4 ms·

Gaddafi enabled state-sponsored terrorism. The West has wanted him gone for ages. In their eyes, it was better for him to be gone and have their own people safe

Gaddafi enabled state-sponsored terrorism. The West has wanted him gone for ages. In their eyes, it was better for him to be gone and have their own people safe than to have a stable Libya that could participate in terrorist activity. It doesn't justify what they did, but it is worth knowing the overthrow was not primarily done for the sake of your everyday Libyan.

acqq 11y ago
Saudi Arabia's money was effectively behind Bin Laden and most of the attackers of 9/11 were Saudis. They also supported ISIS until it was clear that ISIS would rule over them too. Why not Saudi Arabia? And also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi "In 2001, Gaddafi condemned the September 11 attacks on the U.S. by al-Qaeda, expressing sympathy with the victims and calling for Libyan involvement in the War on Terror against militant Islamism." Why Gaddafi in 2011 then? The "rebels" against Gaddafi were al-Qaeda, and the US was supporting the "rebels" and "the rebellion." And when were the last terrorist attacks connected with Gaddafi? Anybody remembers them?
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Your thinking is too America-centric. Gaddafi's aims have always been more focused on Europe and Israel. His regime has been connected with countless bombings in Europe - including the infamous Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 - and aid to terrorist groups such as the IRA since the 70s. http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 In Back to the Future, there is a reason the designated terrorist figures were Libyan. At that time Gaddafi was actively seeking nuclear weapons material.
  - acqq 11y ago
    That's why I'm asking. Since 1988 a lot of things happened, including the rise of first al-Qaeda and now ISIS, and he was against al-Qaeda and significantly improved the relation with the West since 1988. Anything newer? It just has no sense removing a guy who supported a terrorist act in 1988 by supporting the guys who did 9/11 and plan to do more. And now we even have the guys who are "too extreme" even for those of 9/11.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      Once a state-sponsor of terrorism, always a state-sponsor of terrorism. He simply could not be trusted. Just because he allegedly stopped sponsoring terrorism and aligned himself against al-Qaeda doesn't mean he wouldn't ever cause trouble in the future. Vladimir Putin is also against ISIS. How much do you trust him?
      - acqq 11y ago
        So al-Qaeda and ISIS are less evil? And the 1988 attack is more worrying than the 2001 one and everything that happened since? I don't understand your reasoning, especially looking at it as an European. (The only "annoying" thing Europe remembers Gaddafi for, from the times before the war, is his son getting drunk somewhere in Switzerland or something like that.)
        rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        There is no either-or. There are no sides, only players. I doubt you predicted ISIS in 2011, and neither did the State Department. They saw an opportunity to knock out an old adversary with a lot of oil money that they couldn't trust and it didn't quite work out the way they hoped. Who's to say that if he stayed in power he wouldn't swing back towards terrorism if it proved advantageous? An autocrat will do what they must to stay in power, and if it meant placating the terrorist groups, he may have very well done that. It doesn't make him any more or less evil than any killer of innocents.
        CWuestefeld 11y ago
        I doubt you predicted ISIS in 2011, and neither did the State Department. I did, and I'm no foreign policy expert. Plenty of pundits did the same. "Nature abhors a vacuum" applies just as much to politics as it does to physics, and it was pretty obvious that by removing the stabilizing force we were throwing the dice, making a hail-mary bet that whatever sprouted up in the rubble wouldn't be any worse. Anybody who wasn't thinking that far ahead shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. EDIT: at the time I argued about it back then, my primary point was that our attacks were clearly illegal, the president usurping Congressional authority. The outcome really underscores the reason that we have these checks and balances. If we'd had some real deliberation, rather than one "Nobel Peace Prize" winner with any itchy trigger finger, much of this might have been avoided.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  "Why Gaddafi in 2011 then?" I would like to know too. All those movements in the area are far to be clear now to us, humble people without access to Top Secret documents. I suppose we will know in 15 or 20 years. One thing is for sure, it was not motivated by a interest in the welfare of the Libyan people (or people in general).

acqq 11y ago

Saudi Arabia's money was effectively behind Bin Laden and most of the attackers of 9/11 were Saudis. They also supported ISIS until it was clear that ISIS would rule over them too. Why not Saudi Arabia? And also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi "In 2001, Gaddafi condemned the September 11 attacks on the U.S. by al-Qaeda, expressing sympathy with the victims and calling for Libyan involvement in the War on Terror against militant Islamism." Why Gaddafi in 2011 then? The "rebels" against Gaddafi were al-Qaeda, and the US was supporting the "rebels" and "the rebellion." And when were the last terrorist attacks connected with Gaddafi? Anybody remembers them?

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Your thinking is too America-centric. Gaddafi's aims have always been more focused on Europe and Israel. His regime has been connected with countless bombings in Europe - including the infamous Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 - and aid to terrorist groups such as the IRA since the 70s. http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-got-off-list/p10855 In Back to the Future, there is a reason the designated terrorist figures were Libyan. At that time Gaddafi was actively seeking nuclear weapons material.
- acqq 11y ago
  That's why I'm asking. Since 1988 a lot of things happened, including the rise of first al-Qaeda and now ISIS, and he was against al-Qaeda and significantly improved the relation with the West since 1988. Anything newer? It just has no sense removing a guy who supported a terrorist act in 1988 by supporting the guys who did 9/11 and plan to do more. And now we even have the guys who are "too extreme" even for those of 9/11.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Once a state-sponsor of terrorism, always a state-sponsor of terrorism. He simply could not be trusted. Just because he allegedly stopped sponsoring terrorism and aligned himself against al-Qaeda doesn't mean he wouldn't ever cause trouble in the future. Vladimir Putin is also against ISIS. How much do you trust him?
    - acqq 11y ago
      So al-Qaeda and ISIS are less evil? And the 1988 attack is more worrying than the 2001 one and everything that happened since? I don't understand your reasoning, especially looking at it as an European. (The only "annoying" thing Europe remembers Gaddafi for, from the times before the war, is his son getting drunk somewhere in Switzerland or something like that.)
      - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        There is no either-or. There are no sides, only players. I doubt you predicted ISIS in 2011, and neither did the State Department. They saw an opportunity to knock out an old adversary with a lot of oil money that they couldn't trust and it didn't quite work out the way they hoped. Who's to say that if he stayed in power he wouldn't swing back towards terrorism if it proved advantageous? An autocrat will do what they must to stay in power, and if it meant placating the terrorist groups, he may have very well done that. It doesn't make him any more or less evil than any killer of innocents.
        CWuestefeld 11y ago
        I doubt you predicted ISIS in 2011, and neither did the State Department. I did, and I'm no foreign policy expert. Plenty of pundits did the same. "Nature abhors a vacuum" applies just as much to politics as it does to physics, and it was pretty obvious that by removing the stabilizing force we were throwing the dice, making a hail-mary bet that whatever sprouted up in the rubble wouldn't be any worse. Anybody who wasn't thinking that far ahead shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. EDIT: at the time I argued about it back then, my primary point was that our attacks were clearly illegal, the president usurping Congressional authority. The outcome really underscores the reason that we have these checks and balances. If we'd had some real deliberation, rather than one "Nobel Peace Prize" winner with any itchy trigger finger, much of this might have been avoided.
RobertoG 11y ago
"Why Gaddafi in 2011 then?" I would like to know too. All those movements in the area are far to be clear now to us, humble people without access to Top Secret documents. I suppose we will know in 15 or 20 years. One thing is for sure, it was not motivated by a interest in the welfare of the Libyan people (or people in general).