Civil War in Libya

**Adrian II** · 08-26-2011, 10:33

Originally Posted by Panzer

We envision a bright future of continued interventions in the name of freedom for all

I don't think anybody on this board believes that. Libya was an exception. You can bet Nato is not going to intervene in Syria, for instance, unless Syria itself seeks a confrontation. And Nato would be quite capable of warding off a Syrian threat, it isn't that powerless.

I seriously doubt that Libya is going to be a full-grown democracy. To the outside world the rebels are represented by the amiable and decent Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former Justice Minister, but among the rebel fighters there are quite a few groups that have ties to Al Qaeda and other islamist movements and that hold similar political views. Apart from that there is a huge potential for renewed tribal conflict. I think we will yet see quite a few reports of score-settling, not just between Arabs and blacks.

You are right that the Western states are manipulating public perception of this conflict. They did so in 1999 with regard to Kosovo, in 2001 with regard to Afghanistan and in 2003 with regard to Iraq. Ever since I was a member of this board I have tried to refute such propaganda. I don't remember you being so sceptical then, on the contrary. And I'm not sure that I'm happy with your late conversion. It seems to be rooted in a desire to bash Arabs more than in any genuine concern for human rights.

AII

**Hax** · 08-26-2011, 10:38

I seriously doubt that Libya is going to be a full-grown democracy.

If the majority of the people seek an Islamic state, is that undemocratic? What constitutes a "full-grown democracy"?

**Adrian II** · 08-26-2011, 10:45

Originally Posted by Hax

If the majority of the people seek an Islamic state, is that undemocratic? What constitutes a "full-grown democracy"?

Do we really need to go there? A question like this could only be asked by someone who enjoys full democracy and doesn't even understand or value it.

AII

**Fragony** · 08-26-2011, 10:47

Originally Posted by Hax

If the majority of the people seek an Islamic state, is that undemocratic? What constitutes a "full-grown democracy"?

They would chose to be an enemy ideologically. But AdrianII is going to laugh very at me for saying that so I'm of

**Adrian II** · 08-26-2011, 10:49

Originally Posted by Fragony

They would chose to be an enemy ideologically. But AdrianII is going to laugh very at me for saying that so I'm of

Good God, it wouldn't be the first time that the West creates it own enemies.

AII

**Fragony** · 08-26-2011, 11:54

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Good God, it wouldn't be the first time that the West creates it own enemies.

AII

ha, you are just as predictable as Libya's plunge in a nightmare of civil war. Panzer is sooooooo right, what do you know of these countries exactly

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 08-26-2011, 11:19

Originally Posted by Hax

If the majority of the people seek an Islamic state, is that undemocratic? What constitutes a "full-grown democracy"?

Islamic states have dreadful track records, which is why I find it odd that progressive Bahrain gets lumped in with Syria when the former was trying to prevent the actual outbreak of revolution and is already cautiously moving towards democracy and firmly away from Islamicism.

In any case, the rise of Islamic states has little to do with positive political consent and far more to do with a lack of opposition.

As a point of contrast, do you think the majority wanted a theocratic autocracy in England in the 1650's? Or was it just that the religious fundamentalists had all the power?