they became useful to Western Powers to use as cover pretending this was a huge popular uprising, when it was never that.

The Racism there, kept under control also by Gadaffi, must have been known to NATO, and to think they went ahead regardless, knowing what would happen to those people. To think they got to a refugee camp, which must have been difficult and dangerous.

Shame on NATO who CLAIMED to be there to protect civilians. It was all lies, just like Iraq.

is what some people want to claim. But ay what point DO you judge them based on their behavior?

Behavior is almost always judged.

However, just as important to judge concomitantly is if a thing within a demographic is an aberration or a standard. Although i realize it is quite easy, rather convenient and very simplistic to judge a thing in and of itself sans relevant context, to do so is more often than not the sign of either a lazy mind or a dogmatic mind.

Else I'd judge all radiology technicians off the merits and standards of one radiology tech (the one being a coke addict in rehab-- merely an aberration... or an actual standard for radiology techs from which I judge them all?).

...the floodgates of black immigrants along with putting black immigrants on leaky ships? That Gaddafi?

Fucking despicable! I have never heard such vile apologia for racism and hatred and bigotry by the 1% (Gaddafi was the 1%) in my life!

The Green Book

don't even mention the ethnic cleansing behavior exhibited by the "good guys".

Can you explain such a strange contradiction in your viewpoint?

You added literally nothing to the discussion.

My use of "good guys" was in quotes to be sarcastic so I wasn't using it in the argument seriously.

What do you want to say --or do you really have as little to say as it appears?

There are no true good guys. No true bad guys.

Ghadaffi was a racist. Anything that replaced him could likely be the same.

That doesn't mean replacing him was a wrong decision, or a right decision.

It does mean, however, that the thesis of the OP ("Military "intervention" in Libya. THIS is what you get.&quot is a failed causal link.

Intervention did not invent racism in Libya, nor did it invent ethnic cleansing and mobs.

Intervention did, however, stop hushing it up, and hiding it behind a delusional dictator in denial.

are now being attacked by thugs, that is a reason to think that replacing Ghadaffi was a wrong decision. There may be countervailing reasons to think replacing him was a good decision, but don't pretend that the posted facts are irrelevant to assessing the wisdom of NATO's intervention.

Now, they have been displaced.

Up next, we can argue about the british losing property in the American revolution!

to the KKK in the 60s, no?

Like saying the KKK was better because their racism was out in the open. Very distorted logic.

Because, well, things were "orderly", and the oppressed peoples couldn't fight back, and the government ignored the whole issue.

Gaddafi brought in thugs and mercenaries from the south to attack the Arabic people rising up against him. He used the natural callousness toward other races of black Libyans and mercs from Chad and other nations to further his regime. Now the same racial callousness found among ethnic Arabs is striking back at the wrong enemy. The enemy is xenophobic and uneducated thinking--and Gaddafi had a policy of suppressing education and encouraging tribal divisiveness.

I mean, obviously it's heart breaking and morally unconscionable. But the seeds of ethnic resentment are often sewn and germinated by totalitarian regimes. This same thing happened in Yugoslavia, Chechniya, Indonesia... dozens of regions in the world. Men with guns do horrible things and nations that live under dictatorships encourage horrible men. Moammar Gaddafi continues to kill his own people from beyond the grave.

given. The truth and there is plenty of history to back it up, was that Gadaffi himself was viewed by these same bigots because of his 'curly hair' to be not 'one of us' and they hated him as they hated the darker skinned Africans whom Gadaffi invited to Libya paying them very good salaries, allowing them to join the military where the had security and money to send home. Just like the US. We have over 30,000 foreign people in our military, maybe more now, from S. America and elsewhere. They are NOT mercenaries they are legally in the army.

Many of those who escaped the slaughter once Gadaffi lost control, have spoken out from their home countries, explaining how they were protected and how a majority of Libyans accepted them. However, the 'rebels' who were used by NATO to depose Gadaffi were loyal to the old king of Libya, a western friendly ruler who was deposed by Gadaffi in a bloodless coup. I'm sure the NATO member countries knew just where to go and who to go to, to get a revolution started.

Really, you need to study the history of Libya and not listen to much of what we are told on our media. Black Africans were making good money in Libya and were able to send it back to their families living in poorer countries. Gadaffi was trying to help strengthen the African continent so that it could be independent of the west and poured money into other countries there. That made him an enemy of the West, particularly European nations.

The people who were presented as 'rebels' to us, are bigoted, fundies who were not a large majority in Libya. They never could have overthrown Gadaffi on their own, he had too much support in the country.

Ghanan workers have called Gadaffi a hero and protector and mourn his death. We need to stay out of places whose history and culture we know nothing about which is why it is so easy for our government to distort facts when they want our support to invade these countries.

We go into these countries like bulls in china shops, we get nothing but distorted news and we think we know best what is good for them. And generally they are far, far worse off after we leave.

The tragedy of the slaughter, lynching, torture of the Black Africans in Libya began early on in the 'revolution' or invasion which is what it was, reported by Human Rights Orgs, will go down in history along with those other murderous attacks on groups of people because of their ethnicity. That is when I stopped supporting this war realizing after taking some time to find out more, that we were getting zero facts about the whole situation.

And where is NATO now? Wasn't the excuse that they were there ONLY to protect civilians? Are Black Africans, in the country legally, not civilians? No, NATO was not there to protect civilians, they killed thousands of them, they were to depose another African government and as soon as that was done, they left the civilians to the mercy of the murderers.

By ANTHONY SHADID
Published: February 8, 2012

TRIPOLI, Libya — As the militiamen saw it, they had the best of intentions. They assaulted another militia at a seaside base here this week to rescue a woman who had been abducted. When the guns fell silent, briefly, the scene that unfolded felt as chaotic as Libya’s revolution these days — a government whose authority extends no further than its offices, militias whose swagger comes from guns far too plentiful and residents whose patience fades with every volley of gunfire that cracks at night.

The woman was soon freed. The base was theirs. And the plunder began.

“Nothing gets taken out!” shouted one of the militiamen, trying to enforce order.

It did anyway: a box of grenades, rusted heavy machine guns, ammunition belts, grenade launchers, crates of bottled water and an aquarium propped improbably on a moped. Men from a half-dozen militias ferried out the goods, occasionally firing into the air. They fought over looted cars, then shot them up when they did not get their way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/world/africa/libyas-new-government-unable-to-control-militias.html?bl

snip

As the anniversary of the February 17 uprising against Gaddafi approaches, Mali and other states to the south are paying a price for the revolution by Western-backed insurgents in Libya.

The flood of weapons and fighters out of Libya has now added to an arc of insecurity across West Africa, stretching from Boko Haram Islamists behind a spate of lethal bombings in Nigeria to al Qaeda allies who have targeted Westerners and armed forces in the Sahel all the way to Mauritania in the north.

Mali is no stranger to rebellions - this is the fourth led by the Tuareg nomads of the north since independence from France in 1960. The last ended only in 2008.

But this time the turbaned rebels' arsenal includes SA-7, SA-24 and Milan portable missile systems, according to the Malian soldier who faced them.

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-arms-men-libya-fortify-mali-rebellion-151704710.html

But this time the turbaned rebels' arsenal includes SA-7, SA-24 and Milan portable missile systems, according to the Malian soldier who faced them.

the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog for some reason.

The Scorpion and the Frog is a fable about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung during the trip, but the scorpion argues that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature. The fable is used to illustrate the position that the behaviour of some creatures is irrepressible, no matter how they are treated and no matter what the consequences.

in comparison to the real Egyptian youth movement.

Go try to find any "Libyan Youth" at this web site, which I assume the Rendon Group or some other PR firm was paid to promote: Feb17.info

No comparison to the blog Alaa maintains with his wife, Manal or Mona Seif's effort against the Egyptian junta, No Military Trials , or Ramy Roof's human rights' blog or Hossam's updates on labor and photography.

Maybe all the socks are Syrian by now.

right you are. The PR effort has shifted to Syria.

I know the fable quite well, it's all about species.

Not "races" or "nations", or "politics", but species.

You are now having an imaginary argument with the voices in your head.

Quite simple.

I need a good laugh.

More specifically, that black Lybians are the frog, and Arab Lybians are scorpions.

I've used the same story to explain Republicans trashing the economy just to deprive Obama of a second term. Dumbasses picked a venom-proof frog, it turns out, but the story still holds up.

The scorpion are the US and the military forces of the west.

They wanted to cross that river and didn't give one shit about the frog.

The frog is the people of Libya in general and also it could be the people who supported this military action in the hopes that that the US could be trusted to act in good faith and was doing it for the good of the Libyan people.

The favorite source for Libya "news" from the Khadafi mourners.

Is "Ghaddafi supporter" an ethnicity?

Point being: the Arab "Ghaddafi supporter" towns were not spared AFAIK.

Unless you are saying it was just an accident that they were black.

If you think so, go ahead and I will bury you under links that will show you how silly your position is.

I will wait for your reply.

Were all black majority areas of Libya emptied, and arab majority areas spared?

I think racism plays a part, but it's not the only part.

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/09/17/ethnic-cleansing-libya-united-nations-no-comment-jesse-jackson-mahmoud-jibril/

Some important reactions to the ethnic cleansing of Tawergha – The San Francisco BayView has followed up on the reporting of the Wall Street Journal, the Black Star News and Human Rights Investigations on the ethnic cleansing of Tawergha with an article entitled: Libya: Tawergha, city of Blacks, depopulated – Rep. Jesse Jackson calls for investigation of ‘crimes against humanity’

A Black Star News report follows the remarks made by NTC Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril, giving the seal of approval to the ethnic cleansing.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr, who served as a national co-chairman of the 2008 Obama election campaign and who is a civil rights activist and stated on Wednesday:
“Racism in the form of ethnic cleansing, killing and genocide is wrong anytime, anyplace and against anybody in the world. And it appears as though the rebel leader, Mahmoud Jibril, is using the American idea that the South used to protect the institution of slavery – the 10th Amendment in our Constitution – to say, in essence, ‘it’s a states’ right and local control issue.’”

The old familiar 'if you don't support the war, you are a terrorist supporter, a dictator lover, and a traitor'.

Did you really mean to insult the intelligence of DUers that way?

Wrt to RT, several DUers are regular guests on RT. I wish our totally unbiased MSM would eg, give people like Amy Goodman a voice (thank YOU RT) or DUer Thom Hartmann (again thank you RT) or other DUers like David Swanson, Steven Leser eg, DUer, Max Keiser (thank you again RT)but our MSM is so totally NOT biased when it comes to our foreign policy that there has to be some legitimate reason for why they block the voices of such people. Imagine we have to go to RT to hear liberal voices such as the above mentioned, people we have known throughout the Bush years to have been accurate in their reporting of those years.

RT has been an excellent additional source of news along with Al Jazeera (also declared biased and banned from the US still) not to mention all the foreign press, particularly the African media and blogs wrt to the Libyan situation. The African media and the voices of many of Africa's leaders during the whole Libyan tragedy, were eye-opening to anyone in the US who depends on our media for their news.

I love RT. They have some great documentaries, excellent discussion shows with people from all over the world and from across the political spectrum. With few ads the discussions are long and in depth, with varied viewpoints but no one being shouted down or cut off.

I hope we see more of this kind of broadcasting in this country. Our media is currently listed at #47 of the World's Free Press. I think we are badly in need of reform in that area.

I've seen you post "Bring all the troops home NOW!" on many an occasion, particularly in regards to Afghanistan. When told that it would lead to this type of bloody civil war there, you scoffed and didn't care. Yet now because Obama conducted a war in Libya, you suddenly give a shit about the consequences of a quick incursion and withdrawal of support from the area.

Take a strong look at Libya because this is what it looks like when you decide to not occupy a country after invading. At least in Libya, we were asked by the UN, NATO, the EU and the African Congress to intervene to prevent the destruction of entire cities by that murderous thug Ghaddafi.

Stop bringing US military actions around the world to secure resources and to project power into a region.

Gaddhafi's son is stirring the pot with threats to return.

that he be returned to Libya --but considering how his father was killed in cold blood, I can hardly blame him for now wanting to go.

There are exceptions, of course, but anyone who can't see that war usually sucks has blinders on.

The law of unforeseeable results is basically at work in any kind of chaotic war situation. even with good intentions, blowing bodies apart rarely works to achieve good results.

I say RARELY, not NEVER. But I think you have a better chance of a hole in 1 on a par 4 at Pebble beach than achieving peace by bombing the shit out of people.