Conflict in Libya

Status
Not open for further replies.

trentdude2

Back from the dead
Just heard on the news that the conflict in Libiya got even worse. Not only have the massacres gotten worse, but now gas prices are starting to rise even higher! Whats going to happen if this keeps going? Will we in the U.S. go into an economic depression, or will Libiya get support from other countries? (Including U.S.) This is like the situation in Egypt, except the person in power won't go down without a fight.
 
I believe it's spelled "Libya". However, I don't see this as a reason for an economic depression in the United States. We've seen oil prices rise to ridiculous levels before but we always recover(Until we eventually hit peak oil). If the government keeps massacring their own people it's likely that another country will come in and try to stop that.
 
I certainly hope that Muammar al-Qaddafi is deposed. He is a particularly nasty ruler, and it would be yet another victory in the sweeping revolutions happening in the Middle East.

Nonetheless, one thing you have to wonder is what will replace the old regimes. Will they be any better? Odds look good that the Muslim Brotherhood will rise to power in Egypt, and frankly I trust them even less than I did Hosni Mubarak.
 
The thing is, Fawful, is that while I dislike religion-based regimes just as much as I dislike dictators, I still would prefer that the people of the country determine what is best for them, even if it turns out to be a country opposed to the United States. I don't like the attitude that overthrowing dictators and installing governments that the majority of the people want is a bad thing. I'm more worried that they'll decide that they don't like the minority in their country, and with the lack of a centralized government in charge, commit genocide.
 
I don't like the attitude that overthrowing dictators and installing governments that the majority of the people want is a bad thing.
I don't think many people think its wrong. A majority of the dislikes I know are basically how they are doing it. For example, burning down a goverment building and even a a police post. I've even heard that some protesters damaged lots of goods/stores along with graffiting a military vehicle(Previous Egypt Protest).
But still, that doesn't excuse the violence toward the protesters.
 
For the heck of odd reasons, I don't want the revolution to happen there like in Egypt. Why? Simple. I live in Israel, in the Middle East, and the revolution that's happenning now isn't only about making Libya (I also heared that a revolution is going to start in another 2 countries in the news, or already did start, forgot which ones) a democracy. It's also about getting the Muslems to rule the country... And we all know how do Muslems act- they want everyone to be in their religious, using war if needed. So, yep. I'm pretty much afraid for my life now. Eep.
 
This thread is full of such generalisation, notably about Muslims. Not all Muslims are extremist douchebags, just the ones you hear about.

In other news, Gadaffi blew up his airports so nobody is going in or out of the country, and he knows that the US and such won't interfere due to the fact that it would probably cause a lot of terrorist activity.
 
I never said all of the Muslims are exremist, but the fact that the ruler IS, well, that's something we should worry about... right?
 
well, that's something we should worry about... right?

Not a bit, all religions have their own "extremist" population, just like Christians once did a mass suicide in Guayana and Buddhist did a mass murder in their temples during middle age, Muslims are not different from that, US citzens are just thraumatized about the 9/11.
 
This thread is full of such generalisation, notably about Muslims. Not all Muslims are extremist douchebags, just the ones you hear about.
I would like to state for the record that the particular Muslims to which I am referring do have a questionable track record.

As a matter of fact, though, I have to say that there are many elements of Islamic faith which are worrisome. This is true to some extent with most religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones, but the real problem is that what we call "religious moderation" is essentially just the act of ignoring the most violent teachings. Those passages of the Qur'an which promote peace, love, and unity tend to be vaguely worded, short, and buried amid extended passages about how it is your duty to destroy nonbelievers.

The Western world, in light of horrific tragedies such as the Holocaust and extended injustices such as Jim Crow laws, holds above all else the belief that every culture and every faith is exactly equal in its moral value and its worth to society, and that to argue otherwise is the antithesis of reasoned discourse. To some extent this is true, and it is certainly true that the absence of such a moral stance can encourage racism, but we have reached a point where this view is carried to such extremes that we turn a blind eye to legitimate cases of "moral poverty" in the world, where local beliefs are prone to encouraging destructive and intolerant behavior.

A case in point: in high school once, we read the book Things Fall Apart by Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe, in which an ancient African tribe employed the practice of murdering newborn twins under the premise that twins possessed evil souls (this was not the focus of the story, but it was mentioned). And we were told that it was not our place to criticize their society, because "that was simply what they believed". I agree that the individual tribesmen cannot be held to blame for what they have been taught, but to say that their society is not less ethical than ours is downright ridiculous.

Somehow, the only societies we are allowed to dislike are those which themselves actively seek to undermine other societies, i.e. Nazi Germany. But societies that persecute their own people, or societies that raise objections to other societies without resorting to cohesive and uniform violence, are beyond criticism. I would be considered a bigot for saying that I object to the Muslim view of women, or that I object to the idea that societies different from their own are corrupt and must either be assimilated or destroyed.

Yes, there are plenty of Muslims out there who do not agree with this. Most Muslims are not intolerant people in and of themselves, and they go against the most brutal of their religion's teachings. And for that I have respect for them. But here's the crucial point: They are defying their own cultural standards in the process. There's a difference between saying "All Muslims are intolerant" and "Islam is an intolerant religion." I would strongly disagree with the first statement, but I absolutely say the second statement is correct.

This is actually a problem with all the Abrahamic religions, not just Islam. Look at the despicable atrocities Christians have committed over the years. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the subjugation and butchering of natives from distant lands...the list goes on and on. And yes, modern Christians also have to reject some principles of their faith. But there are still some key differences. The Bible is much more explicit than the Qur'an about loving and forgiving those who are different from yourself. Much more of the the Qur'an is devoted to saying "your faith will constantly be under attack, and those responsible must die." And above all else, the majority of Christians have abandoned more of the worst elements of their faith than the majority of Muslims. Lots of the anti-women stuff in the Qur'an is also found in the Bible, as are all kinds of atrocities called for against those who would try to divert you from the path of righteousness. In fact, Palestinian Christians have just as much religious cause to detest the Israelis as Palestinian Muslims, but you don't see that many Christian suicide bombings, now do you?

My mother used to have some Muslim friends whom she considered very moderate and tolerant people. Yet when the whole Salman Rushdie controversy materialized, these moderate friends of hers sided with their religion and still believed that he should be put to death. In many parts of the Muslim world, one of the only major differences between Islamic "moderates" and Islamic "extremists" is that moderates believe it is not the government's responsibility to enforce Sharia law--plenty of them still agree with its principles.

The bottom line? For the most part, mainstream Islamic society is still attached to far more of the religion's more intolerant and violent tenets than, say, mainstream Christian society or mainstream Jewish society. Nobody is willing to say it out loud for fear of disturbing the Western world's mandate of tolerance-above-all-else, but what is going on in the Middle East is straight-up holy war.

I have no intention of generalizing--I would make no judgments of any individual Muslim, and indeed hold any "truly" moderate Muslim in high esteem--but I am perfectly fine with forming opinions about Islam itself. And I am also perfectly fine with forming opinions about how adherent the Middle Eastern world is to a backwards age. This is honest empirical evidence, not bigotry or prejudice.
 
Last edited:
As a generalized reaction to your post, Fawfulfan, I'd like to add that there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible itself, especially between the old and new testaments. Coming from a Christian family where Christ's advocacy of brotherly love is emphasized and where nobody has ever critically read the whole Bible, I'd have to wonder if my family embraces Christianity to the extent it does simply because they're unaware of its more unsavory teachings.

A case in point: in high school once, we read a book based on reality, in which an ancient African tribe employed the practice of murdering newborn twins under the premise that twins possessed evil souls. And we were told that it was not our place to criticize their society, because "that was simply what they believed". I agree that the individual tribesmen cannot be held to blame for what they have been taught, but to say that their society is not less ethical than ours is downright ridiculous.
This is a lofty assumption, but perhaps that particular belief originates from population control methods. Most pregnancies are expected to result in one offspring, not two. Therefore, the unexpected addition of two additional mouths to feed instead of one increases the chances that nobody in the group has enough food for subsistence, and the whole group suffers as a result. And I assume that as an ancient African tribe, that society was less able to use technology to reap large agricultural surpluses with which to feed people. If the tribe instead utilized hunting and gathering, then the mother's ability to move and find food would be hampered by having to account for two, and not one, children. Therefore, an additional and unexpected infant, who will not be able to be a productive member of the group for at least a couple of years, could theoretically jeopardize the survival of the whole group.

Let's say that, in such a society, the decision is made to kill one of offspring whenever a woman gives birth to twins. After generations of doing so, the practice become integrated into the society's mythology, in order to promote it. The notion becomes that because twins are bad for the survival of the group, they must be inherently evil. So eventually the practice of infanticide is extended over to the other twin, under the assumption that both twins are evil. Because this belief becomes a part of the groups rituals and traditions, this practice then persists even if the society can grow enough food to provide for one or both of the babies.

Granted, this theory makes a lot of assumptions, but you can see where theoretically the practice of killing twins has roots in promoting the survival of the whole group, which I would define as ethical. Perhaps the real problem is that the tribe continued to adhere to an outdated practice.

...Geez, did I get off topic there!
 
Last edited:
Your whole theory is certainly interesting and plausible, but there's one problem: Just because that tradition might have been reasonable in the future and just because it sorta evolved from there with nobody being to blame for it, that doesn't mean that the practice is simply unethical. In other words, I can agree with you just as much as I agree with Fawfulfan, it's just that you didn't really counter his argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top