area and it's history? Or did you just make that up because it sounded good?

And the opinions expressed in this article reflect those in many other online publications. They seem to be the consensus.

The same 'radical Islamic fundamentalists' taking over North Africa was also spouted with regards to Egypt a few months ago, and that also turned out to be a load of horseshit.

dikdavis

Byrnzie wrote:

dikdavis wrote:

I would caution against the use of a publication that has no history in the area to use as your Rosetta Stone of History of the Area. It's possible that ,"The New Yorker" doesn't know sh1t from shinola.

What makes you think The New Yorker has no knowledge of the area and it's history? Or did you just make that up because it sounded good?

And the opinions expressed in this article reflect those in many other online publications. They seem to be the consensus.

Because the "New Yorker" espouses one certain point of view that does not allow for the fact that other people on the face of this planet have opinions and said opinions do not necessarily coincide with the editorial vision of the diasporic Manhattanites. I am saying that publications might miss the pulse of the nation west of, and south of Philadelphia, up until Wyoming/Nebraska. There's millions of people out here who are just as American as you, and they may not agree with you, but they're not wrong, just as you are not wrong. This section of the country does provide a disparate number of widows and mothers-who-lose-sons vs the northeast, but that's easy to dismiss when you sit on your island and count your subway tokens and have only been to other nations for vacation or imagination. It's a big, real world out there, son and it's dangerous. Some people put it on the line and some people talk about what putting it on the line means. I don't know you from my dog, but I expect that you know the difference.

Smellyman

dikdavis wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

dikdavis wrote:

I would caution against the use of a publication that has no history in the area to use as your Rosetta Stone of History of the Area. It's possible that ,"The New Yorker" doesn't know sh1t from shinola.

What makes you think The New Yorker has no knowledge of the area and it's history? Or did you just make that up because it sounded good?

And the opinions expressed in this article reflect those in many other online publications. They seem to be the consensus.

Because the "New Yorker" espouses one certain point of view that does not allow for the fact that other people on the face of this planet have opinions and said opinions do not necessarily coincide with the editorial vision of the diasporic Manhattanites. I am saying that publications might miss the pulse of the nation west of, and south of Philadelphia, up until Wyoming/Nebraska. There's millions of people out here who are just as American as you, and they may not agree with you, but they're not wrong, just as you are not wrong. This section of the country does provide a disparate number of widows and mothers-who-lose-sons vs the northeast, but that's easy to dismiss when you sit on your island and count your subway tokens and have only been to other nations for vacation or imagination. It's a big, real world out there, son and it's dangerous. Some people put it on the line and some people talk about what putting it on the line means. I don't know you from my dog, but I expect that you know the difference.

In other words not your opinion....

and Byrnzie is not American

ONCE DEVIDED

The thing is with opinions is that you bring em to the table. the person who receives it either takes it on board or rejects it. simple really. thus making The new yorker's opinion just as relevant as the JIHADY DAILY's

Im just glad this evil fuckers being either arrested or killed. And thats just based on Lockerbie not the rest of his reign.
The people of this country can now decide their fate

Keep on rolling the arab spring
Syria your next

ONCE DEVIDED

And like Bynzie I aint american
Fucken proud Aussie
Not that byrnzies an Aussie

dikdavis

Byrnzie wrote:

Adios asshole!

good on ya, kid!

dikdavis

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

The thing is with opinions is that you bring em to the table. the person who receives it either takes it on board or rejects it. simple really. thus making The new yorker's opinion just as relevant as the JIHADY DAILY's

Im just glad this evil fuckers being either arrested or killed. And thats just based on Lockerbie not the rest of his reign.
The people of this country can now decide their fate

Keep on rolling the arab spring
Syria your next

The thing is, towel-head Tom's opinion is more important than mine because he doesn't speak English and I have to deal with shitlips who think that it is ok to be a cunt. I don't care who you are or what you believe, I'll kick your door in and ask your name later. I'll dig a hole and wait. Then I'll kill you. I won't think and I won't worry.

fuck

dikdavis wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

The thing is with opinions is that you bring em to the table. the person who receives it either takes it on board or rejects it. simple really. thus making The new yorker's opinion just as relevant as the JIHADY DAILY's

Im just glad this evil fuckers being either arrested or killed. And thats just based on Lockerbie not the rest of his reign.
The people of this country can now decide their fate

Keep on rolling the arab spring
Syria your next

The thing is, towel-head Tom's opinion is more important than mine because he doesn't speak English and I have to deal with shitlips who think that it is ok to be a cunt. I don't care who you are or what you believe, I'll kick your door in and ask your name later. I'll dig a hole and wait. Then I'll kill you. I won't think and I won't worry.

what the fuck are you talking about? your posts make no sense, they sound like drunken rambling.

fuck

dikdavis wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

dikdavis wrote:

I would caution against the use of a publication that has no history in the area to use as your Rosetta Stone of History of the Area. It's possible that ,"The New Yorker" doesn't know sh1t from shinola.

What makes you think The New Yorker has no knowledge of the area and it's history? Or did you just make that up because it sounded good?

And the opinions expressed in this article reflect those in many other online publications. They seem to be the consensus.

Because the "New Yorker" espouses one certain point of view that does not allow for the fact that other people on the face of this planet have opinions and said opinions do not necessarily coincide with the editorial vision of the diasporic Manhattanites. I am saying that publications might miss the pulse of the nation west of, and south of Philadelphia, up until Wyoming/Nebraska. There's millions of people out here who are just as American as you, and they may not agree with you, but they're not wrong, just as you are not wrong. This section of the country does provide a disparate number of widows and mothers-who-lose-sons vs the northeast, but that's easy to dismiss when you sit on your island and count your subway tokens and have only been to other nations for vacation or imagination. It's a big, real world out there, son and it's dangerous. Some people put it on the line and some people talk about what putting it on the line means. I don't know you from my dog, but I expect that you know the difference.

lol, ok so you dismiss The New Yorker because you think it's a bunch of stuck up yuppie manhattanites. thanks for the startlingly profound statements like "it's a big, real world out there" that are so useful, but how about you actually discuss the content if you find it so disagreeable? Or perhaps provide some sources of your own?

gimmesometruth27

dikdavis wrote:

The thing is, towel-head Tom's opinion is more important than mine because he doesn't speak English and I have to deal with shitlips who think that it is ok to be a cunt. I don't care who you are or what you believe, I'll kick your door in and ask your name later. I'll dig a hole and wait. Then I'll kill you. I won't think and I won't worry.

:?

:?:

dikdavis

fuck wrote:

lol, ok so you dismiss The New Yorker because you think it's a bunch of stuck up yuppie manhattanites. thanks for the startlingly profound statements like "it's a big, real world out there" that are so useful, but how about you actually discuss the content if you find it so disagreeable? Or perhaps provide some sources of your own?

You're right. My problem with this is that Libya was remarkably stable under military dictatorship, and as much as I hope Gaddafi dies and his head falls off, I am scared by the vacuum that creates as they search for a new dictator. Mark my words, they will find a new dictator to worship and their new cookie might be sprinkled with crazy like Gaddafi or superchunk crazy like Hitler. When half of your populace can't read and your infrastructure resembles Cheyenne, WY ca.1950, the new boss is going to look alot like the old boss, but will lack the experience. I do not have internet sources to back up my insane ramblings, but if you look hard enough on the interwebz, you can find indisputable proof that President Obama is Papa Smurf.

keeponrockin

dikdavis wrote:

fuck wrote:

lol, ok so you dismiss The New Yorker because you think it's a bunch of stuck up yuppie manhattanites. thanks for the startlingly profound statements like "it's a big, real world out there" that are so useful, but how about you actually discuss the content if you find it so disagreeable? Or perhaps provide some sources of your own?

You're right. My problem with this is that Libya was remarkably stable under military dictatorship, and as much as I hope Gaddafi dies and his head falls off, I am scared by the vacuum that creates as they search for a new dictator. Mark my words, they will find a new dictator to worship and their new cookie might be sprinkled with crazy like Gaddafi or superchunk crazy like Hitler. When half of your populace can't read and your infrastructure resembles Cheyenne, WY ca.1950, the new boss is going to look alot like the old boss, but will lack the experience. I do not have internet sources to back up my insane ramblings, but if you look hard enough on the interwebz, you can find indisputable proof that President Obama is Papa Smurf.

I don't get why some in the USA think we should decide which countries get freedom and which are stuck in dictatorships.

Sludge Factory

keeponrockin wrote:

dikdavis wrote:

fuck wrote:

lol, ok so you dismiss The New Yorker because you think it's a bunch of stuck up yuppie manhattanites. thanks for the startlingly profound statements like "it's a big, real world out there" that are so useful, but how about you actually discuss the content if you find it so disagreeable? Or perhaps provide some sources of your own?

You're right. My problem with this is that Libya was remarkably stable under military dictatorship, and as much as I hope Gaddafi dies and his head falls off, I am scared by the vacuum that creates as they search for a new dictator. Mark my words, they will find a new dictator to worship and their new cookie might be sprinkled with crazy like Gaddafi or superchunk crazy like Hitler. When half of your populace can't read and your infrastructure resembles Cheyenne, WY ca.1950, the new boss is going to look alot like the old boss, but will lack the experience. I do not have internet sources to back up my insane ramblings, but if you look hard enough on the interwebz, you can find indisputable proof that President Obama is Papa Smurf.

I don't get why some in the USA think we should decide which countries get freedom and which are stuck in dictatorships.

I dont' get why some in the USA think we should even have a choice in the internal affairs of other countries at all.

Jeanwah

Sludge Factory wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

dikdavis wrote:

You're right. My problem with this is that Libya was remarkably stable under military dictatorship, and as much as I hope Gaddafi dies and his head falls off, I am scared by the vacuum that creates as they search for a new dictator. Mark my words, they will find a new dictator to worship and their new cookie might be sprinkled with crazy like Gaddafi or superchunk crazy like Hitler. When half of your populace can't read and your infrastructure resembles Cheyenne, WY ca.1950, the new boss is going to look alot like the old boss, but will lack the experience. I do not have internet sources to back up my insane ramblings, but if you look hard enough on the interwebz, you can find indisputable proof that President Obama is Papa Smurf.

I don't get why some in the USA think we should decide which countries get freedom and which are stuck in dictatorships.

I dont' get why some in the USA think we should even have a choice in the internal affairs of other countries at all.

It's about world power and that means sticking our noses into everyone else's business...

tybird

keeponrockin wrote:

dikdavis wrote:

fuck wrote:

lol, ok so you dismiss The New Yorker because you think it's a bunch of stuck up yuppie manhattanites. thanks for the startlingly profound statements like "it's a big, real world out there" that are so useful, but how about you actually discuss the content if you find it so disagreeable? Or perhaps provide some sources of your own?

You're right. My problem with this is that Libya was remarkably stable under military dictatorship, and as much as I hope Gaddafi dies and his head falls off, I am scared by the vacuum that creates as they search for a new dictator. Mark my words, they will find a new dictator to worship and their new cookie might be sprinkled with crazy like Gaddafi or superchunk crazy like Hitler. When half of your populace can't read and your infrastructure resembles Cheyenne, WY ca.1950, the new boss is going to look alot like the old boss, but will lack the experience. I do not have internet sources to back up my insane ramblings, but if you look hard enough on the interwebz, you can find indisputable proof that President Obama is Papa Smurf.

I don't get why some in the USA think we should decide which countries get freedom and which are stuck in dictatorships.

We must maintain the illusion of "Pax Americana" :twisted:

even flow - question mark

I wonder how well Gaddafi would have been if he didn't have the world dropping bombs on him?

Jason P

even flow - question mark wrote:

I wonder how well Gaddafi would have been if he didn't have the world dropping bombs on him?

We would probably be reading news reports of massacres and looking at satellite imagery of suspected mass graves.

Basically, just read the news reports on what is currently going on in Syria and that should sum it up.

catefrances

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

And like Bynzie I aint american
Fucken proud Aussie
Not that byrnzies an Aussie

he should think about converting though... were lovely.

even flow - question mark

Jason P wrote:

even flow - question mark wrote:

I wonder how well Gaddafi would have been if he didn't have the world dropping bombs on him?

We would probably be reading news reports of massacres and looking at satellite imagery of suspected mass graves.

Basically, just read the news reports on what is currently going on in Syria and that should sum it up.

I forgot how the UN helped Gaddafi get into power in the first place. :roll: They are revolts from the inside and there should be no outside help. I can't wait to see the new Shah of Tripoli approved by the west.

Jason P

even flow - question mark wrote:

I forgot how the UN helped Gaddafi get into power in the first place. :roll: They are revolts from the inside and there should be no outside help. I can't wait to see the new Shah of Tripoli approved by the west.

Most dictators have had outside support to get power. And most dictators were not Megalomaniacs when they first took power. A lot of things can happen between 1969 and 2011.

And of course the West is going to try to assert influence on who the next ruling party is. Why wouldn't they?

The way I see it, Libya has two road to choose from.

1) Play ball with the west and get assistance to rebuild a stable nation

2) Delve into civil war with no assistance from the outside world.

There is perfect-world fairness and there is reality.