Are the rebels of Libya really the good guys?

I've recently learned that innocent civilians were killed in the Air Strikes authorized and carried out by countries of the U.N.. Here's a story on the matter. On a gore site, which I obviously can't link or identify, the writer of another article on the matter said that the "real" people of Libya, the majority, actually support Gadaffi. He also said that Gaddafi is actually a good guy and is being labeled as a bad guy by the West because he refuses to give in to the demands and interests of the West and maintains Libya's independence. This got me thinking, what if he is the good guy? What if the U.N. is just using the rebellion as an excuse to assist with his removal from power so that he can be replaced by a new leader who will be more submissive to the West? What do you think?

Civilians have been killed by accident in every war, so I don't think that's a good indicator of anything. As regards your general thesis, I imagine the actual situation in Libya is quite complex, as msot political issues are.

Gadhafi has ordered his own military to attack his own citizens. I think it's safe to say that, no, he's not the good guy. :P

I've recently learned that innocent civilians were killed in the Air Strikes authorized and carried out by countries of the U.N.. Here's a story on the matter. On a gore site, which I obviously can't link or identify, the writer of another article on the matter said that the "real" people of Libya, the majority, actually support Gadaffi. He also said that Gaddafi is actually a good guy and is being labeled as a bad guy by the West because he refuses to give in to the demands and interests of the West and maintains Libya's independence. This got me thinking, what if he is the good guy? What if the U.N. is just using the rebellion as an excuse to assist with his removal from power so that he can be replaced by a new leader who will be more submissive to the West? What do you think?

BluRayHiDef

Hahaha!Those who refuse to comply to meet the demands of my country MUST be destroyed!Viva La Revolution!Why stop with just a No-Fly Zone?Send in the nukes!!!

I think he is the bad guy.

I say we all chip in and get him a subscribtion to playboy magazine.

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

Desulated

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

BluRayHiDef

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

BluRayHiDef

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

angrules23

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

What else is he supposed to do to maintain order and secure his position as the ruler of the country? A man in his position has to do whatever it takes to maintain power.

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

BluRayHiDef

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

You're obviously doing something wrong if your own people want you kicked off the stage real bad. Even in the western world, governments aren't perfect. But do people start rebellions if their government does something wrong? And does Obama get the National Guard to cap our asses if we protest something? Nope. It's obvious Gadhafi is basically oppressing his people ruthlessly. He doesn't want to let go of his seat in power. This is the case for all megalomaniac political figures.

The same case was for Egypt. Mubarak was a complete tyrant for almost 30 years and the people were just fed up with his rule they couldn't take it anymore and decided to man up and force him down.

Gadhafi holds no official position as he aquired his social status after staging a coup on the previous government. He has directly ordered the military to attack Libyan citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadhafi

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

BluRayHiDef

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

If a dictator is indiscriminately killing his own people to stay in power, that's a pretty good sign that he's not the good guy.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Gadhafi ordered his military to fire on his own people. I don't think that's a sign of a good and reliable government figure. :P

Desulated

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

You're obviously doing something wrong if your own people want you kicked off the stage real bad. Even in the western world, governments aren't perfect. But do people start rebellions if their government does something wrong? And does Obama get the National Guard to cap our asses if we protest something? Nope. It's obvious Gadhafi is basically oppressing his people ruthlessly. He doesn't want to let go of his seat in power. This is the case for all megalomaniac political figures.

The same case was for Egypt. Mubarak was a complete tyrant for almost 30 years and the people were just fed up with his rule they couldn't take it anymore and decided to man up and force him down.

"Wrong" is subjective. What one person sees as wrong, someone else would not. We need to look at situations from varying perspectives. With this in mind, lets analyse what you've said:You're obviously doing something wrong if your own people want you kicked off the stage real bad.You can't assume that everyone wanted him "kicked off the stage real bad". More than likely, the rebellion was started by a few people; most people probably didn't have a problem with him as the ruler. Also, even with the current rebellion in Libya, there's a sizeable portion of Libyans who still favor Gaddafi. Hence, the situation isn't so black and white. With a ruler or leader, there will always be a few or many who want him/ her removed from power. Even here in the U.S., there are many people who want Obama removed from the Presidency. Does that mean that he should actually be removed? Likewise, just because some of the Libyans want Gaddaffi removed, does that mean that he should be removed? Also, your analogy about Obama calling the National Guard to supress protests is flawed because it doesn't take the difference in culture and government structure between the U.S. and Libya into account. Since Obama, as all Americans, is used to living in a "civil" societ, such measures would not even come to mind. Also, even if Obama, or any other U.S. President wanted to use the National Guard to suppress protests, they couldn't because the President does not have absolute power. I'm pretty sure he'd have to go through beurocratic channels to get such a measure approved. Also, I'm pretty sure using deadly force against protesters just because they dislike the President is illegal. Once more, if we did live in a society where a President could authorize such use of the National Guard, we don't know if the President would do such a thing. Who's to say he wouldn't?

Let's put it this way: Gadhafi wants to stay in power even though he's overstayed his welcome.

I don't know about the rebels because they could be following orders out of threat, fear, punishment and intimidation, but the guy himself is clearly insane. When you massacre your own people just because you don't want to let go of your presidental seat there's obviously something wrong.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if you were a Libyan living there right now and Gadhafi had marked you for dead just because you don't like him.

EDIT: rebels was actually supposed to be Gadhafi's soldiers.

[QUOTE="angrules23"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You have to look at it from his perspective. If you were a monarch, or a king, or a dictator, you'd do everything you could to maintain power. I'm assuming that the people whom he ordered to be fired upon were rebelling against him. A ruler has to suppress rebellions quickly so that they don't motivate others to join it and remove him from power. Also, a ruler has to suppress rebellions to maintain order and peace. What he did was reasonable.

BluRayHiDef

What else is he supposed to do to maintain order and secure his position as the ruler of the country? A man in his position has to do whatever it takes to maintain power.

Once more, if we did live in a society where a President could authorize such use of the National Guard, we don't know if the President would do such a thing. Who's to say he wouldn't?

BluRayHiDef

If you're in a situation where you have the power to order your soldiers to kill protestors and you do, then you are a bad person. It doesn't matter that society gave you the capabilities to do it, the fact that you took that option is bad and wrong and no one should do it ever.

Let's put it this way: Gadhafi wants to stay in power even though he's overstayed his welcome.

I don't know about the rebels because they could be following orders out of threat, fear, punishment and intimidation, but the guy himself is clearly insane. When you massacre your own people just because you don't want to let go of your presidental seat there's obviously something wrong.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if you were a Libyan living there right now and Gadhafi had marked you for dead just because you don't like him.

Desulated

He's not a President, he's an Absolute Ruler. Hence, as an Absolute Ruler, his position is not contingent upon approval by the people, it's contingent soleley upon his abillity to maintain power. This is how societies with Absolute Rulers work. The people are subject to the ruler; the ruler is not subject to the people. It's not a democracy. Hence, your reasoning does not apply. As an Absolute Ruler, he wouldn't just give up his power because the people want him to. From his perspective, he knows what's good for the people, more so than what the people think themselves. If I were a ruler with absolute power, I would do whatever I could to maintain power.

Good. I'm glad you agree with Gadhafi and his views. You two should be partners in crime.

Go to Libya, live there for a while, then come back and tell us all about how prosperous, glorious and peaceful that country is right now.

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Let's put it this way: Gadhafi wants to stay in power even though he's overstayed his welcome.

I don't know about the rebels because they could be following orders out of threat, fear, punishment and intimidation, but the guy himself is clearly insane. When you massacre your own people just because you don't want to let go of your presidental seat there's obviously something wrong.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if you were a Libyan living there right now and Gadhafi had marked you for dead just because you don't like him.

BluRayHiDef

He's not a President, he's an Absolute Ruler. Hence, as an Absolute Ruler, his position is not contingent upon approval by the people, it's contingent soleley upon his abillity to maintain power. This is how societies with Absolute Rulers work. The people are subject to the ruler; the ruler is not subject to the people. It's not a democracy. Hence, your reasoning does not apply. As an Absolute Ruler, he wouldn't just give up his power because the people want him to. From his perspective, he knows what's good for the people, more so than what the people think themselves. If I were a ruler with absolute power, I would do whatever I could to maintain power.

Good. I'm glad you agree with Gadhafi and his views. You two should be partners in crime.

Go to Libya, live there for a while, then come back and tell us all about how prosperous, glorious and peaceful that country is right now.

Desulated

I never said that I agree with him, I'm just saying that I understand his motivations for doing what he's done. It's what anyone with absolute power would do. That's the way autocracies work. You have to stop looking at this as a simple case of "good" and "bad". As Emperor Palpatinie said in Star Wars Episode Three, "Good and Evil are points of view." From his perspective, the agenda behind his rulership is what's "Good" and best for the people. Anyone who opposes his agenda is the "Bad" guy. Look at it this way. The U.S., and the West in general, views non-Western forms of government as "evil". So, what do they do? They find reasons to invade countries with non-Western forms of government and replace the governments with democratic ones. It's not so black and white. Alway's remember Palpatine's words.

Well, for one they didn't become rebels until Gaddafi's forces starting firing on them, up until that point they were just protestors. Two, Gaddafi came into power through a coup enacted by a small group of individuals, I find it pretty hyporcritical to say that the rebels might not have majority support when Gaddafi didn't have majority support when he came into power, and the leader he overthrew didn't start killing the opposition either.

Two, Gaddafi's repression has led to movements agaisnt him in the forms of protests, riots, and assassination attempts, he at least fits the criteria of having enough people opposed to him to warrant some level of action. Even if the majority still supports him, which I find a dubious claim seeing as how there is no objective way to measure something like that due to his political oppression, then after he is gone from power the majority can voice their opinion through an election, something they haven't had for a very long time, since before Gaddafi came into power.

Three, I don't doubt that the UN action isn't entirely altruistic, but I think calling it completely non-altruistic would be wrong. For one thing, most nations remained neutral until Gaddafi started firing on his own citizens, and even the their response was slow because they did not want this to turn into a power grab like Iraq. Britain and the U.S. still appear to be adverse to any large steps beyind the no-fly zone and sanctions, Italy seems to have been lukewarm on any action at all, and France seems to be the country that would be most supportive of increased measures against Gaddafi. My point is, to say that it is ALL a power grab I think is wrong. Yes, there are countries serving their own interests, but so long as they are doing the right thing and simply protecting citizens then I think their action is justified.

He's not a President, he's an Absolute Ruler. Hence, as an Absolute Ruler, his position is not contingent upon approval by the people, it's contingent soleley upon his abillity to maintain power. This is how societies with Absolute Rulers work. The people are subject to the ruler; the ruler is not subject to the people. It's not a democracy. Hence, your reasoning does not apply. As an Absolute Ruler, he wouldn't just give up his power because the people want him to. From his perspective, he knows what's good for the people, more so than what the people think themselves. If I were a ruler with absolute power, I would do whatever I could to maintain power.BluRayHiDef

But that's wrong.

And that's the reason he got invaded!

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Good. I'm glad you agree with Gadhafi and his views. You two should be partners in crime.

Go to Libya, live there for a while, then come back and tell us all about how prosperous, glorious and peaceful that country is right now.

BluRayHiDef

I never said that I agree with him, I'm just saying that I understand his motivations for doing what he's done. It's what anyone with absolute power would do. That's the way autocracies work. You have to stop looking at this as a simple case of "good" and "bad". As Emperor Palpatinie said in Star Wars Episode Three, "Good and Evil are points of view." From his perspective, the agenda behind his rulership is what's "Good" and best for the people. Anyone who opposes his agenda is the "Bad" guy. Look at it this way. The U.S., and the West in general, views non-Western forms of government as "evil". So, what do they do? They find reasons to invade countries with non-Western forms of government and replace the governments with democratic ones. It's not so black and white. Alway's remember Palpatine's words.

Now normally some would say that the westerners are attempting to seize more power right now, but look what happened in Egypt. Mubarak didn't go as far as going totally insane and ordered the Egyptian military to start a civil war with his own people, and no western powers intervened. Sure, there were some casualties, but in terms of violent protests, they're inevitable.

The western powers jumped in because Gadhafi can potentially start another Rwanda, and unlike the latter, he has a military opposed to a poorly-equipped militia. He's going to shoot any of his own people that speak out against him. The UN learned their mistakes from the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

Good. I'm glad you agree with Gadhafi and his views. You two should be partners in crime.

Go to Libya, live there for a while, then come back and tell us all about how prosperous, glorious and peaceful that country is right now.

Desulated

Even though I partially agree with you, I don't think your argument holds a lot of water. There are plenty of oppressive rulers throughout the world, are we justified in invading them all? After we invade them, can we just install our puppet governments like we tried to in Iraq? When people react negatively to those puppet governments does that also mean that we should just dissolve them, because that's not what we have done to this point. Why aren't we overthrowing the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Karzai in Afghanistan? We shouldn't be going after just every dictator who does something objectionable, but I am glad we are finally taking steps to protect people who need protection like we SHOULD HAVE been doing in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, and other places where helpless civilians were killed needlessly.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]He's not a President, he's an Absolute Ruler. Hence, as an Absolute Ruler, his position is not contingent upon approval by the people, it's contingent soleley upon his abillity to maintain power. This is how societies with Absolute Rulers work. The people are subject to the ruler; the ruler is not subject to the people. It's not a democracy. Hence, your reasoning does not apply. As an Absolute Ruler, he wouldn't just give up his power because the people want him to. From his perspective, he knows what's good for the people, more so than what the people think themselves. If I were a ruler with absolute power, I would do whatever I could to maintain power.luisen123

But that's wrong.

And that's the reason he got invaded!

*Sigh*. Why is it wrong? Because you disagree with it? How do you know that what you believe is righ? There's no such thing as good or bad, or right or wrong. There's only points of view. As Emperor Palpatine said in Star Wars Episode III, "Good and Evil are points of view". Somthing is only "evil" because you disagree with it. For example, let's use the story of the Prophet Muhammad as an example. Prior to the introduction and spread of Islam in the the Arab World by Muhammad, the Arab World was ripe with paganism. People worshiped many gods, sacrificed their children, and violence was rampant. What did Muhammad do? From Muhammad's perspective, these paganists were evil and their practices were responsible for the vile conditions in the Arab World. So, he decided to force Islam upon the people because he believed it was the right thing to do. He spread Islam with the sword and suppressed non-Islamic uprisings. Muhammad ruled with absolute power. Why? He believed that Islam was right and that people must follow it. Any anti-Islamic way of life needed to be suprressed. Do you see the the parallel? Good and evil are points of view. A man with absolute power rules because he truly believes that his agenda is what's best for the people and for society.

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Good. I'm glad you agree with Gadhafi and his views. You two should be partners in crime.

Go to Libya, live there for a while, then come back and tell us all about how prosperous, glorious and peaceful that country is right now.

theone86

Even though I partially agree with you, I don't think your argument holds a lot of water. There are plenty of oppressive rulers throughout the world, are we justified in invading them all? After we invade them, can we just install our puppet governments like we tried to in Iraq? When people react negatively to those puppet governments does that also mean that we should just dissolve them, because that's not what we have done to this point. Why aren't we overthrowing the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Karzai in Afghanistan? We shouldn't be going after just every dictator who does something objectionable, but I am glad we are finally taking steps to protect people who need protection like we SHOULD HAVE been doing in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, and other places where helpless civilians were killed needlessly.

I was being sarcastic with that statement because he was being so supportive and defensive of Gadhafi's actions.

The UN learned their mistakes from the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

Desulated

No, they absolutely did not. Darfur is the starkest example of how they didn't, but there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that they have attempted to rectify the mistakes they made in Rwanda.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Good. I'm glad you agree with Gadhafi and his views. You two should be partners in crime.

Go to Libya, live there for a while, then come back and tell us all about how prosperous, glorious and peaceful that country is right now.

Desulated

Even though I partially agree with you, I don't think your argument holds a lot of water. There are plenty of oppressive rulers throughout the world, are we justified in invading them all? After we invade them, can we just install our puppet governments like we tried to in Iraq? When people react negatively to those puppet governments does that also mean that we should just dissolve them, because that's not what we have done to this point. Why aren't we overthrowing the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Karzai in Afghanistan? We shouldn't be going after just every dictator who does something objectionable, but I am glad we are finally taking steps to protect people who need protection like we SHOULD HAVE been doing in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, and other places where helpless civilians were killed needlessly.

I was being sarcastic with that statement because he was being so supportive and defensive of Gadhafi's actions.

I get that, I'm just saying that I think there are a lot of countries that aren't prosperous, glorious, and peaceful and we're not intervening in their affairs.

*Sigh*. Why is it wrong? Because you disagree with it? How do you know that what you believe is righ? There's no such thing as good or bad, or right or wrong. There's only points of view. As Emperor Palpatine said in Star Wars Episode III, "Good and Evil are points of view". Somthing is only "evil" because you disagree with it. For example, let's use the story of the Prophet Muhammad as an example. Prior to the introduction and spread of Islam in the the Arab World by Muhammad, the Arab World was ripe with paganism. People worshiped many gods, sacrificed their children, and violence was rampant. What did Muhammad do? From Muhammad's perspective, these paganist were evil and their practices were responsible for the vile conditions in the Arab World. So, he decided to force Islam upon the people because he believed it was the right thing to do. He spread Islam with the sword and suppressed non-Islamic uprisings. Muhammad ruled with absolute power. Why? He believed that Islam was right and that people must follow it. Any anti-Islamic way of life needed to be suprressed. Do you see the the parallel? Good and evil are points of view. A man with absolute power rules because he truly believes that his agenda is what's best for the people and for society.BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

Good. I'm glad you agree with Gadhafi and his views. You two should be partners in crime.

Go to Libya, live there for a while, then come back and tell us all about how prosperous, glorious and peaceful that country is right now.

angrules23

I never said that I agree with him, I'm just saying that I understand his motivations for doing what he's done. It's what anyone with absolute power would do. That's the way autocracies work. You have to stop looking at this as a simple case of "good" and "bad". As Emperor Palpatinie said in Star Wars Episode Three, "Good and Evil are points of view." From his perspective, the agenda behind his rulership is what's "Good" and best for the people. Anyone who opposes his agenda is the "Bad" guy. Look at it this way. The U.S., and the West in general, views non-Western forms of government as "evil". So, what do they do? They find reasons to invade countries with non-Western forms of government and replace the governments with democratic ones. It's not so black and white. Alway's remember Palpatine's words.

Yeah, I generally take an outlook that allows for some level of relativity, but what Gaddafi was doing before all this was unjustifiable. There were no elections in Libya, the government was basically run by Gadaffi. He had a secret police, suppression of free speech, you could be executed for saying something against the state, I don't see how you can honestly make a legitimate "for the good of the state" argument, and firing on citizens with his military just crosses the biggest line.

[QUOTE="Desulated"]

The UN learned their mistakes from the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

theone86

No, they absolutely did not. Darfur is the starkest example of how they didn't, but there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that they have attempted to rectify the mistakes they made in Rwanda.

Well, contrary to the popular belief of how incompetent they are, at least they're doing something now for once, at the very least. They at least acknowledge Gadhafi has hit the new edge of being an oppressor.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]*Sigh*. Why is it wrong? Because you disagree with it? How do you know that what you believe is righ? There's no such thing as good or bad, or right or wrong. There's only points of view. As Emperor Palpatine said in Star Wars Episode III, "Good and Evil are points of view". Somthing is only "evil" because you disagree with it. For example, let's use the story of the Prophet Muhammad as an example. Prior to the introduction and spread of Islam in the the Arab World by Muhammad, the Arab World was ripe with paganism. People worshiped many gods, sacrificed their children, and violence was rampant. What did Muhammad do? From Muhammad's perspective, these paganist were evil and their practices were responsible for the vile conditions in the Arab World. So, he decided to force Islam upon the people because he believed it was the right thing to do. He spread Islam with the sword and suppressed non-Islamic uprisings. Muhammad ruled with absolute power. Why? He believed that Islam was right and that people must follow it. Any anti-Islamic way of life needed to be suprressed. Do you see the the parallel? Good and evil are points of view. A man with absolute power rules because he truly believes that his agenda is what's best for the people and for society.luisen123

You haven't learned anything from what I've said. You fail to realize the underlying premise. Morality is subjective. How do you know that he doesn't know what's "good" for his people, if "good" isn't even something that can be absolutely defined? The only reason that you think what he believes is good for his people is actually bad is because you disagree with it. Also, I like the way that you implied that Muhammad was Crazy...just because you disagree with what he believed (even though his enforcement of what he believed brought peace to the Arab World during his time). Stop looking at things from a biased perspective. Try and consider things from the perspective of others.

Yeah, I generally take an outlook that allows for some level of relativity, but what Gaddafi was doing before all this was unjustifiable. There were no elections in Libya, the government was basically run by Gadaffi. He had a secret police, suppression of free speech, you could be executed for saying something against the state, I don't see how you can honestly make a legitimate "for the good of the state" argument, and firing on citizens with his military just crosses the biggest line.

theone86

If the TC supports tyranny, totalitarianism and any other form of oppressive rule and sees it as a right form of government then you can't argue with him.

For some reason i had no amount of surprise that you visit gore sites.FrostyPhantasm

Why?

You haven't learned anything from what I've said. You fail to realize the underlying premise. Morality is subjective. How do you know that he doensn't know what's "good" for this people, if "good" isn't even something that can be absolutely defined. The only reason you think what he believes is good for his people is actually bad is because you disagree with it. Also, I like the way that you implied that Muhammad was Crazy...just because you disagree with what he believed (even though his enforcement of what he believed brought peace to the Arab World during his time).BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yeah, I generally take an outlook that allows for some level of relativity, but what Gaddafi was doing before all this was unjustifiable. There were no elections in Libya, the government was basically run by Gadaffi. He had a secret police, suppression of free speech, you could be executed for saying something against the state, I don't see how you can honestly make a legitimate "for the good of the state" argument, and firing on citizens with his military just crosses the biggest line.

Desulated

If the TC supports tyranny, totalitarianism and any other form of oppressive rule and sees it as a right form of government then you can't argue with him.

To be fair, Saddam Hussein did some of the same things and I didn't support the Iraq War, but it wasn't because I believed Hussein was justified in what he was doing, it was because I didn't think we were justified in what we were doing.

[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]For some reason i had no amount of surprise that you visit gore sites.BluRayHiDef

Why?

Meanwhile, at TC's house

*Sigh*. Why is it wrong? Because you disagree with it? How do you know that what you believe is righ? There's no such thing as good or bad, or right or wrong. There's only points of view. As Emperor Palpatine said in Star Wars Episode III, "Good and Evil are points of view". Somthing is only "evil" because you disagree with it. For example, let's use the story of the Prophet Muhammad as an example. Prior to the introduction and spread of Islam in the the Arab World by Muhammad, the Arab World was ripe with paganism. People worshiped many gods, sacrificed their children, and violence was rampant. What did Muhammad do? From Muhammad's perspective, these paganists were evil and their practices were responsible for the vile conditions in the Arab World. So, he decided to force Islam upon the people because he believed it was the right thing to do. He spread Islam with the sword and suppressed non-Islamic uprisings. Muhammad ruled with absolute power. Why? He believed that Islam was right and that people must follow it. Any anti-Islamic way of life needed to be suprressed. Do you see the the parallel? Good and evil are points of view. A man with absolute power rules because he truly believes that his agenda is what's best for the people and for society.

BluRayHiDef

I really don't care if you are trying to make a point here or anything but i think its my duty as a person who has knowledge about this subject to correct you.

First, prophet Muhammad never forcedIslam. You can't force a religion of a group of people. That doesn't make any sense. Muhammad's preaching gained him many followers peacefully. Eventually after long continuous harassment by the pagans the followers and Muhammad moved out of Mecca (They didn't fight back or kill, as you probably though). After moving out and getting more followers to the point of having the city of Medina under Islam, the pagans waged war to prevent prophet Muhammad from preaching any further and that is when all this fighting began. Muhammad did not rule with absolute power, most of his followers lead the armies, most of his followers did everything. Muhammad was a guide nothing else. He even refused to go to war with the Meccans but his followers persuaded him.

Although i have to say, your point on the Arab world back then is true.