De-demonising Gaddafi - what you don't know

digme

Merch wrote: »

I've heard a few people say that in the last few years alright,
and if that was the case the Black and tans wouldnt have turned up.

I agree, some people are utterly clueless, does saying that make you feel right? believing the tripe I've seen spouted by the BBC gives me concern, they couldnt even corroborate where (if even in Libya) the events they were showing were happening, I dont take for gospel anything a mainstream media or any media spouts, none of us here knows exactly what is going on, but if iraq is anything to go by, I'd say the Libians are better off under gaddafi.
The UN specifies that a sovereign nation should be free from foreign intevention, if the west really want to undermine Gaddaffi why dont they issue trade embargoes?? cut off the money, because we know that wont happen.

Generally people are better off than in the past, but we are better off now than those from richer nations of the same time of our independence (20's) not just our own country. Perhaps we would be better even still if we had never gained our so called Independence.

Cut off what money?
Libya isn't a part of the BIS.He doesn't need money............. Get it?

goat2

Einhard wrote: »

My enemy's enemy is my friend eh?

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are so blind in their hatred of America, that anyone who opposes America is automatically seen as an ally, and all crimes whitewashed.

what is this doing for america = nothing. financing these wars is costing the ordinary american too much, what will they gain for all this= nothing

uncleoswald

digme wrote: »

Ok can we drop this protester nonsense?
Do you honestly believe that is the reason? Seriously i find this insulting to your intelligence.

But forget the reason, is it still not a good end result that he is been prevented from wiping out those who oppose him?

And seriously, what facts have you presented?

wes

digme wrote: »

Ok can we drop this protester nonsense?
Do you honestly believe that is the reason? Seriously i find this insulting to your intelligence.

No, I don't believe anything that Nato says, but there actions have saved the protesters, whom Gaddafi made it very clear he wanted dead. So the current result is that a lot of people, who Gaddafi wanted dead aren't. Now personally regardless of the reasons, that seems a good thing to me.

Merch

wes wrote: »

Nato are trying to stop Gaddafi's forces from killing a bunch of people. We all know what the mad man said..

Why? because the UK?France?NATO says so??, I heard a translation of what he said at the UN and it rang wholly true to me, Africa has been pillaged of wealth by the west, and the west really owes Africa a wealth debt (my paraphrasing) never really though about it till I heard it being said.

wes wrote: »

What facts exactly? Gaddafi made himself very clear what he was going to do to protesters, and personally I think its a good things some people decided to stop him.

I think it would be great if similar action was taken against the regimes in Bahrain, Israel and Syria, when the nutters running those countries decide to go on a killing spree, but sadly that won't happen.

From what I have read, Arabic and regional dialects/variations cannot be literally translated into English, supposedly its a very descriptive colourful language, simply put one thing said in one language cannot be taken literally when its form is translated to another language. EDxample, I hear plenty of people say in Dublin/even ireland (I'll bleeding kill ye) but do I think they actually mean murder? thats colloquialisms, right!? either way I'd like to see some evidence of said murders?? before I can believe them, any democratic person/nation/process would demand evidence?? surely
Besides Its against UN charter to invade a sovereign nation?

digme wrote: »

Cut off what money?
Libya isn't a part of the BIS.He doesn't need money............. Get it?

(error) I said trade embargo, dont deal in arms (probably to both sides to hedge the bets) and the compnents necessary to maintain the apparatus of a state, deal in actual politics not war and death.

goat2 wrote: »

what is this doing for america = nothing. financing these wars is costing the ordinary american too much, what will they gain for all this= nothing

The US doesnt seem to be significantly involved, mostly seems to be UK and France.

Merch

uncleoswald wrote: »

But forget the reason, is it still not a good end result that he is been prevented from wiping out those who oppose him?

And seriously, what facts have you presented?

None of what you have said justifies undermining the principles of democracy to bring democracy, I cant prove someone hasnt been killed, the onus is on you to prove they have, given you are rowing in behind those that say, the excuse to war is the deaths of the innocent people of Libya?? reminds me of history, the British call to arms to fight the bosch (germans) in WW1, "think of poor innocent little belgium"

wes wrote: »

No, I don't believe anything that Nato says, but there actions have saved the protesters, whom Gaddafi made it very clear he wanted dead. So the current result is that a lot of people, who Gaddafi wanted dead aren't. Now personally regardless of the reasons, that seems a good thing to me.

And quite a few have been killed by NATO bombs too, NATO has admitted this, also people are dying in vain in the hope NATO will row in behind them eventually, reminds me of the shi'ites in the marshes in southern Iraq after gulf war in 91, they were left for as good as dead by the coalition, who supported an overthrow of Saddam then, but then left them to die (and paradoxically they are more an enemy in the second Iraq war then the sunni's)
If a conflict is drawn out, more people die.
It undermines the principles of the UN, to undermine democratic principles to allow democracy exist is hypocritical.
We do not even know if the people NATO are supporting are religious zealots (see US support of mujahadeen in Afghanistan 80's) in a short term aim that creates worse longterm problems

No one either has answered, how can we undermine a UN charter to allow countries their sovereign right not to be undermined by another nation????

digme

wes wrote: »

No, I don't believe anything that Nato says, but there actions have saved the protesters, whom Gaddafi made it very clear he wanted dead. So the current result is that a lot of people, who Gaddafi wanted dead aren't. Now personally regardless of the reasons, that seems a good thing to me.

I'm not buying that at all. I don't feel for one second you believe that.
That's total irrational.

digme

merch i thought you said something about cutting off money to Libya.
I answered by saying Libya isn't a part of the bis monetary system.

wes

Merch wrote: »

Why? because the UK?France?NATO says so??, I heard a translation of what he said at the UN and it rang wholly true to me, Africa has been pillaged of wealth by the west, and the west really owes Africa a wealth debt (my paraphrasing) never really though about it till I heard it being said.

No, because of what Libyans who I know personally have told me what he said, and also regardless of what the West owes Africa, is completely irrelevant in the current context, as Gaddafi made it damn clear he wanted to kill the protesters.

Merch wrote: »

From what I have read, Arabic and regional dialects/variations cannot be literally translated into English, supposedly its a very descriptive colourful language, simply put one thing said in one language cannot be taken literally when its form is translated to another language. EDxample, I hear plenty of people say in Dublin/even ireland (I'll bleeding kill ye) but do I think they actually mean murder? thats colloquialisms, right!? either way I'd like to see some evidence of said murders??

Yes, well as I said I know Libyans and I trust they understand there own language. Also, as Nato actually stopped Gaddafi from murdering a lot of the protesters. As for evidence, just turn on Al Jazeera, they have been reporting on it regularly (also another group who understand Arabic perfectly well, what with all the native speakers on staff).

Merch wrote: »

before I can believe them, any democratic person/nation/process would demand evidence?? surely

Well, how about Gaddafi present himself to the ICC, so we can find out....

Merch wrote: »

Besides Its against UN charter to invade a sovereign nation?

Sure, and if there wasn't a UN resolution involved, you would be correct.

digme

uncleoswald wrote: »

But forget the reason, is it still not a good end result that he is been prevented from wiping out those who oppose him?

And seriously, what facts have you presented?

Your asking me is it good that the protesters get to live and the civilians get to die? You better be joking

wes

digme wrote: »

I'm not buying that at all. I don't feel for one second you believe that.
That's total irrational.

Hardly irrational, and a jpeg, really? Also, there is lie being used in this instance, as Gaddafi really does wants to kill the protesters, and there is simply no way that any government could pull off such a massive lie, without someone calling bull**** on there translation. We saw a lot of people call bull****, when for example when the Iranian Presidents comments in regards to wanting to destroy Israel, were mis-represented. Plenty of native Farsi speakers spoke out about it, and we don't see anything like this happening with Gaddafi.

Merch

uncleoswald wrote: »

But forget the reason, is it still not a good end result that he is been prevented from wiping out those who oppose him?

And seriously, what facts have you presented?

I just read that again, it sounds worse the second time around

the end justifies the means?? thats what you are saying, if you dont mean that its certainly how it reads.

So indiscriminate bombing and undermining the principles of the UN and democratic principles, that justifies bringing/enforcing democracy on the Libyan people. Has a poll been taken? how many want it.

I recal seeing when the statue of Saddam was toppled, it looked like there were millions at a rally tearing him down, later film showed there only to be hundreds.

Im more convinced most of them will look to Iraq and think they dont want that kind of democracy. I find it unlikely they will want an imposed leader like Malik, it is likely to lead to more division and civil strife, issues with access to food/water/medical aid

Merch

wes wrote: »

Hardly irrational, and a jpeg, really? Also, there is lie being used in this instance, as Gaddafi really does wants to kill the protesters, and there is simply no way that any government could pull off such a massive lie, without someone calling bull**** on there translation. We saw a lot of people call bull****, when for example when the Iranian Presidents comments in regards to wanting to destroy Israel, were mis-represented. Plenty of native Farsi speakers spoke out about it, and we don't see anything like this happening with Gaddafi.

This not hearing about something doesnt mean Gaddaffi did say that, certainly even if he did, does this justify invasion/bombing

Lets just say a few people/groups in the US started announcing they were breaking away in armed resistance because they felt their beliefs clashed so much with the federal US Government, do you think the US Government would allow a foreign nation to bomb its territory to support them? do you think they would not send in the national gaurd to kill them??
m not saying its right, but they would do exactly the same thing.

digme

wes wrote: »

Hardly irrational, and a jpeg, really? Also, there is lie being used in this instance, as Gaddafi really does wants to kill the protesters, and there is simply no way that any government could pull off such a massive lie, without someone calling bull**** on there translation. We saw a lot of people call bull****, when for example when the Iranian Presidents comments in regards to wanting to destroy Israel, were mis-represented. Plenty of native Farsi speakers spoke out about it, and we don't see anything like this happening with Gaddafi.

You obviously don't buy bs very easily.That's why i can't get over your stance on this.The picture was posted to show the problem, reaction, solution which seems to work very well. The problem is a handful of so called protesters want to see gadaffi gone, the reaction was as predicted gadaffi saying i'll kill them, and the solution is of course nato to save the day.

Same thing with the wmd's in iraq
Watch next is syria......................

and btw Libya,Syria,Iran and Iraq are not a part of the banking system we use....

Merch

wes wrote: »

No, because of what Libyans who I know personally have told me what he said, and also regardless of what the West owes Africa, is completely irrelevant in the current context, as Gaddafi made it damn clear he wanted to kill the protesters.


Yes, well as I said I know Libyans and I trust they understand there own language. Also, as Nato actually stopped Gaddafi from murdering a lot of the protesters. As for evidence, just turn on Al Jazeera, they have been reporting on it regularly (also another group who understand Arabic perfectly well, what with all the native speakers on staff).


Well, how about Gaddafi present himself to the ICC, so we can find out....



Sure, and if there wasn't a UN resolution involved, you would be correct.

I've also heard indirectly from a libyan, and they do not seem to support the bombing to me. They are concerned about their relatives, hence bombing causes concern for them.
Al jazeera, are a news organisation, Im sure predominantly arabic speaking but my reference to colloquialism wasnt just from english to arabic but from regionakl variations of arabic, as even arab speaking people can have trouble interpreting other variations/dialects/regional differences in arabic and that was stated after Gaddaffis speech at the UN.

Obama has admitted the mission is regime change, would you turn up at the door of a person out to murder you, dont think he wants a rope around his neck like saddam, do you?

I dont think that a resolution overules/trumps a charter of the UN.
If you can make rules to over rule the principles by which sovereign good nations (allegedly) conduct themselves by then those nations undermine their (if any) integrity if they circumvent those principles to get what they want.

Merch

Welcoming the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993, 1/ in which the Conference reaffirmed that the processes of promoting and protecting human rights should be conducted in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter,
1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

2. Reaffirms that it is the concern solely of peoples to determine methods and to establish institutions regarding the electoral process, as well as to determine the ways for its implementation according to their constitution and national legislation, and that, consequently, States should establish the necessary mechanisms and means to guarantee full and effective popular participation in those processes;

3. Reaffirms also that any activities that attempt, directly or indirectly, to interfere in the free development of national electoral processes, in particular in the developing countries, or that are intended to sway the results of such processes, violate the spirit and letter of the principles established in the Charter and in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

4. Reaffirms further that electoral assistance to Member States should be provided by the United Nations only at the request and with the consent of specific sovereign States, by virtue of resolutions adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly in each case, in strict conformity with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, or in special circumstances such as cases of decolonization, or in the context of regional or international peace processes;

5. Strongly appeals to all States to refrain from financing or providing, directly or indirectly, any other form of overt or covert support for political parties or groups and from taking actions to undermine the electoral processes in any country;

6. Condemns any act of armed aggression or threat or use of force against peoples, their elected Governments or their legitimate leaders;

7. Reaffirms that all countries have the obligation under the Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development;

Chuck Stone

I think it's important to ask why NATO countries become involved in some M.E. countries so 'save' people from oppressors and then completely ignore others, or even collude in their oppression.

The US has been selling billions of Dollars worth of weapons to many M.E. countries ($40 Billion in 2009) for decades who routinely oppress their populations.

Egypt didn't even have a credible enemy and yet it has a large capable military. The US gives over a billion a year in aid to Egypt and Egypt uses much of it to buy US weaponry which it used to prop up the dictator Mubarak and supress it's population.

It's was a win win for US weapons manufacturers, the Egyptian military and US geostrategically. The biggest losers in this arrangement were the Egyptian people and the US tax-payer.

The US/NATO is completely silent on the suppression of people in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Indeed a $200mn US arms sale was approved shortly before the Bahraini protests. The US 5th fleet is stationed in Bahrain so who in their right mind would attack it?

If people are suspicious of Western intentions in Libya then they have a damn good reason to be.

wes

Merch wrote: »

This not hearing about something doesnt mean Gaddaffi did say that, certainly even if he did, does this justify invasion/bombing

Yes, it does actually. There seems to be no significant group offering any kind of alternate translations, and multiple news organization from all over the world have confirmed his words.

Merch wrote: »

Lets just say a few people/groups in the US started announcing they were breaking away in armed resistance because they felt their beliefs clashed so much with the federal US Government, do you think the US Government would allow a foreign nation to bomb its territory to support them? do you think they would not send in the national gaurd to kill them??
m not saying its right, but they would do exactly the same thing.

Hardly a fair example. The whole conflict in Libya started with protesters, and it only became violent, when Gaddafi attacked them. So for your example to work, the US would need to start killing protesters, and then have them become violent.

wes

digme wrote: »

You obviously don't buy bs very easily.That's why i can't get over your stance on this.The picture was posted to show the problem, reaction, solution which seems to work very well. The problem is a handful of so called protesters want to see gadaffi gone, the reaction was as predicted gadaffi saying i'll kill them, and the solution is of course nato to save the day.

The protesters are the real deal, and they are most certainly not a small group, as can be seen from when the protests started.

digme wrote: »

Same thing with the wmd's in iraq

WMD in Iraq was a blatant lie, that the US will never recover from imho.

digme wrote: »

Watch next is syria......................

I doubt it actually. The US is already involved in far to many conflicts.

wes

Merch wrote: »

I've also heard indirectly from a libyan, and they do not seem to support the bombing to me. They are concerned about their relatives, hence bombing causes concern for them.

I can certainly understand that concern, and it would be better if there was a cease fire.

Merch wrote: »

Al jazeera, are a news organisation, Im sure predominantly arabic speaking but my reference to colloquialism wasnt just from english to arabic but from regionakl variations of arabic, as even arab speaking people can have trouble interpreting other variations/dialects/regional differences in arabic and that was stated after Gaddaffis speech at the UN.

Yes, and I am sure that Al Jazeera have people on staff who a fluent in the Libyan variation.

Merch wrote: »

Obama has admitted the mission is regime change, would you turn up at the door of a person out to murder you, dont think he wants a rope around his neck like saddam, do you?

Yes, and in that way Obama has overstepped the bound of the UN resolution.

Merch wrote: »

I dont think that a resolution overules/trumps a charter of the UN.
If you can make rules to over rule the principles by which sovereign good nations (allegedly) conduct themselves by then those nations undermine their (if any) integrity if they circumvent those principles to get what they want.

The resolution doesn't do any of that.

Noreen1

digme wrote: »

Doesn't look like a dictator to me.
Only 2% of Libyan people are revolting, aided by U.S. agents, military and NATO.
Media propaganda and lies steer the thinking of the masses.

The flip side of that argument, is that if only 2% of a (potential) electorate is revolting/protesting - then why would a Government feel the need to violently suppress that 2%?

2% of the people wouldn't be any threat, so why not let them protest - unless you're very afraid/sure that these protests are going to gain momentum........

I have concerns re: altruistic motives for supporting the rebels. Most world leaders do not plan strategy based on altruism - and Msr. Sarkosy, in particular, doesn't give the impression that he is even remotely altruistic...

Nevertheless, if the Libyan people want a change of Leadership - they need to be supported.

How they choose new leaders should be a matter for the Libyan people. ie. Western style Democracy should not be the only perceived option.
The Libyans may actually come up with some very workable solutions on their own...

ItsAWindUp

I think a big question is who will take over control of the nation when Gadaffi is ousted? Who exactly are these people that are protesting and revolting, will they introduce Sharia law to Libya, will they be any better in terms of human rights than Gadaffi or Assad?

Noreen1

Good question.

Having said that, who is to say that the protest leaders will end up running the Country?

Personally, I'd like to see an interim Government, which would give various political parties time to organise, before free and fair elections.

Actually, before elections, I'd like to see some method of determining what the Libyan people want/expect from their Government - thus allowing newly formed political parties to decide how they want to achieve those aims.

I haven't given it a lot of thought. It's just that it seems to me that the Libyan people may not want a Western style democracy - they may prefer some form of tribal system, where they are free to choose and depose the leaders, for instance.
Whatever form of Government they end up with, the important thing is that it is what the Libyans want - not what we think it should be.

Merch

Noreen1 wrote: »

Good question.

Having said that, who is to say that the protest leaders will end up running the Country?

Personally, I'd like to see an interim Government, which would give various political parties time to organise, before free and fair elections.

Actually, before elections, I'd like to see some method of determining what the Libyan people want/expect from their Government - thus allowing newly formed political parties to decide how they want to achieve those aims.

I haven't given it a lot of thought. It's just that it seems to me that the Libyan people may not want a Western style democracy - they may prefer some form of tribal system, where they are free to choose and depose the leaders, for instance.
Whatever form of Government they end up with, the important thing is that it is what the Libyans want - not what we think it should be.

Dont they have a devolved form of government where the tribal leaders already run the administration of the nation??
How about not just before elections, how about before bombing them into democracy, they already have a system, how do we know that this isnt a relative minority (maybe even a religious extremist minority) that want to wrest power for themselves?? that are being touted by western media as the down trodden?
We have no right to bomb/interfere in a sovereign nation (its in the UN charter) and people keep saying, oh its ok because of this or that, protesters, the ends does not justify the means. We the west are not involved in some fight for our existence with them, they pose no real threat to the west, generally attacks against the west are reactions to previous actions such as interfering in sovereign states, bombing them.
how many people do you think are killed each year in the US by police? inncocent people, see al jazeera, they have a percentage likelyhood (by how much) that the US government (police) are more likely to kill you than a terrorist (its 20 times)
well if thats the view you take, Israel should be bombed, saudi wont be far behind, they may even have to bomb themselves.
At least in Libya there seems to be an interest in using that nations resources to pay for education/medical care/infrastructure.

Also @ wes 9.42 post delete the US and replace britain, see bloody sunday regarding , peaceful protest (maybe sabotaged) then hammered into the ground by shooting by the state army.

mattjack

Nodin wrote: »

You've a source for that? And by source I mean a household name news organisation.....

no source ...nothing to back it up...

mattjack

end a eknny wrote: »

no charlie haughey and the americans i believe

yes..google saoirse 32 ...read the article....both Sinn Fein and Gadaffi have acknowledged Libya arming the IRA.Gadaffi has even gone on record as offering compensation for victims.

Noreen1

Merch wrote: »

Dont they have a devolved form of government where the tribal leaders already run the administration of the nation??

I think they do, hence the remark about elected tribal leaders, who could also be removed from power. If that is the type of Government the Libyans want, then I support their wishes.
In the interests of the Libyan people, I would like to see free choice of a leader/leaders.
Based on past history, where popular leaders have become dictators, I would also like to see them having the ability to remove those leaders from power, should that become desirable/necessary for the good of the people.

Merch wrote: »

How about not just before elections, how about before bombing them into democracy, they already have a system, how do we know that this isnt a relative minority (maybe even a religious extremist minority) that want to wrest power for themselves?? that are being touted by western media as the down trodden?
We have no right to bomb/interfere in a sovereign nation (its in the UN charter) and people keep saying, oh its ok because of this or that, protesters, the ends does not justify the means. We the west are not involved in some fight for our existence with them, they pose no real threat to the west, generally attacks against the west are reactions to previous actions such as interfering in sovereign states, bombing them.
how many people do you think are killed each year in the US by police? inncocent people, see al jazeera, they have a percentage likelyhood (by how much) that the US government (police) are more likely to kill you than a terrorist (its 20 times)

Where did I say that the Libyan people should be bombed into Democracy? I actually said the Libyan people should be allowed to choose their own form of Government, and suggested that the people should be allowed choose what form their Government should take, in the hope that vested interests/extremists would have less opportunity to seize power.

I have every sympathy for the Libyan people, and I abhor the loss of human life.
However, since Gaddafi and his cronies chose a path of violence, all the UN can do is try to protect the Human rights of Libyan citizens - either that, or ignore the human rights abuses there.
Having said that, I am aware that Human rights abuses have been ignored in other areas, hence my belief that this intervention is not entirely altruistic.

Merch wrote: »

well if thats the view you take, Israel should be bombed, saudi wont be far behind, they may even have to bomb themselves.
At least in Libya there seems to be an interest in using that nations resources to pay for education/medical care/infrastructure.

Also @ wes 9.42 post delete the US and replace britain, see bloody sunday regarding , peaceful protest (maybe sabotaged) then hammered into the ground by shooting by the state army.

What view?
Anyone reading any of my posts re: Israel will know that I have nothing but contempt for the Israeli Government. There is certainly a case to be made against Israel for Human rights abuses.

For the record:
My view is that all people have a right to self determination.
That means the right to choose or depose their leaders, to choose what form of Government they have, and what kind of society they want to live in.

Hence, I abhor the Gaddafis of this world, just as I abhorred Bloody Sunday - and for exactly the same reasons - the refusal of a powerful group to recognise the rights of a people to self-determination, and the denial of their Human rights.

BlaasForRafa

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

I think a big question is who will take over control of the nation when Gadaffi is ousted? Who exactly are these people that are protesting and revolting, will they introduce Sharia law to Libya, will they be any better in terms of human rights than Gadaffi or Assad?

The protestors seem to be for the most part a mixture of ordinary libyans, former military personnel and former members of gaddafi's government but theres no evidence to suggest that the rebels have links to Al-Qaeda as the gaddafi regime has claimed.

Its hard to say whether a new government will be better than Gaddafi or Assad....but I doubt whether they could be worse.

Nodin

digme wrote: »

You obviously (........)banking system we use....

Thats great, and doubtless I'll have questions on it later. However - a source for the whole 'troops pouring in' thing would be nice. Major news org please.

Merch

Noreen1 wrote: »

I think they do, hence the remark about elected tribal leaders, who could also be removed from power. If that is the type of Government the Libyans want, then I support their wishes.
In the interests of the Libyan people, I would like to see free choice of a leader/leaders.
Based on past history, where popular leaders have become dictators, I would also like to see them having the ability to remove those leaders from power, should that become desirable/necessary for the good of the people.




Where did I say that the Libyan people should be bombed into Democracy? I actually said the Libyan people should be allowed to choose their own form of Government, and suggested that the people should be allowed choose what form their Government should take, in the hope that vested interests/extremists would have less opportunity to seize power.

I have every sympathy for the Libyan people, and I abhor the loss of human life.
However, since Gaddafi and his cronies chose a path of violence, all the UN can do is try to protect the Human rights of Libyan citizens - either that, or ignore the human rights abuses there.
Having said that, I am aware that Human rights abuses have been ignored in other areas, hence my belief that this intervention is not entirely altruistic.




What view?
Anyone reading any of my posts re: Israel will know that I have nothing but contempt for the Israeli Government. There is certainly a case to be made against Israel for Human rights abuses.

For the record:
My view is that all people have a right to self determination.
That means the right to choose or depose their leaders, to choose what form of Government they have, and what kind of society they want to live in.

Hence, I abhor the Gaddafis of this world, just as I abhorred Bloody Sunday - and for exactly the same reasons - the refusal of a powerful group to recognise the rights of a people to self-determination, and the denial of their Human rights.

Sorry, I got a bit muddled in my response, some of that response was directed towards other posts.
I believe that at the outset no effort has been made to mediate, more to take sides for the political gain of what seems to be the same usual story of western nations wresting power from legitimate leaders, replacing them with their own puppets and then ousting them when they have served their purpose, but denying their own actions and holding others to account for similar or even for nothing.