5 ms·

I just want to mention that Gaddafi brought a lot of development to Libya and his death did nothing for his people. It's easy to say "oh he was a dictator and d

I just want to mention that Gaddafi brought a lot of development to Libya and his death did nothing for his people. It's easy to say "oh he was a dictator and dictators are bad" but it's not so simple.

readhn 8y ago
the same could be said about a lot of dictators. these guys make it so that there is no other option (by killing opponents) for the country.
- howlgram 8y ago
  >by killing opponents Gaddafi's rise to power was a bloodless Coup [1], from the little understanding that I have, he was beloved by many Libyans, you should question where these "militias" that took him down came from, his dying words were 'What did I do to you?' [2], and you should question for what reasons should he be considered "tyrannical". Should you look at Libya today, it is ran by territorial gangs, which is antithetical to the idea that they rid themselves of a great evil. Finally I haven't fully educated myself on this, but it's very interesting, just reading the "Background" part of the Libyan Civil War wiki article makes you wonder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#Backgr... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Libyan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Libyan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/23/gaddafi-last-words-begged-mercy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/23/gaddafi-last-w...
  - lchengify 8y ago
    "Evidence gathered by Reuters in the provincial town of Khoms shows an organised system of repression with methods including delivering electric shocks to suspects' genitals, keeping them for weeks in baking heat with only a few sips of water a day, and whipping them with an electrical cable while their hands were bound with plastic ties." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8745164/Libya-Gaddafi-squads-tortured-people-in-shipping-containers.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoc...
  - ddeck 8y ago
    Although he was never tried, the sheer number of witnesses detailing his systematic rape of young girls, murder of opponents and starvation of civilians for example, lends a lot of credibility to him being very much tyrannical. A few summaries: "Victims and witnesses state in the documentary that Gadhafi would choose his targets on visits to schools or colleges, patting on the head those who caught his eye. His security officials would then take the victim to one of several specially designed suites of rooms, where they would be abused and raped by the dictator. In one such suite at Tripoli University, there is a fully-equipped gynecological examination room, where victims were tested for sexually transmitted diseases before being sexually abused. "Some were only 14," recalled one teacher at a Tripoli school. "They would simply take the girl they wanted. They had no conscience, no morals, not an iota of mercy, even though she was a mere child." Some of the girls were held for years, while others were dumped with appalling injuries." "The women would first be raped by the dictator then passed on, like used objects, to one of his sons and eventually to high-ranking officials for more abuse," said Benghazi-based psychologist Seham Sergewa, who interviewed victims for the International Criminal Court. https://www.haaretz.com/gadhafi-s-crimes-revealed-1.5315653 https://www.haaretz.com/gadhafi-s-crimes-revealed-1.5315653 "Gaddafi had a harem of women kept in the basement of his residence, in little rooms or apartments. These women, obligated to appear before him in their underwear, could be called at any time of day or night. They were raped, beaten, subjected to the worst kinds of sexual humiliation. For Gaddafi, rape was a weapon … a way of dominating others -- women, obviously, because it was easy, but also men, by possessing their wives and daughters." https://www.france24.com/en/20120920-muammar-gaddafi-rape-weapon-libya-annick-cojean-le-monde-sexual-slavery-harem-abuse-women https://www.france24.com/en/20120920-muammar-gaddafi-rape-we... "One document shows the commanding general of government forces instructing his units to starve Misrata's population during the four-month siege." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/muammar-gaddafi-war-crimes-files https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/muammar-gaddaf...
    - Lordarminius 8y ago
      Haaretz, France24 and the Guardian are hardly unbiased sources. Frankly, these tales seem fantastic and made up to me, much like the stories about Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators and left to die on hospital floors. Remember those ?
- roenxi 8y ago
  Obviously a functional democratic society will stomp a dictatorial one on pretty much any axis you care to think of. Having acknowledged that central point, we can't just say "dictators are bad". We can say "democracy is better", but there are instances where democracy doesn't work. For a realpolitic example, great powers have a long history of quietly corrupting and overthrowing democracies where their interests conflict with our interests. It might be that a country has their democratically elected government toppled by the CIA/Russian version of the CIA/Chinese version of the CIA and then ends up as a dictatorship. It is far too simplistic to then say "well, the dictator is at fault". Maybe the dictator isn't very nice, but there are political realities to attend to.
  - nicolas_t 8y ago
    > Obviously a functional democratic society will stomp a dictatorial one on pretty much any axis you care to think of. A lot of Singaporeans might disagree there. Enlightened dictatorship can be really good however the probability of a having a great dictator is extremely low.
    - unknownkadath 8y ago
      A lot of Singaporeans would disagree with you, but they know better than to speak out.
  - sdrothrock 8y ago
    > We can say "democracy is better", but there are instances where democracy doesn't work. Just a book recommendation, but for people interested in learning more about these kinds of situations, I'd really recommend Amy Chua's "World on Fire."
  - seer 8y ago
    “stomp” is a bit exaggerated... Democracies are usually more economically efficient, whinch in the long run means more productive power for tech progress or weapons/munitions manufacture. But the catch is “the long run” there is some history of tribal/ dictatorial states distabalizing democracies and “winning” if they do it quickly and ferociously enough. Or even just ferociously. A very good source of info about a lot of the powers and incentives in something like this is the “rules for rules” youtube video from cgp grey https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
puranjay 8y ago
I've found that the west has a democracy bias. It assumes that democracy is intrinsic to people and it's only a matter of "liberating" them from tyranny. But as history is proof, there is nothing intrinsic about democracy. Democratic revolutions were hardly organic in much of the world. Most countries have known nothing but monarchy and/or dictatorships. To impose democracy on them would perhaps be as cruel as letting them be ruled by dictators. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I'd say that people should be allowed to manage their own affairs. If a country is better off with a dictator, then so be it.
- admax88q 8y ago
  > I'd say that people should be allowed to manage their own affairs. > If a country is better off with a dictator, then so be it. Those do not mesh. Democracy _is_ allowing people to manage their own affairs.
  - puranjay 8y ago
    Not when that democracy is imposed by an external force. There is nothing organic about, say, a US-sponsored democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq
  - aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
    Democracy is indeed. But when external forces try to impose democracy on a society not ready for it, typically all you get is a civil war netween local mini-dictators. E.g. Lybia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, countless African nations, etc.
- nkrisc 8y ago
  Usually the country is "better off" as a whole on the backs of the few who will suffer tremendously in order to achieve that.
- everybodyknows 8y ago
  Well-meaning Westerners like to imagine that all one has to do is put on a fair election, get the "good people" in power, and all will be well thereafter. This can be effected by Western occupiers when they want to wash their hands as they exit some troubled spot. The occupiers don't want to hear that democracy is sustained by values and habits taught by parents to children who are still young enough to listen. Once the boys are old enough to hold a gun, that kind of learning is pretty much over.

readhn 8y ago

the same could be said about a lot of dictators. these guys make it so that there is no other option (by killing opponents) for the country.

howlgram 8y ago
>by killing opponents Gaddafi's rise to power was a bloodless Coup [1], from the little understanding that I have, he was beloved by many Libyans, you should question where these "militias" that took him down came from, his dying words were 'What did I do to you?' [2], and you should question for what reasons should he be considered "tyrannical". Should you look at Libya today, it is ran by territorial gangs, which is antithetical to the idea that they rid themselves of a great evil. Finally I haven't fully educated myself on this, but it's very interesting, just reading the "Background" part of the Libyan Civil War wiki article makes you wonder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#Backgr... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Libyan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Libyan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/23/gaddafi-last-words-begged-mercy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/23/gaddafi-last-w...
- lchengify 8y ago
  "Evidence gathered by Reuters in the provincial town of Khoms shows an organised system of repression with methods including delivering electric shocks to suspects' genitals, keeping them for weeks in baking heat with only a few sips of water a day, and whipping them with an electrical cable while their hands were bound with plastic ties." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8745164/Libya-Gaddafi-squads-tortured-people-in-shipping-containers.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoc...
- ddeck 8y ago
  Although he was never tried, the sheer number of witnesses detailing his systematic rape of young girls, murder of opponents and starvation of civilians for example, lends a lot of credibility to him being very much tyrannical. A few summaries: "Victims and witnesses state in the documentary that Gadhafi would choose his targets on visits to schools or colleges, patting on the head those who caught his eye. His security officials would then take the victim to one of several specially designed suites of rooms, where they would be abused and raped by the dictator. In one such suite at Tripoli University, there is a fully-equipped gynecological examination room, where victims were tested for sexually transmitted diseases before being sexually abused. "Some were only 14," recalled one teacher at a Tripoli school. "They would simply take the girl they wanted. They had no conscience, no morals, not an iota of mercy, even though she was a mere child." Some of the girls were held for years, while others were dumped with appalling injuries." "The women would first be raped by the dictator then passed on, like used objects, to one of his sons and eventually to high-ranking officials for more abuse," said Benghazi-based psychologist Seham Sergewa, who interviewed victims for the International Criminal Court. https://www.haaretz.com/gadhafi-s-crimes-revealed-1.5315653 https://www.haaretz.com/gadhafi-s-crimes-revealed-1.5315653 "Gaddafi had a harem of women kept in the basement of his residence, in little rooms or apartments. These women, obligated to appear before him in their underwear, could be called at any time of day or night. They were raped, beaten, subjected to the worst kinds of sexual humiliation. For Gaddafi, rape was a weapon … a way of dominating others -- women, obviously, because it was easy, but also men, by possessing their wives and daughters." https://www.france24.com/en/20120920-muammar-gaddafi-rape-weapon-libya-annick-cojean-le-monde-sexual-slavery-harem-abuse-women https://www.france24.com/en/20120920-muammar-gaddafi-rape-we... "One document shows the commanding general of government forces instructing his units to starve Misrata's population during the four-month siege." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/muammar-gaddafi-war-crimes-files https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/muammar-gaddaf...
  - Lordarminius 8y ago
    Haaretz, France24 and the Guardian are hardly unbiased sources. Frankly, these tales seem fantastic and made up to me, much like the stories about Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators and left to die on hospital floors. Remember those ?
roenxi 8y ago
Obviously a functional democratic society will stomp a dictatorial one on pretty much any axis you care to think of. Having acknowledged that central point, we can't just say "dictators are bad". We can say "democracy is better", but there are instances where democracy doesn't work. For a realpolitic example, great powers have a long history of quietly corrupting and overthrowing democracies where their interests conflict with our interests. It might be that a country has their democratically elected government toppled by the CIA/Russian version of the CIA/Chinese version of the CIA and then ends up as a dictatorship. It is far too simplistic to then say "well, the dictator is at fault". Maybe the dictator isn't very nice, but there are political realities to attend to.
- nicolas_t 8y ago
  > Obviously a functional democratic society will stomp a dictatorial one on pretty much any axis you care to think of. A lot of Singaporeans might disagree there. Enlightened dictatorship can be really good however the probability of a having a great dictator is extremely low.
  - unknownkadath 8y ago
    A lot of Singaporeans would disagree with you, but they know better than to speak out.
- sdrothrock 8y ago
  > We can say "democracy is better", but there are instances where democracy doesn't work. Just a book recommendation, but for people interested in learning more about these kinds of situations, I'd really recommend Amy Chua's "World on Fire."
- seer 8y ago
  “stomp” is a bit exaggerated... Democracies are usually more economically efficient, whinch in the long run means more productive power for tech progress or weapons/munitions manufacture. But the catch is “the long run” there is some history of tribal/ dictatorial states distabalizing democracies and “winning” if they do it quickly and ferociously enough. Or even just ferociously. A very good source of info about a lot of the powers and incentives in something like this is the “rules for rules” youtube video from cgp grey https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

puranjay 8y ago

I've found that the west has a democracy bias. It assumes that democracy is intrinsic to people and it's only a matter of "liberating" them from tyranny. But as history is proof, there is nothing intrinsic about democracy. Democratic revolutions were hardly organic in much of the world. Most countries have known nothing but monarchy and/or dictatorships. To impose democracy on them would perhaps be as cruel as letting them be ruled by dictators. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I'd say that people should be allowed to manage their own affairs. If a country is better off with a dictator, then so be it.

admax88q 8y ago
> I'd say that people should be allowed to manage their own affairs. > If a country is better off with a dictator, then so be it. Those do not mesh. Democracy _is_ allowing people to manage their own affairs.
- puranjay 8y ago
  Not when that democracy is imposed by an external force. There is nothing organic about, say, a US-sponsored democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq
- aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
  Democracy is indeed. But when external forces try to impose democracy on a society not ready for it, typically all you get is a civil war netween local mini-dictators. E.g. Lybia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, countless African nations, etc.
nkrisc 8y ago
Usually the country is "better off" as a whole on the backs of the few who will suffer tremendously in order to achieve that.
everybodyknows 8y ago
Well-meaning Westerners like to imagine that all one has to do is put on a fair election, get the "good people" in power, and all will be well thereafter. This can be effected by Western occupiers when they want to wash their hands as they exit some troubled spot. The occupiers don't want to hear that democracy is sustained by values and habits taught by parents to children who are still young enough to listen. Once the boys are old enough to hold a gun, that kind of learning is pretty much over.