3 ms·

The public justification for killing Gaddafi is 'stopping the imminent genocide', which by the way, he literally declared he was about to commit. But the real

The public justification for killing Gaddafi is 'stopping the imminent genocide', which by the way, he literally declared he was about to commit. But the real smart people who have the special knowledge know that it was obviously <<insert conspiracy theory here>>. The thing is, geopolitics is messy and there are quite a number of 'factors' many of them true to some extent. The Gulf tribal leaders absolutely hated him and they (i.e. Qatar) lent their special forces more or less as 'personal vendetta' than anything. There are definitely arguments about Oil and related contracts - but Gaddaffi through the diplomacy of his son was well on his way to 'public reconciliation' to the point where there was a lot of money being made there, and it's entirely doubtful that some new, unknown clan would make it any easier for Westerners to make money. If there were an obvious and very popular contender for power who was on the precipice of uniting the nation and he was already tacit 'backed by the west' - then you could make the argument that the intervention was on the style of the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, but this really wasn't that situation. The question says more about the person asking it than the answer. The real question to ask someone when they are talking about 'Bitcoin' is how much Bitcoin (or other crypto) do you own? Because I find it's like talking to people in Amway or Scientology.

anticodon 5y ago
The public justification for killing Gaddafi is 'stopping the imminent genocide', which by the way, he literally declared he was about to commit. If a country that doesn't have vast amounts of oil "declares imminent genocide", would US or EU intervene? Of course, no. Also we all know that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction".
desine 5y ago
>The public justification for killing Gaddafi is 'stopping the imminent genocide', which by the way, he literally declared he was about to commit. >The thing is, geopolitics is messy and there are quite a number of 'factors' many of them true to some extent. Yes, exactly. It's not that I know I am right, or that there's one answer. But it is interesting only one of the discussions is allowed, and one very plausible explanation is universally labeled as a "conspiracy theory". >The real question to ask someone when they are talking about 'Bitcoin' is how much Bitcoin (or other crypto) do you own? Because I find it's like talking to people in Amway or Scientology. FWIW, basically none. Might have an old wallet on the computer in my closet with ~.1 left on it, from back when I used to buy drugs off the silk road. But I'm not a crypto fanatic, though I do find it interesting.
- bawolff 5y ago
  > But it is interesting only one of the discussions is allowed Is someone stopping you? Having people not be convinced is not the same as preventing discussion.
  - desine 5y ago
    The rhetoric used stops me from bringing it up, in certain circles. I really only can bring it up with close friends/family, or anonymously on the web. I've been called anti-semitic, racist, alt-right, my intelligence insulted. Again, related to another comment in this thread, it's seen as a "conspiracy theory". The mainstream news media didn't cover it, but certain less tasteful websites did.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      I mean, you presented the theory with no evidence that it happened. Your argument is basically that the united states could have done it, had motive to do it, and has a history of doing underhanded things in the past. Even if for the sake of argument i grant all of those things, its still not any more plausible than the official story. If you don't want people to call it a conspiracy theory, get some actual evidence that they actually did do it. Saying they could have done it and might have wanted to isn't enough.
      - desine 5y ago
        The point is not to determine the actual reason(s) - us plebs will likely never know. The point is to examine the possibility that sometimes alternative explanations to the official narrative could be plausible. Which loops back to how this all started and my original comment, that there's a narrative of electrical power usage and transparency issues - which are real. But there's other plausible explanations - political power and control. Even if the latter were true, it's unlikely the World Bank would cite them in their response. Most of this thread stemming from my comment has been around "conspiracy theories" and such, which I find disappointing, because there is a healthy level of skepticism and distrust that should be applied to these institutions.

anticodon 5y ago

The public justification for killing Gaddafi is 'stopping the imminent genocide', which by the way, he literally declared he was about to commit. If a country that doesn't have vast amounts of oil "declares imminent genocide", would US or EU intervene? Of course, no. Also we all know that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction".

desine 5y ago

>The public justification for killing Gaddafi is 'stopping the imminent genocide', which by the way, he literally declared he was about to commit. >The thing is, geopolitics is messy and there are quite a number of 'factors' many of them true to some extent. Yes, exactly. It's not that I know I am right, or that there's one answer. But it is interesting only one of the discussions is allowed, and one very plausible explanation is universally labeled as a "conspiracy theory". >The real question to ask someone when they are talking about 'Bitcoin' is how much Bitcoin (or other crypto) do you own? Because I find it's like talking to people in Amway or Scientology. FWIW, basically none. Might have an old wallet on the computer in my closet with ~.1 left on it, from back when I used to buy drugs off the silk road. But I'm not a crypto fanatic, though I do find it interesting.

bawolff 5y ago
> But it is interesting only one of the discussions is allowed Is someone stopping you? Having people not be convinced is not the same as preventing discussion.
- desine 5y ago
  The rhetoric used stops me from bringing it up, in certain circles. I really only can bring it up with close friends/family, or anonymously on the web. I've been called anti-semitic, racist, alt-right, my intelligence insulted. Again, related to another comment in this thread, it's seen as a "conspiracy theory". The mainstream news media didn't cover it, but certain less tasteful websites did.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I mean, you presented the theory with no evidence that it happened. Your argument is basically that the united states could have done it, had motive to do it, and has a history of doing underhanded things in the past. Even if for the sake of argument i grant all of those things, its still not any more plausible than the official story. If you don't want people to call it a conspiracy theory, get some actual evidence that they actually did do it. Saying they could have done it and might have wanted to isn't enough.
    - desine 5y ago
      The point is not to determine the actual reason(s) - us plebs will likely never know. The point is to examine the possibility that sometimes alternative explanations to the official narrative could be plausible. Which loops back to how this all started and my original comment, that there's a narrative of electrical power usage and transparency issues - which are real. But there's other plausible explanations - political power and control. Even if the latter were true, it's unlikely the World Bank would cite them in their response. Most of this thread stemming from my comment has been around "conspiracy theories" and such, which I find disappointing, because there is a healthy level of skepticism and distrust that should be applied to these institutions.