IMMIGRATION thread

[Montmorency]

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.

[AE Bravo]

I didn't.

Well yeah not you.

They were the ones who started it.

Not a good argument to justify the intervention. They started it on their turf...

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

LIFG. Other Al Qaeda affiliates included. Same shit different toilet.

[Papewaio]

I wouldn't get too worried about different groups under the same banner thrown together to fight what they saw was a greater threat.

Factional differences abound in democratic parties, just look at the Tea Party within the GOP.

External threats to a nation is one of the quickest methods to align internal warring parties unless the aggressor has already aligned with some of the internal groups. The last bit is what has separated the successful colonial powers with ones that failed. However just aligning oneself with internal camps doesn't mean instant win just look at Vietnam and the amount of time territories had to be retaken after the local colonels lost it (again).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

LIFG. Other Al Qaeda affiliates included. Same shit different toilet.

Of the Libyan militias that were actually active during the Civil War I think only the Misrata Brigade has sided with the Islamists, I think they and the Zintan militia were the only fighting over Tripoli Airport.

Recall during the war remarking that the fighters from Misrata seemed to be behind most rebel atrocities, granted those guys spent weeks under siege by government forces but that's no reason to be jerks.

More telling, if we're talking about Libya, was the subsequent scandal when a cadre of around a hundred Libyans came to the UK for training and then six of them committed sexual assault against women and two raped a man. Fair warning - my figures may be a bit off, the overall proportion of offences may be slightly higher or lower.

Anyway, the training program was cancelled because the Libyans were, essentially, deemed not to be civilised enough to be trusted.

[Viking]

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

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here.

What is the relevance here?

Trying to guess what your objections are.

Not a good argument to justify the intervention. They started it on their turf...

The intervention secured the defeat of the dictatorship. If the dictatorship had survived, any restored stability would be at the expense (per usual) of innocent people tortured and murdered by security services casting a wide net. You can't escape the metaphorical blood on your hands no matter which side you support.

LIFG. Other Al Qaeda affiliates included. Same shit different toilet.

And where is LIFG et al. now?

[AE Bravo]

The intervention secured the defeat of the dictatorship. If the dictatorship had survived, any restored stability would be at the expense (per usual) of innocent people tortured and murdered by security services casting a wide net. You can't escape the metaphorical blood on your hands no matter which side you support.

Nobody should have taken it upon themselves to "secure the defeat of the dictatorship." Regional actors did not unanimously support this intervention nor were the costs worth it. You can't escape the metaphorical blood on your hands either way, which is why the security of Libya comes first.

And where is LIFG et al. now?

Planting their feet in the Arabian Maghreb. Say what you will about Ghaddafi but he was a good security guard of the maghreb and his defeat enabled the network of islamism we see in Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya (along with other African states) today. They were single nastiest opposition to maghreb regimes yet the west risked arming them, intentionally or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Question -s Libya now as badly off as Syria?

If not then the intervention was the better of two evils - bearing in mind all war is evil and makes God weep.

[Montmorency]

Question -s Libya now as badly off as Syria?

If not then the intervention was the better of two evils

A form of the Parmenidean Fallacy, but more straightforwardly we can just call it begging the question.

bearing in mind all war is evil and makes God weep.

God's a sissy!

[AE Bravo]

Question -s Libya now as badly off as Syria?

If not then the intervention was the better of two evils - bearing in mind all war is evil and makes God weep.

Libya now is worse than what Libya was.

One evil had a plan while the other didn't. Qaddafi's jamahiriya was replaced with broken politics and Islamism, almost like how de-Baathification led to isis.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A form of the Parmenidean Fallacy, but more straightforwardly we can just call it begging the question.

God's a sissy!

God loves you even if you don't love him.

Anyway, seems to me that arguing for not intervening in Syria is the Parmenides Fallacy, and one only has to look to Syria to see what would have happened in Libya without intervention, neither side could win the Civil War and neither side would have negotiated or yielded so it would have been a deadlock that slowly destroyed all infrastructure and ground the country into dust.

Did intervening produce the resolution we wanted? No.

Did it produce a better resolution than not intervening? Quite possibly - I incline to thinking that the alternative is Syria, which looks much worse from here.

Libya now is worse than what Libya was.

One evil had a plan while the other didn't. Qaddafi's jamahiriya was replaced with broken politics and Islamism, almost like how de-Baathification led to isis.

Gaddafi wasn't winning - his air force was defecting and so were his government ministers, the two sides were fighting over the oil refineries between Bengazi and Tripoli and eventually those refineries wouls just have been burned down.

Gaddafi had a plan?

You think Assad doesn't?

It's not helping him, and Gaddafi was twice as crazy as Assad to boot.