IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

This comes off as you saying that the regime putting down the rebels is a bad outcome for Libya, and more innocent lives would be at stake.

It's a bad outcome for those innocent people who end up arrested, tortured and possibly killed by the security services - things that happen in closed dictatorships.

Weapons and air support as well as NATO countries (with French taking the lead) formally recognizing the rebels as the representatives of Libya gained them the advantage over the regime.

The arming was the point, because you said NATO effectively armed islamists. The initial uprising, long before NATO's intervention, provided plenty of weapons for anyone to loot.

No reason to imagine since he had one last city to take over

He didn't, just as your source points out. Your source just claims that it "surely" would be easy to recapture them without actually going into much detail for why (at least not in the quotes you provided).

No evidence of indiscriminate killing under Qaddafi's regime.

Yeah, none at all.

Gulf states would not have had the political authority to intervene without a greenlight from NATO countries. Recognition of rebels from the west and NATO's political objective to OVERTHROW QADDAFI made Qatar confident about funding Islamists and fulfilling this mission by any means.

Very unlikely - look to Syria and Yemen. How much of a guarantee does Qatar have that their side in Syria is going to win? None at all, really.

The objective in and of itself was a failure.

We disagree on what the primary objective was.

False.

Misrata and Zintani rebels didn't shoot at each other, they shot at Gaddafi's troops. Infighting came later when there was no enemy left to unite against.

IIRC, the bbc is the only news agency in the world that apologized for its dishonest coverage of Libya. Even in spite of this I wouldn't take bbc's info over Kuperman's analysis.

Aljazeera is owned by Qatar, the second main culprit in Libya's disaster.

I don't think you followed this war closely as it unfolded. This is fairly basic knowledge about what happened - any news source will tell you a similar story.

Rebels were on their way to Egypt until military intervention was announced.

No, they even fielded their fighter jet in the defence of Benghazi (and apparently shot it down themselves).

It's as simple as it gets and it's true.

"all X are bad" is kindergarten-level of debate.

Still missing the point I see. It is much harder for a lot of people to even come to Europe without any border patrols or law and order in northern African states. That they may have the same reasons to leave the country is irrelevant if they cannot get into the Mediterranean because Libyan security forces don't let them. Yes, there are other ways, but those are not simple either, but a wide open Libya where lots of traffickers gather with little resistance is.

No, the point is not the number of migrants arriving in Europe, but where they come from. If a country has many people emigrating, that tells you something about the current state of the country - at least relative to other countries.

Blaming the migrant crisis on NATO's intervention doesn't make much sense, because then either

a) you believe that the migrants don't really need to leave their home countries; which in turn implies that they are being reckless in doing so anyway. Reckless adults should take responsibility for their own recklessness

b) you believe that the migrants really should leave their home countries; in which case it would be a good thing that NATO's intervention made it easier for them to do so