IMMIGRATION thread

Originally Posted by Viking

Yeah, well.
The point is that Syria has something in common with Kazakhstan, namely Islam as the dominant religion (Syria is/was a relatively secular state, anyway).

In non-Muslim Europe, there is even less in common. Still no language, still no ethnicity - and no religion, in common. There's almost nothing. In Kazakhstan, there is something; something not insignificant.

I disagree.
Do you really consider Europe non-Muslim? What about numerous Turks in Germany (where most immigrants seem to be heading) to say nothing of "non-Muslim" France? So Syrians are likely to find in Europe as many things in common as they would in Kazakhstan.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm not sure you understand, you seem to think that "Constitutional Monarchy" is different to democracy. It's not - I live in a democracy which is simultaneously a Constitutional Monarchy and under the Constitution the Monarch's power is absolute - the Saudi King wishes he was as powerful as my Queen who rules by the Grace of God.

Is there a constitution in Britain or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We created Trans-Jordan to limit Jewish territorial expansion by dividing Palestine in half. Originally what is now "Israel" and "Jordan" would have been "Palestine" because Classicists drew that may and divided it into the old Roman provinces. Joradn is also not a joke, the fact that you think it is speaks volumes.

I would also like to add that if we adopt the perspective of HitWithThe5, many modern countries are jokes. I don't pretend to be a connoseuir of the Arab world, but it seems to me (as a layman) that there is not much difference between Bahrain and Qatar or Oman and UAE or Kuwait and Qatar (in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, traditions and mentality) to justify carving the south of the Gulf into so many countries. Or between Algeria and Tunisia, Lebannon and Syria. And we can leave the Arabs alone and say the same about Bolivia vs Peru, Colombia vs Venezuela, Costa Rica vs Panama etc. Too many jokes and coffee-stains on the world map today.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The Dutch language in Indonesia died shortly after independence. In fact, there is no longer a native ethnic-Dutch population in Indonesia. This is not the case simply because some native ethnic-Dutch left the region after the war and independence. It is because they mixed and assimilated so thoroughly that they simply stopped passing on their Dutch language and culture within a single generation.

Admittedly, the role played by population proportions is large. After independence, only a few tens of thousands of "full-blooded" Dutch remained in the long-term. There were already some hundreds of thousands of Indo-Dutch (i.e. "mixed"), but their assimilated identity had already been forming for centuries. Nevertheless, it is one of a few notable cases of entire European colonial populations 'going native', so to speak.

As far as I can see, the war in Indonesia and subsequent exodus of Dutch people played a huge role here; so this lesson does not seem overly relevant when calculating the odds of e.g. Syrians assimilating in Europe. When you have great disturbance in a country, things work differently.

They could do that in Libya, even though they never even accomplished it in Syria - their backyard?

The rebel front in Syria never collapsed. If it had collapsed in Libya, and then IS managed to enter the scene and open a front, then yes, I think they could recruit efficiently from many Libyan rebel groups (and they presumably do recruit from other rebel groups in Syria thanks to their impressive performance there).

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

Before they started getting funded by nato? No. When you arm islamists you best believe they’re gonna run with it forever. In Libya everyone and their dog knew who's boss as soon as it happened - Islamists, taking over your neighborhood and telling you its time to atone for the country's sins.

Islamists were the most organized armed groups, they were trained in turkey, and had the support of nato and its lackeys.

Which islamists are you actually talking about? According to some, the forces currently at play in Libya have very different motives.

Denying that this is a failed NATO operation is laughable at this point.

Not by normal definitions of the word operation. The NATO operation ended shortly after Gaddafi was killed, and its primary aim was to remove Gaddafi from power, which took just a few months. After that, NATO largely had a passive role.

That what happened next may not have been what NATO leaders hoped for is another matter.

Uniting Libyans? I don’t see any of this happening.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I disagree.
Do you really consider Europe non-Muslim? What about numerous Turks in Germany (where most immigrants seem to be heading) to say nothing of "non-Muslim" France? So Syrians are likely to find in Europe as many things in common as they would in Kazakhstan.

Turks in Germany are immigrants, they are an example of the phenomenon I am talking about.

Some European countries might have Muslim populations that can be counted as native, but they are still in the minority (or just a big fraction); so any assimilation into these groups doesn't eliminate the fundamental issue. Albania (and Kosovo) is probably the closest you get to a Muslim-majority country in Europe, and, yeah, I believe Syrian refugees would be more likely to assimilate in Albania than e.g. in Northern Europe over time. But it would also depend on how capable of and interested in the state is when it comes to integrating the refugees into society; a poorly-integrated group is likely to stay separate.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I would also like to add that if we adopt the perspective of HitWithThe5, many modern countries are jokes. I don't pretend to be a connoseuir of the Arab world, but it seems to me (as a layman) that there is not much difference between Bahrain and Qatar or Oman and UAE or Kuwait and Qatar (in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, traditions and mentality) to justify carving the south of the Gulf into so many countries. Or between Algeria and Tunisia, Lebannon and Syria. And we can leave the Arabs alone and say the same about Bolivia vs Peru, Colombia vs Venezuela, Costa Rica vs Panama etc. Too many jokes and coffee-stains on the world map today.

That's true, but I don't dislike it just because of its geography. I don't like the way their monarchy dealt with Palestinians, their military cooperation with Israel (arms deals), and their Hashemite monarchy. These Hashemites claim they are descendants of the prophet:

1. First of all this doesn't mean anything. Islam does not recognize kings, there is only one monarch and that is god in Islam, caliphs are a post-da'wa construction. There is no framework for governance in Islam. Even Al Saud do not make such ridiculous claims for themselves in lineage.
2. If we go by their ancestral claim, they are actually descendants of the prophet's evil uncle Abu Lahab.
3. You'll find quite a few Jordanians shaking their head in agreement when you mention Black September's atrocities and other Hashemite meddling against Palestinians.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, I dislike all their governments but Jordan's stance on the issue I find repulsive from an Arab state that professes what I mentioned above. That's another topic though I don't care to discuss. I like Jordan.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

Saying that she has more power than Al Saud is a bit of a stretch, take a look at the net worth and who has an active participation in international relations.

As much as I like the Queen I'm a Republican. A republic where I vote for the head of state not where the parliament elects it which is the one choice in the last referendum in Australia. I'm also a Greenie who believes in nuclear power and genetic engineering.

So do take my care factor in who is more powerful with a grain of salt as I care more about Kings and Queens on a chess board.

Now having said that. The King of Saud is a very powerful man whose power is linked with his money which is based on his oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is not (yet) recognized as a leading light for human rights, arts, sciences, cuisine or military power. UK ranks higher in probably all of those including cuisine, I'll let the better travelled Europeans have a last say on that vote.

So Saudi Arabia wealth is oil reserves x oil price per barrel. Oil price goes down so does the reach of Saudi Arabia. Run out of oil or alternatives become cheaply available and things get really desperate. Not terrible if the right infrastructure (including human investment) is done in Saudi Arabia. After all they could provide all their energy needs with wind and solar.

Anyhow with the increase of solar, wind, micro grids and electric cars the demand for petrol will diminish over time. Oil has other uses, some of which the end products are far more valuable then just burning petrol. But the demand for these are paltry compared with petrol. I do assume the other products will increase in availability as the relative supply will increase. Who knows maybe home 3D printing will take up some of the demand.

So just based on current global trends oil nations will need to find alternative methods of propping up their economies. Much like Australia where when the commodities merry go round stops the share market plummets.

So for my 2 cents minus taxes, tariffs and exchange rate costs... The King Of Saudi Arabia power peaked with peak oil and is only going to slide down as the world progresses to other options.

The Saudi family is more powerful than the Queen of England - in the Arabian peninsula, and few other places.

Originally Posted by Viking

Yet they united against Gaddafi.

No, they didn't.

The rebel front in Syria never collapsed. If it had collapsed in Libya, and then IS managed to enter the scene and open a front, then yes, I think they could recruit efficiently from many Libyan rebel groups (and they presumably do recruit from other rebel groups in Syria thanks to their impressive performance there).

Double I can't even begin to imagine a logical process for that notion.

At any rate, the vast majority of IS fighters come from two categories: 1. Foreigners from Central Asia and North Africa and 2. Long-standing Islamist militias from Iraq.

Not by normal definitions of the word operation. The NATO operation ended shortly after Gaddafi was killed, and its primary aim was to remove Gaddafi from power, which took just a few months. After that, NATO largely had a passive role.

That what happened next may not have been what NATO leaders hoped for is another matter.

Also a strange comment. One of the biggest arguments from military POVs against the Libyan semi-intervention was that it was such a poorly-planned and organized operation specifically with respect to its scope and goals.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...0visits%20gulf

So she visited the UAE - that's not Saudi Arabia.

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet - I don't think there's really any real argument you can put up against that. The fact that she, by convention, will rarely exercise that power is another matter.

I have a feeling the majority went to school in Saudi Arabia or regularly go to wahhabi-funded mosques. There is a distinction between the gulf and Saudi Arabia, different regimes. Oman doesn't care about which sect you belong to, you pray in the same place as shias whether you're a sufi or sunni. UAE is a federation that has cracked down on the brotherhood back in 2011 and is known to oppose Islamist movements or any prospect of wahhabism in the country, we were at war with wahhabis some 60-80 years ago along with Oman. Kuwait isn't known to spawn these people, Bahrain is a Shia-majority so certainly not either.

The gulf takes control of their Islamic institutions and monitor their mosques. Whatever type of people those mosques produce are generally a reflection of the state's worldview, and what you are witnessing in the UK is Saudi-Wahhabi zeal at its finest. Your mosques belong to them.

You are, indeed, correct that we have a big problem with Saudi funded Mosques here, it's taken a few decades but the government here has finally grasped the nature of the problem.

My point, though, and it may not be as apparent in the UAE where there are so many wealthy cities, is that there's a substrate in the Gulf, the Levant, and even in Turkey which when asked to vote will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood or someone reading from the same book. I think it's entirely wrong to write this off as a Saudi problem, if it was IS would have no traction.

I don't know why the steps being taken to solve these issues aren't covered, locals speak about this often and nationals are actually ashamed of this, it's a serious issue. This doesn't change the fact that Dubai is a model for Arabs, that's why it's such a diverse city.

The Emir of Dubai is an absolute monarch and one of the most wealthy individuals in the world, but he has allowed Indian workers to live in shipping containers - and the same is going on in neighbouring Qatar. I knoe steps are being taken to address the issue but the issue should be fixed by now, or it should never have got that way to begin with.

On paper it's supposed to be sharia, conservative Arabs and Muslims might hate Dubai. I was there a few weeks ago and kissing is a minor offense, but pda/public sex can lead to deportation. Homosexuals aren't executed, that is a lie.

Well, having sex in public might get you locked up here, too.

As far as I'm aware the legal code in Dubai proscribes death for homosexual acts, whether people are often prosecuted or not is another matter. Until around 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country but rarely prosecuted, when the government started to crack down in the 50's and 60's there was a public backlash and the law was changed.

See you say these things but there really isn't that much negativity to say about Dubai itself. I can list all of UK's shortcomings and that will blow it out of the water but I understand it. Also because I've actually been to the UK.

Aside from the oppressive legal system, the absolute monarch, the dependence on oil-wealth, the criminalisation of homosexuality and the treatment of foreign labourers, you mean?

I hear it's a great place if you have money and hell on Earth if, as a foreign worker, you lose your job and don't have enough money to pay your debts.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet - I don't think there's really any real argument you can put up against that. The fact that she, by convention, will rarely exercise that power is another matter.

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

Originally Posted by Husar

That whole argument seems schizophrenic to me. She has the most power but she can't and won't use it because then she'd be overthrown by a revolt. So basically she doesn't have a lot of power because she'd be overthrown if she made use of most of her theoretical powers.
And if she could make use of all of her powers, you might not live in a democracy anymore. So your queen is effectively quite powerless and can only intervene in a few occasions IF the true holders of power, the people, have her back.

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

Papewaio - you're right about the queen long live the sweet old lady :) . All I'm saying is Al Saud currently enjoy more power, both actual power and soft power. This monarchy greenlit the establishment of US bases that enabled the war in Iraq, that is power. To create wars and fund Islamists without other heads of states uttering so much as a word in disapproval. Net worth and the current demand for oil make these guys more important than the queen. Queen does not have actual political power why overcomplicate things... Nobody cares about her potential power.

Originally Posted by PVC

ERII is the most powerful and respected monarch on the planet

This is pointless so agree to disagree. Queen is lovely though and much appreciated for paying respects for the best Arab leader ever the benevolent founder of the UAE in the grand mosque. Very classy and no Arabophobia or Islamophobia or mosquephobia see ;)

Cultured lady who travels, you should try it.

My point, though, and it may not be as apparent in the UAE where there are so many wealthy cities, is that there's a substrate in the Gulf, the Levant, and even in Turkey which when asked to vote will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood or someone reading from the same book. I think it's entirely wrong to write this off as a Saudi problem, if it was IS would have no traction.

I have to agree with ole Bashar that isis would not have existed without Abdul Wahhab. The Muslim Brotherhood has a very inconsistent ideology and body of work that can appeal to anyone, that's why they're ridiculous. Their earlier texts differ from now but Wahhabism and MB are both revivalist movements. These are regressive Islamic disciplines adopted by the ignorant.

I knoe steps are being taken to address the issue but the issue should be fixed by now, or it should never have got that way to begin with.

Agreed.

As far as I'm aware the legal code in Dubai proscribes death for homosexual acts, whether people are often prosecuted or not is another matter. Until around 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in this country but rarely prosecuted, when the government started to crack down in the 50's and 60's there was a public backlash and the law was changed.

Yeah I just don't see it. Not that it matters at all (or made a difference) these anti-homosexual laws were put in place initially by colonial British. Other than that it's normal to see gays out of the closet. Some holding hands in the mall not giving a shit, some related to me, and I know for a fact that every tribe has got to have at least more than one gay person in the family. I'd say this is true for Kuwait more prominently and even Bahrain lesser extent. But you are right about the official law, we are expected to maintain some Sharia as this clearly conflicts with Islam. If it was once okay in Lebanon maybe it will be here.

Maybe you should shift your attention towards homosexuality in Russia, seems more serious even though it's not really a religious grudge. That makes it worse.

Originally Posted by Viking

Yet they united against Gaddafi.

Like someone mentioned above they didn't.

Initial point was that you cannot call something a victory for liberal interventionism and then proceed to blame the mess on Libyans. You cant invade a country and expect to be absolved of the effects of your interference. By violating the sovereignty of the state nato had dealt a huge blow to regional security. Those tuareg fighters went straight back to mali with the weapons they looted, same with boko haram. Gaddafi had better arms but britain, france, and the us couldn’t help but get involved in the sahel for some reason. Militia leaders in Libya were charged with filling the security vacuum and they had much to loot from nato leftovers.

The fact is either nato were willingly supporting islamists or these militias fooled them by publicly praising the interventionists. Even if an islamist thanks you, his ideology wants its boot up yours. Islamists were previously neglected but they were legitimized by foreign countries.

I wish eu countries would just stop listening to the usa in ME affairs. The usa has a history of overstretched imperialism, imprudent and short-sighted policies mixed with humanitarian militarism bs that lacks any commitment to nation-building. Iran is just so much more pragmatic and prudent than all these countries combined it’s funny. if you can’t handle the costs of restoration DONT INTERVENE.

Of course now that the coalition airstrikes are aimed at iraq and syria these jihadists of various stripes are settled in libya with their own lovely political environment. Lets check up on them a few years from now isis might pale in comparison.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

That is what a mandate of the governed is.

Same applies to a republican president or any legitimate head of state.

Key word is legitimate. No mandate, no legitimacy.

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

Originally Posted by Husar

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Can Saudi Arabia send regular forces under any circumstances outside the peninsula?

Can the queen send regular forces anywhere?

Well, she already is.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Well, she already is.

The queen or the parliament?

The power of war lies in the hands of the queen, Parliament is incapable of issuing a declaration without royal concent.

Though keep in mind that Britain hasn't actually declared war since the 40's.

Originally Posted by Husar

So Kim Jong Un has a mandate now or does he have no power? Does legitimacy equal power now?
The king of SA does not have to be legitimate to have more actual power than the Queen.
He probably has an easier time sending his army somewhere because he wants to than the queen does even though the queen technically has more armies somewhere that she can't just send to Yemen tomorrow just because she feels like it.

The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

Another major fight in a German asylum centre, the thermaphysisists didn't agree with the other physitions apparently, eye-surgions and mathematitions joined in this highly sensative scientific debate.

Originally Posted by Viking

But it would also depend on how capable of and interested in the state is when it comes to integrating the refugees into society; a poorly-integrated group is likely to stay separate.

I believe France would give other Europeans a most useful advice on how to integrate a huge Muslim populace and keep the civil peace and unity of the society.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

That's true, but I don't dislike it just because of its geography. I don't like the way their monarchy dealt with Palestinians, their military cooperation with Israel (arms deals), and their Hashemite monarchy.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, I dislike all their governments but Jordan's stance on the issue I find repulsive from an Arab state that professes what I mentioned above.

Personal distate of a country's policies is not a reason to call the country a joke.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Anyhow with the increase of solar, wind, micro grids and electric cars the demand for petrol will diminish over time.

I think over QUITE A LONGISH SPELL of time. Oil lobbysts will do (and are in fact doing) their utmost to play down or hold in check progress in alternative energy consumption.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So just based on current global trends oil nations will need to find alternative methods of propping up their economies.

Or will try hard to put a stop on anything that threatens their current source of income.

Solar and Wind power already are on par with coal supplied electricity at the home for cost per kw.

It's not if electric cars will make an impact on oil prices its when it will happen. Maybe the VW scandal will speed up the adoption of electric as it seems there is no such thing as a green diesel.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Personal distate of a country's policies is not a reason to call the country a joke.

Their monarchy is a joke then, for the reasons I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The power of war lies in the hands of the queen, Parliament is incapable of issuing a declaration without royal concent.

Though keep in mind that Britain hasn't actually declared war since the 40's.

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The last war declared by a British monarch was WWII. How did that go again?

UK government has a limited amount of power to send troops to conflicts but requires the Monarch to sign off on a full scaled war.

But then how is Britain a democracy as PVC said, if an unelected monarch gets the last say on all the important things?
It sounds like eating your cake and having a fine wine with it.

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic?

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic?

We don't have an unelected Monarch who has all these powers to turn the country into a monarchy again or can reign in almost any decision of the elected politicians as PVC described and Greyblades and Pape apparently verified.
Or maybe the queen can't actually do all that in reality and then she is rather powerless in reality, how can both be true?

I would never claim that the German president is more powerful than the King of SA. Yes, he has to sign all the laws, but his actual power is more that of someone who can make a moral point in speeches, to assume that he holds actual power due to a few of his functions is a bit much. He can surely refuse to sign a law now and then if he can explain it well, but I'm pretty sure the actual powers of the king of SA go a bit beyond that.

If Saudi Arabia is not a democracy because the king has too much power, how can your country be a democracy if your king/queen has even more power?

Look at it this way:

During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had the power to end modern civilization.

Except, not really, but really.

I think you're tripping up over the underlying premise that power is not unconstrained.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

But then how is Germany a democracy, when it's actually a republic?

Same can be said about the US.

All your democracies are belong to us.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Look at it this way:

During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had the power to end modern civilization.

Except, not really, but really.

I think you're tripping up over the underlying premise that power is not unconstrained.

I think everybody else is tripping over the difference between theoretical and actual power.
Actual power being the one that is left over after the constraints have been applied.
And for the queen that is not a whole lot if the people will actually revolt if she does something they don't like.
In this case the actual power would lie with the people, no?

As for the US and USSR, their power was far more actual than theoretical as once the nukes would have blown up, no other power could have reverted the effect by a revolt for example. If the queen disbands parliament, gets killed by a popular revolt and parliament just stays in session, what did she actually achieve? If Russia and the US had nuked the planet, that would have been final, that's actual power no one wants to use.

Originally Posted by Husar

We don't have an unelected Monarch who has all these powers to turn the country into a monarchy again or can reign in almost any decision of the elected politicians as PVC described and Greyblades and Pape apparently verified.
Or maybe the queen can't actually do all that in reality and then she is rather powerless in reality, how can both be true?

Britain's monarch is kind of a permanent version of a democratic politician: she's in power because people want her and can do whatever she wants, but if it comes to pass that she pisses enough of her own people she's liable to be removed, violently if need be.

So what is power, the reversibility of an effect?

Then power simply does not exist, or else it is infinite. That's not very useful here, unless you're arguing that power is not a useful concept. A linear power certainly isn't a useful concept, since constraints are relational, not to be summed or subtracted.

Another example: the power of the POTUS is similar to the power of the English monarch, it's just that the POTUS is expected by others to wield the power. However, in many ways the power of the POTUS is far more constrained than the power of either the Saudi or the English monarchs. The POTUS has many more relationships to juggle.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

No, they didn't.

Rebels from Benghazi, Misrata, Zintan etc. all fought under the same banner. They were united while they had the common cause of removing Gaddafi.

Double I can't even begin to imagine a logical process for that notion.

IS just opened a new front in Afghanistan (whether directly or indirectly). I am note sure what you are getting at.

Also a strange comment. One of the biggest arguments from military POVs against the Libyan semi-intervention was that it was such a poorly-planned and organized operation specifically with respect to its scope and goals.

Officially, there might have been ambiguity over the goals of the operation; but unofficially, I can only assume that the most important leaders of the intervention had the goal to remove Gaddafi.

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

Initial point was that you cannot call something a victory for liberal interventionism

I didn't.

and then proceed to blame the mess on Libyans

They were the ones who started it.

The fact is either nato were willingly supporting islamists or these militias fooled them by publicly praising the interventionists. Even if an islamist thanks you, his ideology wants its boot up yours. Islamists were previously neglected but they were legitimized by foreign countries.

I ask again: which islamists? Names of groups and individuals who currently wield significant power, please.

Rebels from Benghazi, Misrata, Zintan etc. all fought under the same banner.

Since when did you put so much stock in legal fictions? Do also note that there were rebels outside of the major coastal cities...

IS just opened a new front in Afghanistan (whether directly or indirectly). I am note sure what you are getting at.

What is the relevance here?

but unofficially, I can only assume that the most important leaders of the intervention had the goal to remove Gaddafi.

Unofficially, the goal was whatever you can imagine it to be.