Do you really think that what's happening in Libya right now is a popular revolution?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

It seems to me that it is not, as I think there are two future scenarios:
1. A new dictator;
2. A puppet government.

Why? Because revolutions don't happen without a cause. No, "freedom of speech" and "democracy" has never been the cause of a revolution - it's usually hunger, other forms of poor living conditions, religion, nationalism or tyrannical oppression. None of these were present in Libya.

So do you all really believe that "popular revolution" BS we are led to believe by the media?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Your post is utterly ignorant of the situation.

The riots that sparked around the Arab world were caused by many years of political repression and emergency powers awarded to often brutal dictators. In the case of Libya, in the East, the epicentre of the revolution, the local people had long been discriminated against as Gaddafi favoured his own tribe a purposefully kept Cyrencia underdeveloped. Their catalyst however was huge unemployment, especially among the youth, who make up a gigantic proportion of the total population in any Arabic country, and high food and other living commodity prices.

So yes, that was present in Libya.

/thread

[Menelik_I]

Why? Because revolutions don't happen without a cause. No, "freedom of speech" and "democracy" has never been the cause of a revolution - it's usually hunger, other forms of poor living conditions, religion, nationalism or tyrannical oppression. None of these were present in Libya.

Fixed, it was all sweats and lollipops under Qaddafi

Please how does you manage to engineering a fake revolution and take thousands to the streets in the process ? Drug the water supply or Hypnotic Mossad devices ?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Libya is quite distinct from the rest of the Arab world, as it had much lower poverty levels and a small population. Also, what has Gaddafi done to libyans (blowing up Europeans doesn't count) apart from brutally prosecuting his political enemies?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Libya is quite distinct from the rest of the Arab world, as it had much lower poverty levels and a small population. Also, what has Gaddafi done to libyans (blowing up Europeans doesn't count) apart from brutally prosecuting his political enemies?

Gaddafi ruled Libya with a brutal security apparatus that tortured and murdered if necessary, began pointless wars with neighbouring states and purposefully kept Libyans who weren't the right sort of Libyans in undeveloped poverty.

Stats on Libyan unemployment but it would be literally unique if it didn't have 15% - 50% of youths out of work.

I have no idea why anybody would want grip to retarded conspiracy theories, spreading apologism for a man beyond human behaviour.

[mrmouth]

Libya is quite distinct from the rest of the Arab world, as it had much lower poverty levels and a small population. Also, what has Gaddafi done to libyans (blowing up Europeans doesn't count) apart from brutally prosecuting his political enemies?

I agree with this. And it all started for me during the first few days on the intervention when I was watching Meet The Press on one Sunday morning. Actually a great roundtable of journalists who were not towing the typical line in the media, but were questioning things. And one of those journalists had written a book on Gaddafi.

In short, he is not the tyrant that he is being made out to be. He did a lot of good for North Africa and the Libyan people. I was actually shocked.

And although nobody knows the breakdown, it is pretty clear this is not a popular rebellion. This was driven by a few influential military officers. And he still has a very substantial base of support.

[Lord Zhang Ku]

I agree with this. And it all started for me during the first few days on the intervention when I was watching Meet The Press on one Sunday morning. Actually a great roundtable of journalists who were not towing the typical line in the media, but were questioning things. And one of those journalists had written a book on Gaddafi.

In short, he is not the tyrant that he is being made out to be. He did a lot of good for North Africa and the Libyan people. I was actually shocked.

And although nobody knows the breakdown, it is pretty clear this is not a popular rebellion. This was driven by a few influential military officers. And he still has a very substantial base of support.

.....Really? The man slaughters innocent protestors, who then turn to violence only because they have no apparent recourse, and you consider him not a Tyrant?! The man has ordered slaughters before this revolt even took place! He ordered the Lockerbie bombing! He has not let his people elect someone they want, and instead rules through fear. Do you forget that at first there were protests in almost every single city besides Sirte? then when the violence began most of the protestors gave up and the rest took to arms. All the influential military officers you speak of defected, and didn't spark the protests. You ignore so many facts, it boggles the mind. He is a facist, who shoves himself in everything! His motto is all those who wish me gone don't deserve to live! His family has said that they would rather make Libya flood blood before they give up power. Just because financially Libya was a well off country doesn't mean the people weren't suppressed! Have you not heard of the poem A Dream Deferred by Langston Hughes? The people of Libya finally exploded, and want him gone. They fight because they feel they no longer have any choice.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I did say he brutally treated any 'threat' to the regime, but, for example, Russia has always done the same, and never has it directly caused a revolution.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I did say he brutally treated any 'threat' to the regime, but, for example, Russia has always done the same, and never has it directly caused a revolution.

No just the collapse of the Soviet Union, the swathe of conflicts that followed that, and little problems like the two wars in chechnya.

Gaddafi has brutally ruled Libya, with political repression and violence. People were suffering from the poor economy, with low employment and high commodity prices. Your vague conspiracy theory about the media causing it is just that - a conspiracy theory.

[Menelik_I]

I did say he brutally treated any 'threat' to the regime, but, for example, Russia has always done the same, and never has it directly caused a revolution.

Opportunity is the KEY.

When the Libyan saw Ben Ali and Mubarak go down, they actually believe that they could take down Qaddafi. Remenber, a dictator main goal is to convince you that it is wasting your life to confront him, Libyan started to believe they could do it.

There is was the point of no return when they took rifles to defend against the regime goons.

[justicar5]

I did say he brutally treated any 'threat' to the regime, but, for example, Russia has always done the same, and never has it directly caused a revolution.

wait..what?

If you were a freaking Libyan, then maybe it would ing matter.

I think the crux of the question is simple : Why the so many people think they can second guess the lives of millions of Libyans ?

ing Qaddafi is a dictator, the Libyan citizens have a right to their destiny, if they ing screw it at least they had a damn freaking choice and right to do so.

THAT SO MUCH! They where protesting rising food prices..and because it had worked in Egypt, and along tribal grounds and half a hundred reasons, and he started killing them, so they fought! They buy their chance with their own blood, they may mess it up but it's theirs, a nation decided screw that and started fighting, and good on them for it.

[Armija]

It seems to me that it is not, as I think there are two future scenarios:
1. A new dictator;
2. A puppet government.

Why? Because revolutions don't happen without a cause. No, "freedom of speech" and "democracy" has never been the cause of a revolution - it's usually hunger, other forms of poor living conditions, religion, nationalism or tyrannical oppression. None of these were present in Libya.

So do you all really believe that "popular revolution" BS we are led to believe by the media?

I partly Agree with your statement.

Yet again there was inequality between eastern part of Libya and western one and that inequality has made this revolution partly popular because it is popular in the east but not in the west. In general Libyans do live and were living much better than any of the state from their region.. They were having best standards in all Africa (even those relatively undevoloped eastern parts) they were (excluding some small rich emirates) having best standard even amongst Arab countries. But inequality and traditional support of eastern Libya to the monarchy has made them unsatisfied with Gaddafi rule.
Overally most of Libyans do not support this revolution. but there are also external factors, especially western countries which were trying to get rid of Gaddafi for many years now and they are using the oportunity. So I would like to add third possible solution and that is "divided nation" and two countries..
And I do not believe media at all..

[Mightypeon]

I partly Agree with your statement.

Yet again there was inequality between eastern part of Libya and western one and that inequality has made this revolution partly popular because it is popular in the east but not in the west. In general Libyans do live and were living much better than any of the state from their region.. They were having best standards in all Africa (even those relatively undevoloped eastern parts) they were (excluding some small rich emirates) having best standard even amongst Arab countries. But inequality and traditional support of eastern Libya to the monarchy has made them unsatisfied with Gaddafi rule.
Overally most of Libyans do not support this revolution. but there are also external factors, especially western countries which were trying to get rid of Gaddafi for many years now and they are using the oportunity. So I would like to add third possible solution and that is "divided nation" and two countries..
And I do not believe media at all..

Well, the whole thing is propably something like this:
Fact:
1:Several of the rebel leaders happen to be the "chiefs" of the countries strongest (in terms of manpower) tribes. The largest tribe does (pro forma) make up nearly 10-15% of Lybias population. In a democracy, the leader of this tribe would have much more power than he has under Ghadafi. The rebels main force consists of those tribes.
2: Ghadaffis own clan (Ghadafa) is rather small, only having a couple of 10.000 people in it. In practice, beeing in Ghadaffis imidiate familiy is very nice, but there are enough "nice jobs" left for non family members. Ghadaffi was thus popular with the smaller tribes and with the less tribal west, which is comparably urbanized.
3: The rebels may also have some bleeding heart democrats in them, as Lybia actually has a middle class that would be interested in democracy, but the major eastern tribes are the driving force.
4: The rebels saw the current situation as an opportune moment.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

And what exactly do they hope to achieve? A new dictator or being put to work pumping cheap oil to Europe while living worse than before?

EDIT: @ Armija
I didn't see your post.

[removeduser_487563287433]

And what exactly do they hope to achieve? A new dictator or being put to work pumping cheap oil to Europe while living worse than before?

EDIT: @ Armija
I didn't see your post.

Yeah you're right we should keep it as it is because the alternative has a chance of not being better.

Oh, what about the chance it could?

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah you're right we should keep it as it is because the alternative has a chance of not being better.

Oh, what about the chance it could?

With Al Qaeda members being within the ranks of rebels and the whole beheadings thing, these "chances" are rather slim.

[removeduser_487563287433]

With Al Qaeda members being within the ranks of rebels and the whole beheadings thing, these "chances" are rather slim.

Yeah. Funny how selective you are when you complain about requiring evidence to say things, isn't it?

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah. Funny how selective you are when you complain about requiring evidence to say things, isn't it?

I've already posted sources on Al Qaeda members among rebels. And here is a source about beheadings, that rebels did in misrata:
http://translate.google.com/translat...-gekoepft.html

Original (in German):
http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...-gekoepft.html

[Armija]

Yeah you're right we should keep it as it is because the alternative has a chance of not being better.

Oh, what about the chance it could?

Chance that it will be worse is much much bigger in my opinion atleast. To that extent that I actually think that it is an only chance...
Reason is that still big part of Libyan population support Qaddafi (in my opinion majority) and any solution disregarding opinion of majority will lead only to worse... Also there are those rebels which are many diferent kinds of fractions, ideologies and tribes from Al-qaida, over radicals to monarchist and who knows what kind not which are temporarly together to fight Qaddafi but as soon as he is ousted they will fall apart and country will enter even bigger crisis with them fighting each other for rule and influence and that might lead to even blodier conflict..
Some actually want exactly that (Divide and rule )

[spanish_emperor]

Yeah you're right we should keep it as it is because the alternative has a chance of not being better.

Oh, what about the chance it could?

you mean like egypt? You have to be blind not to see US interests in the area. It just so happens that Libya is part of the "axis of evil" but Bahrain isn't. It happens to be that Al Qaeda is supporting and has always supported opposition towards Gaddafi, it happens to be that China has large investments in the area, etc.
Yet it also happens to be that there is no evidence of this rumor that Gaddafi sent planes to bomb the civilians. Yet it happens to be that this rebellon has mostly western weapons which they somehow got while Gaddafi still has to use soviet era guns. Where are the protesters in Tripoli?

I only have to look at all the dictators who are allies of america to know that a country with one of the highest standards of living in Africa is not going to become more equal under a pro american government.

Sorry, no thanks. Democracy never guaranteed equality.

Also, please don't put me as some kind of Gaddafi fanboy cause i do not support this dictator but i do not support intervention in a sovereign nation.