posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:23 PM
Such massive displays of ignorance here. Who are the rebels?
Guess what? The rebels aren't a cohesive block of one identity and ideology as many here would like to believe. They aren't all CIA "stooges," Al
Qaeda militants, or middle class Libyans fighting for freedom.
They are a mix of disparate people from disparate tribes fighting for a variety of reasons. Contrary to Western biases, every time you see a rebel
fighter shout "Allahu akbar!" doesn't make them an Islamic militant. In fact, that's quite a widely used expression for a variety of reasons in
Arabic and amongst Muslims, extremely few of them related to blowing up infidels.
I am sure there are some Islamic militants there, but a lot seem to be middle-class Libyans who are fed up with Gaddafi or who saw the chaos sparked
and took advantage of the situation to take up arms against the oppressive Gaddafi. You see a surprising amount of professional in the ranks of the
rebels, people like accountants, doctors, engineers, lawyers, and even students/professors from Libyan universities in the ranks.
It's an incredibly dynamic and complicated situation and the rebels of various backgrounds are united in common hatred against Gaddafi.
Yet nonetheless if you go to Youtube or a lot of Internet sites, you'll find people complaining about Western intervention for oil or for Zionist
plots, indirectly supporting Islamic terrorists, and trying to establish an American presence in Libya.
And to be honest, you have to be very naive to think that. It makes no sense at all for anyone who has actually followed this from the beginning. The
West only participated at the request of the Arab League and United Nations and we arrived far too late to justify calls that the West wanted to be
there to take control. If that were the case, it would have happened far earlier and there would have been ground troops and a lot less caution. The
U.S. also has played a minimal role recently which has exacerbated calls for increased NATO presence by the rebels, given Gaddafi gains. To seriously
think we are there for oil is extremely misguided. I mean we had a very cozy deal with Gaddafi before this conflict that gave the West access to
unfathomable amounts of Libyan business and oil, it makes no sense to destroy the country for some more, especially considering the fallout
internationally from a sustained Western presence in Libya.
Now for the complicated truth, we are seemingly stretching the definition of the Libyan no-fly zone. That is true. We do seem to be extending our
authority to remove Gaddafi from power by supporting the rebels. Now is that a bad thing? Maybe. Gaddafi created stability despite the fact that he is
a brutal dictator who enriched himself immensely at the cost of thousands of lives. A Libya without him could see sectarian and intertribal conflict
in addition to pro-Gaddafi insurgencies by tribes loyal to him like the Gaddafa. However a Libya with Gaddafi in control also risks much damage to the
West with Gaddafi supporting weapons programs like Iran, terrorism against the West like with Lockerbie, and many other bad things. So leaving him in
power is a very bad situation for a lot of people, in addition to his own countrymen who could find themselves massacred en masse even more so than
now where at least they stand a chance.
And honestly, it's right to support the underdogs who protest against a dictator, who massacres them, in the name of freedom and improved conditions
(not necessarily democracy, but the tune of the Libyan uprising mirrored grievances in several other Middle Eastern nations like Egypt, Syria, and
But half-assed support of them is problematic given it intensifies a stalemate and humanitarian crisis. But then again interfering too much creates
jingoist accusations and other issues, like commitment to another foreign war.
It's complicated, but the vast simplifications some of you engage in here is insulting not only to the Libyan people, but also to the complexity of
the human condition.