15 ms·

The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. If the "alternate reality" didn't already erased it, you may recall something called "Arab Spring". It's not l

The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. If the "alternate reality" didn't already erased it, you may recall something called "Arab Spring". It's not like Gaddafi was in a stable position at the time, and even less likely he would skate the whole situation until today. Gaddafi was "assassinated" because there was a full-on civil war and the EU and America bombed the massive convoy he had sent to crush the rebellion in Benghazi and enforced a no-fly zone otherwise Gaddafi's planes would obliterate the rebel forces and the civilians living in those cities ( which started to happen, before the EU and US moved their asses ). Speaking of "assassinations", I don't think Gaddafi's forces would punish the offenders with only a slap on the wrist. Do I need to mention the shipping containers with bullet holes in the Sun at the desert full of prisoners? Everyone's "performance" has been bad, but why don't we talk about Syria/Russia dealings in Libya in the last ~5 years? which coincidentally have been the worse and more unstable years since the 2011 war? ( Not to mention the usual bottom feeders of doom that appear in these situations, ie. the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and every other "entrepreneur" group funded by the bored Sheiks in the Arabian Peninsula?

mcv 3y ago
Exactly. If the EU and US hadn't stopped Gaddafi from killing his own people, the tragedy would also have been terrible. Worse than now? Better than now? Should they have known? It's impossible to say.
- penneallagricia 3y ago
  If its impossible to say, then why intervene? If you can't prove that bombing will have net positive effects then why do it?
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    Is omniscience a prerequisite to reacting? Nothing would ever get done then.
    - penneallagricia 3y ago
      We're talking about killing people in a country on the other side of the world. If not omniscience at least clear evidence that there is no other course of action and that this is absolutely required (spoiler, it wasn't). Reacting irrationally is just what animals do.
  - misja111 3y ago
    The intervention was to implement a UN resolution to force a cease fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci... Not even Russia or China voted against it at the time so apparently most of the world agreed it was a good idea.
    - guilhas 3y ago
      It could have been a trap Iraq and Libya invasions, without recovery plan, made the west too morally bankrupt too succeed in Syria A more strategic target to Russia
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      I hope that you understand that bombing Lybia, supplying rebels with weapons and then making them kill Gaddafi is a direct opposite of a cease fire? Or do you believe that a cease fire is when the other side ceases firing so you can get a good shot yourself?
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        No it’s when both sides agree to stop
        thriftwy 3y ago
        So it's not OK for you watching how Gaddafi vanquishes rebels, but it is totally OK for you to watch rebels getting rid of Gaddafi, and aiding them to do so. Shows the involvement clearly.
  - mcv 3y ago
    One reason is because they didn't intervene in Rwanda, and got widely criticised for that. I believe it was decided that genocide demands intervention.
    - misja111 3y ago
      The bottom line seems to be that the West is criticized by some people no matter what they do, or even what they don't do.
      - mcv 3y ago
        I guess that's why we now get the piecemeal support for Ukraine. No real intervention, but we've got to do something, but not too much, but not too little either.
        f6v 3y ago
        Sending your military personnel to enter a missile flight plan is hardly “something”. Next step is launching said missiles from NATO airspace.
        mcv 3y ago
        Not sure what you're trying to say here. Surely getting your own military personal involved is not entirely nothing? Also, launching missiles from NATO airspace does not have to be the next step. Two things that sound to me like obvious next steps is sending NATO air defense with NATO personel into Ukraine to provide better cover from Russian missiles. And after that, a no-fly zone. Actual combat support is probably too much to ask.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        > what they do, or even what they don't do That's part of it. Because the West usually does these things for purely self-interest, but likes to play the "world police" card to justify things, then gets frustrated when people say "well, if you're the world police, why are you not stopping the genocide in Rwanda?" and the West shrugs, but the answer is generally obvious, "because there's no benefit we can glean from it".
  - 31337Logic 3y ago
    This is not exactly a fair comment. It's the same reasoning when you attempt to justify /any/ action. You can't do it for a guaranteed outcome (because no such states can be guaranteed) but that doesn't mean you can't try to achieve a desired outcome.
thriftwy 3y ago
EU/US has supported a rebellion in Lybia (equals created a rebellion in Lybia) and then used direct military force to topple Lybian regime. I'm not even sure who administered the city which was crushed by the flood in 2023 considering the free-for-all in Lybia ever since. As usual with Western-induced rebellions, everybody ended up losing. I'm also not sure why you are confident that Gaffafi was going to "obliterate the civilians" (read - his own citizens).
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > I'm not even sure who administered the city which was crushed by the flood in 2023 considering the free-for-all in Lybia ever since. Derna is in Eastern Libya, so it's under control of the Libyan National Army regime, the one run out of Benghazi. Pretty easy to look up actually.
themgt 3y ago
The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. Right. "We came, we saw, he died! [lol]" Gaddafi was "assassinated" because there was a full-on civil war and the EU and America bombed the massive convoy he had sent to crush the rebellion in Benghazi and enforced a no-fly zone otherwise Gaddafi's planes would obliterate the rebel forces and the civilians living in those cities This is just revisionist nonsense. There was no "full on" civil war in Libya until NATO intervened and turned it into such. This video [1] (from 9 years ago) does a good job laying out the counterargument - the US took the opportunity of a small-scale uprising to regime change Gaddafi and plunged the country into now a decade of chaos and destruction with no end in sight, destabilizing most of North Africa and flooding Europe with refugees in the process. Everyone's "performance" has been bad, but why don't we talk about Syria/Russia/[Al-Qaeda] dealings in Libya in the last ~5 years? Why don't we talk about how the US illegally invaded Syria, allied itself with Al-Qaeda offshoots and tried to topple another antagonist Ba'athist government, failed, and plunged that country also into now an effectively permanent low-level civil war? Why is it the US and NATO can invade and bomb and occupy the territory of anyone they want by claiming "their leaders are bad" but if anyone else does it to our friends (many of whom are also bad) it's all "territorial integrity" and "national sovereignty" and "the rules based order"? Because our foreign policy is run by utter amoral hypocrites and liars. We are the flailing, declining hegemon, leaving a path of destruction in our wake. And in cases like Syria or Libya its hard to avoid the conclusion our perspective is "if we can't have it we'll settle for wrecking it". [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH3D-sOLpHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH3D-sOLpHE
- orwin 3y ago
  For accuracy's sake (i can't find the Atlantic article talking about it, and i'm not bored enough to spend my day going through Wikileaks, so right now the source is trustmebro, i hope that someone have the documents/article in favorite), thanks to Hilary's leaked emails, we know that Obama's administration wasn't keen on going in Libya, and only Sarkozy(France) and Cameron(UK) insistence on attacking decided the US to support the invasion (and it was mostly logistical support). Again thanks to Hillary's emails, we can suspect that the CIA had a hand in eliminating the new candidate that france wanted to support (we had contact with both Kaddafi's son and the leader of a rebel group, both died), but i wouldn't put that war, then civil war, on US. Also, while France supported eliminating Kaddafi here, they supported the dictator in Tunisia with police forces and weapons (that are marked as non-lethal, but since we haven't found many nonlethal weapons after the revolution, either there was a kickback, or a lot were stolen/lost, or a part of what was sent were lethal weapons). And for Syria it's the same, Obama's administration wasn't really focused on that part of the middle east, and Hollande (France) forced their hand. Truly, i cannot believe France's reputation in Africa is that low. I wonder why.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kranke155 3y ago
The UK Parliamentary report on the Lybian intervention kind of refutes some of your points. Worth reading 1. Gaddafi was talking about war crimes but didn’t commit them in reality
objektif 3y ago
I cannot believe I am actually reading this. What kind of god syndrome people have here to think that they can just play Age of Empires with real people? You know you are talking about a sovereign nation right?
- 3seashells 3y ago
  [flagged]
CapricornNoble 3y ago
You said it yourself, he was well on his way to crushing the rebellion. Libya's Arab Spring might have ended like Bahrain's [1], in which case the country might still have one of the highest levels of development in Africa.[2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144637499/bahrain-the-revolution-that-wasnt https://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144637499/bahrain-the-revolut... [2] https://www.countercurrents.org/cramer040511.htm https://www.countercurrents.org/cramer040511.htm
f6v 3y ago
The fact there’s a civil war doesn’t give you a right to invade a country. Or does it? I’m confused, it’s always a different answer.
lenkite 3y ago
Why don't we talk about how Obama's "moderate rebels" in Syria metasized into ISIS with full U.S equipment. After in-effectiveness in Syria against battle hardened Assad forces, they decided to go for Mosul and the soft Iraqi forces instead. Believe there was even an interview with the ISIS soldiers where they were very happy with the U.S. sponsorship! The same story was repeated earlier with Bin Laden. It is like the U.S. never learns. Now once again in 2022/23 the Idlib mujahideen are being courted by the U.S. war apparatus to make problems in Syria as a way to divert Russia.
lenkite 3y ago
> The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. Of-course they did! If you recall, there was even an offer made by Gadaffi and his sons for holding elections and a step-down if he lost. They even agreed to international observers for elections! Every single concession was rejected by NATO as a "ploy". They wanted Gaddaffi dead. Got the article: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/6/16/gaddafi-son-offers-libya-elections https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/6/16/gaddafi-son-offers-... but there were also several other concessions offered - all of which were singularly dismissed. The Libyan friends I used to know a decade ago weeped after Gadaffi died. A nation state in the middle east that used to offer free education for both sexes and free medical care is now dust and ashes - all thanks to NATO.

mcv 3y ago

Exactly. If the EU and US hadn't stopped Gaddafi from killing his own people, the tragedy would also have been terrible. Worse than now? Better than now? Should they have known? It's impossible to say.

penneallagricia 3y ago
If its impossible to say, then why intervene? If you can't prove that bombing will have net positive effects then why do it?
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Is omniscience a prerequisite to reacting? Nothing would ever get done then.
  - penneallagricia 3y ago
    We're talking about killing people in a country on the other side of the world. If not omniscience at least clear evidence that there is no other course of action and that this is absolutely required (spoiler, it wasn't). Reacting irrationally is just what animals do.
- misja111 3y ago
  The intervention was to implement a UN resolution to force a cease fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci... Not even Russia or China voted against it at the time so apparently most of the world agreed it was a good idea.
  - guilhas 3y ago
    It could have been a trap Iraq and Libya invasions, without recovery plan, made the west too morally bankrupt too succeed in Syria A more strategic target to Russia
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    I hope that you understand that bombing Lybia, supplying rebels with weapons and then making them kill Gaddafi is a direct opposite of a cease fire? Or do you believe that a cease fire is when the other side ceases firing so you can get a good shot yourself?
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      No it’s when both sides agree to stop
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        So it's not OK for you watching how Gaddafi vanquishes rebels, but it is totally OK for you to watch rebels getting rid of Gaddafi, and aiding them to do so. Shows the involvement clearly.
- mcv 3y ago
  One reason is because they didn't intervene in Rwanda, and got widely criticised for that. I believe it was decided that genocide demands intervention.
  - misja111 3y ago
    The bottom line seems to be that the West is criticized by some people no matter what they do, or even what they don't do.
    - mcv 3y ago
      I guess that's why we now get the piecemeal support for Ukraine. No real intervention, but we've got to do something, but not too much, but not too little either.
      - f6v 3y ago
        Sending your military personnel to enter a missile flight plan is hardly “something”. Next step is launching said missiles from NATO airspace.
        mcv 3y ago
        Not sure what you're trying to say here. Surely getting your own military personal involved is not entirely nothing? Also, launching missiles from NATO airspace does not have to be the next step. Two things that sound to me like obvious next steps is sending NATO air defense with NATO personel into Ukraine to provide better cover from Russian missiles. And after that, a no-fly zone. Actual combat support is probably too much to ask.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > what they do, or even what they don't do That's part of it. Because the West usually does these things for purely self-interest, but likes to play the "world police" card to justify things, then gets frustrated when people say "well, if you're the world police, why are you not stopping the genocide in Rwanda?" and the West shrugs, but the answer is generally obvious, "because there's no benefit we can glean from it".
- 31337Logic 3y ago
  This is not exactly a fair comment. It's the same reasoning when you attempt to justify /any/ action. You can't do it for a guaranteed outcome (because no such states can be guaranteed) but that doesn't mean you can't try to achieve a desired outcome.

thriftwy 3y ago

EU/US has supported a rebellion in Lybia (equals created a rebellion in Lybia) and then used direct military force to topple Lybian regime. I'm not even sure who administered the city which was crushed by the flood in 2023 considering the free-for-all in Lybia ever since. As usual with Western-induced rebellions, everybody ended up losing. I'm also not sure why you are confident that Gaffafi was going to "obliterate the civilians" (read - his own citizens).

jcranmer 3y ago
> I'm not even sure who administered the city which was crushed by the flood in 2023 considering the free-for-all in Lybia ever since. Derna is in Eastern Libya, so it's under control of the Libyan National Army regime, the one run out of Benghazi. Pretty easy to look up actually.

themgt 3y ago

The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. Right. "We came, we saw, he died! [lol]" Gaddafi was "assassinated" because there was a full-on civil war and the EU and America bombed the massive convoy he had sent to crush the rebellion in Benghazi and enforced a no-fly zone otherwise Gaddafi's planes would obliterate the rebel forces and the civilians living in those cities This is just revisionist nonsense. There was no "full on" civil war in Libya until NATO intervened and turned it into such. This video [1] (from 9 years ago) does a good job laying out the counterargument - the US took the opportunity of a small-scale uprising to regime change Gaddafi and plunged the country into now a decade of chaos and destruction with no end in sight, destabilizing most of North Africa and flooding Europe with refugees in the process. Everyone's "performance" has been bad, but why don't we talk about Syria/Russia/[Al-Qaeda] dealings in Libya in the last ~5 years? Why don't we talk about how the US illegally invaded Syria, allied itself with Al-Qaeda offshoots and tried to topple another antagonist Ba'athist government, failed, and plunged that country also into now an effectively permanent low-level civil war? Why is it the US and NATO can invade and bomb and occupy the territory of anyone they want by claiming "their leaders are bad" but if anyone else does it to our friends (many of whom are also bad) it's all "territorial integrity" and "national sovereignty" and "the rules based order"? Because our foreign policy is run by utter amoral hypocrites and liars. We are the flailing, declining hegemon, leaving a path of destruction in our wake. And in cases like Syria or Libya its hard to avoid the conclusion our perspective is "if we can't have it we'll settle for wrecking it". [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH3D-sOLpHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH3D-sOLpHE

orwin 3y ago
For accuracy's sake (i can't find the Atlantic article talking about it, and i'm not bored enough to spend my day going through Wikileaks, so right now the source is trustmebro, i hope that someone have the documents/article in favorite), thanks to Hilary's leaked emails, we know that Obama's administration wasn't keen on going in Libya, and only Sarkozy(France) and Cameron(UK) insistence on attacking decided the US to support the invasion (and it was mostly logistical support). Again thanks to Hillary's emails, we can suspect that the CIA had a hand in eliminating the new candidate that france wanted to support (we had contact with both Kaddafi's son and the leader of a rebel group, both died), but i wouldn't put that war, then civil war, on US. Also, while France supported eliminating Kaddafi here, they supported the dictator in Tunisia with police forces and weapons (that are marked as non-lethal, but since we haven't found many nonlethal weapons after the revolution, either there was a kickback, or a lot were stolen/lost, or a part of what was sent were lethal weapons). And for Syria it's the same, Obama's administration wasn't really focused on that part of the middle east, and Hollande (France) forced their hand. Truly, i cannot believe France's reputation in Africa is that low. I wonder why.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kranke155 3y ago

The UK Parliamentary report on the Lybian intervention kind of refutes some of your points. Worth reading 1. Gaddafi was talking about war crimes but didn’t commit them in reality

objektif 3y ago

I cannot believe I am actually reading this. What kind of god syndrome people have here to think that they can just play Age of Empires with real people? You know you are talking about a sovereign nation right?

3seashells 3y ago
[flagged]

CapricornNoble 3y ago

You said it yourself, he was well on his way to crushing the rebellion. Libya's Arab Spring might have ended like Bahrain's [1], in which case the country might still have one of the highest levels of development in Africa.[2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144637499/bahrain-the-revolution-that-wasnt https://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144637499/bahrain-the-revolut... [2] https://www.countercurrents.org/cramer040511.htm https://www.countercurrents.org/cramer040511.htm

f6v 3y ago

The fact there’s a civil war doesn’t give you a right to invade a country. Or does it? I’m confused, it’s always a different answer.

lenkite 3y ago

Why don't we talk about how Obama's "moderate rebels" in Syria metasized into ISIS with full U.S equipment. After in-effectiveness in Syria against battle hardened Assad forces, they decided to go for Mosul and the soft Iraqi forces instead. Believe there was even an interview with the ISIS soldiers where they were very happy with the U.S. sponsorship! The same story was repeated earlier with Bin Laden. It is like the U.S. never learns. Now once again in 2022/23 the Idlib mujahideen are being courted by the U.S. war apparatus to make problems in Syria as a way to divert Russia.

lenkite 3y ago

> The "EU and America" didn't assassinate Gaddafi. Of-course they did! If you recall, there was even an offer made by Gadaffi and his sons for holding elections and a step-down if he lost. They even agreed to international observers for elections! Every single concession was rejected by NATO as a "ploy". They wanted Gaddaffi dead. Got the article: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/6/16/gaddafi-son-offers-libya-elections https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/6/16/gaddafi-son-offers-... but there were also several other concessions offered - all of which were singularly dismissed. The Libyan friends I used to know a decade ago weeped after Gadaffi died. A nation state in the middle east that used to offer free education for both sexes and free medical care is now dust and ashes - all thanks to NATO.