Posted on 03/17/2011 7:36:29 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
If you want to describe anti-Qaddafi forces as Islamists of the Al Qaeda stripe, you best be able to prove it.
But let's not mince words, you're not going to be able to prove it, because it's a stupid assertion on the face of it.
And who said we'd have to provide extensive military support, or rebuild Libya? Are we being required to rebuild either Egypt or Tunisia?
The Iranian revolt that toppled the Shah wasn't 100% Khomeinist. It wasn't even majority Khomeinist. But Khomeini took the reins and knocked off the nationalists, the Communists, the Social Democrats, and so on. The October Revolution of 1917 was the same way. It wasn't majority Bolshevik. It's just that the Bolsheviks knocked everyone else off, paving the way for WWII (thanks to Stalin's material assistance and diplomatic support for Hitler during the Nazi invasion of Western Europe), the Communization of China, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. All told, the October Revolution cost us 500,000 dead GI's (WWII, Korea, Vietnam).
Gaddafi's many things, but he's a minor villain in the overall scheme of events. If we want to take out a serious evil-doer, we ought to take a long, hard look at Kim Jong-Il, not get involved in a revolt that could end up toppling an annoying government in favor of an Islamist movement hell-bent on creating an pan-Muslim caliphate spanning North Africa and the Near East, i.e. the age-old Arab dream that made Saddam Hussein and bin Laden so popular among the Arab masses (and so hated among the Arab rulers). The issue I have is that once such a movement gets rolling, there's a non-trivial chance that the Arab populations of Libya's neighboring countries could rise in support of the unification of Arabia, turfing the existing rulers. How would you like to see the dozen or so Middle Eastern countries in OPEC suddenly transmogrify into a single Islamist-ruled country? How would that affect Israel? How would it affect oil prices?
It seems to me that the onus is on the person who wants to change the status quo to prove that that the anti-Gaddafi movement won't be taken over by Islamists. First do no harm - to American interests.
Well said.
Here's another thought - look up pictures of "Libyan female protestors." How many women do you see without some form of Islamic head covering, who are not Gaddafi's bodyguards? Note that Libya does not require its women to wear any form of the burka. Gaddafi's bodyguards certainly don't.
To #10 as to why Qaddaffi is only a “Colonel” after 40 years. Simply - he can’t spell “General”.
Well, you really do not know the make up of the libyan rebels...you are making assumptions really. I admire a group of people willing to die and fight an evil tyrant and I do not think they should be allowed to be slaughtered. all the other stuff you wrote about one huge islamic nation is sort of made up, is it not?
These supposed "700 records" contradict other reports that show very few foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyan.
Looks like possible misinformation to me.
Gadaffi murdered 189 Americans at Lockerbie. Gadaffi has already served notice that he is the one that needs to be removed.
If you're going to put forth an assertion, you had best be able to back it up with facts.
Please do so.
Not by me. What do you think bin Laden's goal is? That's what Arab thinkers have been talking about for over a thousand years, ever since the original Muslim caliphate started by Muhammad broke into pieces, starting with the Fatimids in the 10th century. Every Muslim royal from then on, going all the way to the Ottoman Caliphs tried to reconstitute this empire. Fortunately, the Ottomans, who came closest to this goal, controlled most of the Middle East before we discovered uses for oil other than lighting lamps.
Movement? What makes you think there is a movement?
Who are they and where are they moving to?
Are you looking for 'extreme' islamists?
Let me clue you in -all islamists in power are extreme islamists... islam is extreme -islam is an enemy of the west...
ping
If we know anything at all about history, it is that facts don't back anything up, even in hindsight. There are way too many factors that tend to towards conclusions that end with "on the one hand, but on the other hand." Bottom line, I'll have to disagree with your unproven assertions, just as you'll have to disagree with my unproven assertions. If you don't have the time or the inclination to look into the Islamist trend in Libyan society, and indeed in all Muslim societies, and prefer to waste your time with fawning* media accounts of the rebels, that's certainly your prerogative.
* The same media, by the way, that fawned over Che Guevara, the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge and the Vietcong.
Risible nonsense. If this is what you're bringing, you're not worth the time it takes to read your posts.
Where do you see the libyians expressing this? Why are you putting them in that worst type of senario?
so you would allow a group of men of all types in Libya to be slaughtered for standing up for their freedom out of fear that there revolution could be corrupted? I see.
The Chinese Communists are responsible for 100,000 dead GI's via the Korean and Vietnam Wars, neither of which would have occurred without their material support. They are currently one of our biggest trading partners. We normalized relations with them in the 1970's to counter the greater of two evils - the Soviet Union.
The entire Middle East is a sea of Islamism. Do we really want to open the Pandora's box of democracy in that context? Think of a supersized Gaza Strip run by Hamas. Hello, post-Mubarak Egypt. We are about to discover the key mistaken assumption of neo-conservatism, which is that everybody thinks like an American, and just wants to be let alone. Unfortunately, the reality in the Muslim world is that Muslims want not only to be closer to Allah, they want everybody else to be closer to Allah. Or else...
Rubin Reports on democracy in Arab states:
Remember the Iranian revolution (in 1979) when all sorts of people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president.Remember the Beirut spring when people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Hizballah is now running Lebanon.
Remember the Palestinians having free elections? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip.
Remember democracy in Algeria? Tens of thousands of people were killed in the ensuing civil war.
It doesn't have to be that way but precedents are pretty daunting.
What did Egyptians tell the Pew poll recently when asked whether they liked "modernizers" or "Islamists"? Islamists: 59%; Modernizers: 27%. Now maybe they will vote for a Westernized guy in a suit who promises a liberal democracy but do you want to bet the Middle East on it?
It's not that they're not ready for democracy - it's that we're not ready for the wars we'll have to fight once the Muslim masses get to decide their foreign policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.