Reply #157: Your intransigence reminds me of arguments with a creationist or climate change denier. [View All]

There will always be another gap. There will always be a flaw in the data.

Believing that the Nato intervention was unwise is one thing, but denying that the revolution was authentic and simply human sets you off on a lonesome and frustrating path of constant contradiction.

So I have to ask, is there any piece of evidence possible that would convince you otherwise?

If the answer is "no", then as time goes on you'll be driven to more obscure conspiracy theory, more arcane and irrelevant detail, more bizarre and unsupported sources. You'll be driven to more stories with title phrase like "Untold truth...", "What they don't want you to know..." and "Secret plans...".

Mathaba headline today:
Qaddafi Not Dead
Mathaba Editorial on the "Death" of Muammar Qaddafi

I know that isn't what you believe, but it is what the truest of the true believers believe. If your answer is "no", then there lies your future.

If you answer "yes, xyz evidence would convince me" then you have a tough problem to face as well, because you're putting yourself in judgment of a people and their simple request for UN intervention. I suppose it could be added to the UN charter that protection is granted if the people requesting are sufficiently anti-imperialist, sufficiently authentic revolutionaries, sufficiently perfect in their own application of human rights.

The UN standards for R2P as they stand are simple and they were met. It authorized all member states. That should be good enough.