Gaddafi Threatens More Libyan Bloodshed

he wants to die a martyr ...i think he's gonna get half his wish

 

On another note; is cheering on revolution always a good thing?

The Khmer Rouge which killed a quarter of the country of Cambodia in 4 years was a pretty successful revolution, in that they accomplished their leader Pol Pot's main goal pretty well. They turned the country into year zero.

What made me consider this, was an article I just read on Huffington Post. Yes it was written by someone who worked under an organization that supported Kadafi's son.

I admit other than knowing of Ghadafi's horrible human rights record, I would automatically support removing him. But it makes you think about automatically supporting revolution for revolutions sake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/libya-gadhafi-future_b_826718.html

 

Look at it from their position- how else can they bring "change"? Can't vote him out. So it takes a group effort.

Reminds me of a comment a professor said when I was in college. "It's pretty tough to kill yourself by jumping out the window when you're already in the basement." They already have it tough. They want change. They so no other alternative.

Consider also that in America, I and others preach about a revolt. We don't want to destroy America. Not at all. But it doesn't matter who gets voted in, it only gets worse. And I do not want to see it get as bad here as it is there.

 

.

 

Well Like I said, other than reading Human Rights Watch articles and CNN about Gaddafi's deplorable human rights record, I am not aware of much of Libyan politics.

The alternative, may have been in Gaddafi son, who has a history of human rights work and his pledge to hold diplomatic elections if the country didn't descend into civil war.

Africa isn't very culturally unified as the Author pointed out, There's more genetic diversity in neighboring Chad than there is in all of Europe. Hundreds of loosely knit groups often with long term rivalries held together by a loose entanglement of a country that was created by European powers.

And like I said in the one example of dozens I could point out, revolutions don't always end up in positive things for human rights.

I agree that the people of Libya have the right to self determination.

All I'm saying is we shouldn't necessarily be cheerleaders of rapid region wide regime changes, and approach is with a more cautious optimism.

 

Thats all it would take to get them to open up on a crowd and to justify that action.

 

Furthermore, on revolt, do you mean an armed resistance to bring down a democratically elected government?

'It doesn't matter who get's voted in things won't change.'

I don't like all of American foreign politics, that's part of the reason I'm not living back at home right not. But what makes you think that your voice is one of a million that agree with you, or if you're a loosely tied disenfranchised group without specific goals.

If it were an armed conflict, and the people one, but one million people died, would that be worth it in your eyes?

Or perhaps massive strikes. I think that would be much better for our system, and that sweeping government takeover isn't necessary. But that would hurt our economy in times where people are desperate for jobs as it is.

I would say the first seems crazy, and the second, I'd probably go along with.

 

His son swore an oath to their clan.

I'll have to dig up some stuff I read earlier on them. Pretty intense.

 

Swore an oath to their clan after the revolutions wouldn't stop, and beforehand promised democratic elections if the violent protests ceased.

He chose wrong. That's all mentioned in the article I posted.

And as I mentioned, I don't necessarily agree with the author. It's just something I read today and I felt should be brought up. I don't know enough about Libya to know what's in their best interests.

 

Lode, if I may reflect on what you have listed as your home- Cambodia. I remember the Khmer Rouge. Never met them personally, but I know of their works. And that is one of the reasons why I support revolutions like what is happening in N. Africa/Middle East.

I want to tell you of an 8mm film our social studies teacher showed us. I think the film was taken in the mid 70's, but I'm not sure. There was a UN presence there for a free election. The UN had troops and observers there to see that the people got the free election.

This couple walk up to a polling station, which seemed to be nothing more than a triple-sized outhouse, and the husband went in smiling. The wife was smiling. They were happy.

Then the husband comes out and is stopped by the soldiers (I do not recall if they were Khmer Rouge, but they were Asian in appearance and were not UN). The soldiers began beating on the man. They pistol whipped him, fed him the stock of a rifle, and they would not let up. All in the view of the UN troop and observers. His wife was physical restrained until they were done. The man was nearly dead. Then an officer walks up grinning and pops a small caliber round into the man's forehead. Blood poured out. The man's wife finally was released and she cradled him, crying. And the same officer walked up and popped a small caliber round into her head. There ya go. Free elections. UN style. Or was it Khmer Rouge? Who ran it to begin with? And why did they do that?

I was only 14 when I saw it. I nearly puked. The teacher was removed because of that film he showed. So many parents were infuriated over the film's violence. My grandfather said I may have been too young, but he asked me what I learned. I told him "don't trust armed Cambodians" (hey, I was a kid, dude). He told me it's the value of electing the people you want in office. It's a Constitutional right in many countries, but not honored by the government and ignored by the people. Look at Rahm Emmanuel. Only 40% of the people voted. And he pulled over 50% of the vote. So he pulled only 20%+ of the vote. Because 60% of the people did nothing. Or perhaps they did voted, but their vote wasn't recorded. Who knows bro. And for all I may know, he could be good of Chicago. Which is hard for me to believe since Chicago is the capital of American political corruption.


I hope you understand my view a bit better, Lode.