3 ms·

Pretty much agree with this sentiment, but it is techincally correct that Gadaffi's death was partially responsibility of a very loose ally (National Liberation

Pretty much agree with this sentiment, but it is techincally correct that Gadaffi's death was partially responsibility of a very loose ally (National Liberation Army) of a couple NATO nations (US, France, and UK). These NATO nations supplied equipment to anti-Gadaffi forces. Of course, the way it was worded was to ensure it was technically correct while sending an entirely different message. The best kind of propoganda. It's worth noting nukes don't necessarily stop a civil war. Gadaffi's murder was one of the most poetic pieces of justice witnessed in the modern era, a blade shoved up his asshole perforating his internal organs as a beautiful piece of red-soaked art representing the fruits of his metaphorical fucking in the ass of protestors who were systematically shot. Of course the idea that Gadaffi was actually a murderous psychopath (one with many domestic enemies) who orchestrated the killing of innocent protestors (who later joined overthrowing domestic militias with only the loosest affiliation to NATO nations) challenges a strongly held world view of some romanticists and is therefore very hard to swallow.

justsomehnguy 5y ago
> These NATO nations supplied equipment to anti-Gadaffi forces. >> Moments after it was reported that Gaddafi was killed, Fox News published an article titled "U.S. Drone Involved in Final Qaddafi Strike, as Obama Heralds Regime's 'End'",[49] noting that a U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy in the moments before his death. An anonymous U.S. official subsequently described their policy in hindsight as "lead[ing] from behind".[50] >> Because Libyan rebels had consistently told American government officials that they did not want overt foreign military assistance in toppling Gaddafi, covert military assistance was used (including arms shipments to opposition). The plan following Gaddafi's death was to immediately begin flowing humanitarian assistance to eastern Libya and later western Libya, as the symbolism would be critically important. U.S. sources stressed it as important that they would "not allow Turkey, Italy and others to steal a march on it".[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Foreign_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#For...
- notch656a 5y ago
  That's just a long winded way of agreeing with my statement that said "These NATO nations supplied equipment to anti-Gadaffi forces." There's a decent argument to be made these people were temporary allies of a few NATO nations, although I think it distorts the reality that they were just militias supplied as part of a campaign to destabilize Libya and opportunistically kill Gadaffi, and were at best only marginally considered meaningfully being 'NATO allies.' The actions themselves of course were performed largely by citizens (or unrecognized/undocumented residents, such as Taureg [ although many Taureg were pro-Gadaffi] ) of Libya.
  - justsomehnguy 5y ago
    *sigh* > noting that a U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy in the moments before his death > U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy > U.S. Predator drone Nobody "supplied" Predators to anyone. USAF (!) not only flown Predator there, but at least relayed some information about the convoy to the ... intersted parties and quite possibly actively participated in the airstrike. I can't sweep that under "just supplied equipment" banner.
pydry 5y ago
>Of course, the way it was worded was to ensure it was technically correct while sending an entirely different message. I'm confused. Was I misleading? What message was I supposed to be sending that was so very wrong? For some reason I've noticed this particular topic (I've raised it a few times in the last three weeks) has led to some truly bizarre straw man inferences about what I really meant that I never thought I would have to refute. I am not sure why.
- itslennysfault 5y ago
  It's because it challenges a strongly held world view and is therefore very hard to swallow.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    And the fact that US and some other NATO members do sketchy shit across the world isn't a strongly held world view? In my experience it's not controversial at all to suggest the US does stuff like fund nun-raping El Salvadorian mercs. I get it, I'm american and I love blaming my government too because they pretty often deserve it. People practically salivate to blame everything on the richest NATO nations like US/UK/France but often can't handle the notion that a disgusting dictator got ass-raped via knife by a bunch of pissed off locals and the entire thing wasn't orchestrated step-by-step by some dude in a suit in the Pentagon. Of course I don't deny the US cheered the whole thing on by showering the opposition with equipment and cash, there's nothing the Pentagon and White House love more than a good 3rd world blood orgy.
    - pydry 5y ago
      And now Putin is destroying a country of 40 million people because he believes that this is what WE have planned for him. With good reason. We probably do. Yeah we do love a good 3rd world blood orgy. We will keep loving it until one day it spills over to where we live. By that time it'll be a decade or so too late.
      - 5y ago

justsomehnguy 5y ago

> These NATO nations supplied equipment to anti-Gadaffi forces. >> Moments after it was reported that Gaddafi was killed, Fox News published an article titled "U.S. Drone Involved in Final Qaddafi Strike, as Obama Heralds Regime's 'End'",[49] noting that a U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy in the moments before his death. An anonymous U.S. official subsequently described their policy in hindsight as "lead[ing] from behind".[50] >> Because Libyan rebels had consistently told American government officials that they did not want overt foreign military assistance in toppling Gaddafi, covert military assistance was used (including arms shipments to opposition). The plan following Gaddafi's death was to immediately begin flowing humanitarian assistance to eastern Libya and later western Libya, as the symbolism would be critically important. U.S. sources stressed it as important that they would "not allow Turkey, Italy and others to steal a march on it".[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Foreign_involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#For...

notch656a 5y ago
That's just a long winded way of agreeing with my statement that said "These NATO nations supplied equipment to anti-Gadaffi forces." There's a decent argument to be made these people were temporary allies of a few NATO nations, although I think it distorts the reality that they were just militias supplied as part of a campaign to destabilize Libya and opportunistically kill Gadaffi, and were at best only marginally considered meaningfully being 'NATO allies.' The actions themselves of course were performed largely by citizens (or unrecognized/undocumented residents, such as Taureg [ although many Taureg were pro-Gadaffi] ) of Libya.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  *sigh* > noting that a U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy in the moments before his death > U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy > U.S. Predator drone Nobody "supplied" Predators to anyone. USAF (!) not only flown Predator there, but at least relayed some information about the convoy to the ... intersted parties and quite possibly actively participated in the airstrike. I can't sweep that under "just supplied equipment" banner.

pydry 5y ago

>Of course, the way it was worded was to ensure it was technically correct while sending an entirely different message. I'm confused. Was I misleading? What message was I supposed to be sending that was so very wrong? For some reason I've noticed this particular topic (I've raised it a few times in the last three weeks) has led to some truly bizarre straw man inferences about what I really meant that I never thought I would have to refute. I am not sure why.

itslennysfault 5y ago
It's because it challenges a strongly held world view and is therefore very hard to swallow.
- notch656a 5y ago
  And the fact that US and some other NATO members do sketchy shit across the world isn't a strongly held world view? In my experience it's not controversial at all to suggest the US does stuff like fund nun-raping El Salvadorian mercs. I get it, I'm american and I love blaming my government too because they pretty often deserve it. People practically salivate to blame everything on the richest NATO nations like US/UK/France but often can't handle the notion that a disgusting dictator got ass-raped via knife by a bunch of pissed off locals and the entire thing wasn't orchestrated step-by-step by some dude in a suit in the Pentagon. Of course I don't deny the US cheered the whole thing on by showering the opposition with equipment and cash, there's nothing the Pentagon and White House love more than a good 3rd world blood orgy.
  - pydry 5y ago
    And now Putin is destroying a country of 40 million people because he believes that this is what WE have planned for him. With good reason. We probably do. Yeah we do love a good 3rd world blood orgy. We will keep loving it until one day it spills over to where we live. By that time it'll be a decade or so too late.
    - 5y ago