IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

With respect to the number of innocent lives, with respect to the stability of the country, with respect to the basic social services destroyed for nothing.

If you can choose between having 100 people killed and those 100 people + 900 other people (=1000 in total) killed, the first scenario is trivially preferable. If you can choose between 100 people killed and 1000 people different from the first group of 100, it's not trivial any more. That's why I asked the question that you dodged. Chances are great that many Libyans who currently are alive would have been killed by the Gaddafi regime if it had not lost.

Given how many Libyans felt like revolting, one wonders how adequate those social services were.

It would not have been in the regime's best interest to target civilians. Misrata, Zawiya, Zuwara, Ajdabiya - no bloodbaths when retaken and those were the ones that were actually retaken by the government.

Misrata was never completely recaptured by the regime. One might not have expected a bloodbath in any of the recaptured cities, but innocent/peaceful people getting sucked in by a crackdown on regime opponents is highly likely.

And of course, taking up arms against a dictator is, regardless, normally considered heroic and not something to get executed for.

Air support and crippling the regime certainly did.

That's another topic.

Because they lack that sovereignty. It is only because of Saudi Arabia and USA's aligned interests in the region that makes the funding of Islamists a common foreign policy initiative.

Not buying it.

Entrusting these militias to pull the country back together after bombing the hell out of it and kicking the regime that held it together for decades aside is the stupidity here. NATO shouldn't have done anything.

The militias weren't really entrusted with anything. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't turn out all that great, so there was some hope and/or expectation that not using ground forces would yield a better result. Thus far, the results do not look particularly promising; although a more complete understanding of the consequences of the intervention is probably still many decades away.

The chaos Libya has seen thus far might make politicians weary of trying similar interventions in the future, but then they'd have to deal with negative consequences of not intervening, like a steady flow of people applying for political asylum (in the weirdest of ways), so-called human rights abuses, and whatever else is on the dictator's CV.

This:

Is enough to see through how the coverage of the war as it unfolded is propoganda. Same goes for Syria.

Huh?

Funnily enough, your probability evidence was proven completely false.

No, the animal bones were not the evidence (it was mentioned in the article that bones there didn't look human); but long-standing claims of a massacre at Abu Salim (claims backed up by several individuals who were in the prison at the time). I initially considered linking to Wikipedia, but thought it better to use an actual news source.

Even if you presume that no massacre did occur at Abu Salim, you have the people searching for relatives that went missing during the Gaddafi regime - two of them interviewed in that very article. This contradicts the "no evidence" line, which was all I indented to.