IMMIGRATION thread

[Viking]

No, it is to say that we're dealing with probabilities rather than a proven/not proven dichotomy. In general.

[AE Bravo]

Worse? What's worse: you (presumed innocent) getting mowed down by a bulldozer, or 10 other innocent people instead? Is either of the two cases worse than the other? Worse with respect to what?

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.

Hard to verify, either way - one of many problems with closed countries.

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.

Neither did the weapons outsiders provided.

Air support and crippling the regime certainly did.

And what do you base this on? Why shouldn't the Gulf states fund the rebels, anyway?

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.

Blame for what, exactly? If the Libyan militias wanted prosperity for their country, they could move towards it rather swiftly - NATO is not holding them back.

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.

This:

Though as can bee seen in other sources, regime forces had attacked Zawiya much earlier than 7 March; like on 4 March when they even claimed to have retaken it:

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

[Sarmatian]

No, it is to say that we're dealing with probabilities rather than a proven/not proven dichotomy. In general.

Funnily enough, your probability evidence was proven completely false. In all probability, you probably have no idea what you're talking about but are probably repeating what you read on the probably first internet site that comes up in google. You should probably devote some more time befory you're caught again with low probablity of probable evidence.

For someone who admits he is dealing in probabilities, your posts are amazingly full of certainties. One would think a little more caution would be used if you were aware of that.

[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.

[AE Bravo]

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.

What do you have to go by? There is little to no reason to believe that more people would have died. Why are the chances GREAT??? I dodged because this is not an argument, I have no interest in these philosophical responses. Give me numbers and the details of the conflicts, the state of Libyans during and post-intervention that show me you actually care about Libya and not your responsibility to protect fantasy.

Adequate or not, this is not enough to justify a humanitarian intervention like the one NATO conducted. If you are not entirely committed and are driven by the sole motive of removing a renegade head of state, you are not presenting a model humanitarian intervention or a good precedent for anything. It set a bad precedent and reveals how they are not to be trusted, because they evidently don’t place a country and its population's interest in high regard.

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

The persecutions, executions, and banishment of black Libyans today is far worse than what the regime had ever done in its history.

Not buying it.

USA, Turkey, and some Gulf countries have an agreement in that propping up Islamists as opposition to regimes they don’t want in power is the way to go now.

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 operation itself was hardly promising. It was a bloodbath and brought suffering on a wider scale than Qaddafi’s crackdown. It’s easy to see “promising” from your tv set or the quick google search hoping for a new democratic country to emerge.