The Story Of Muammar Gaddafi

reply to post by yorkshirelad

As for the Northern Ireland point. Hmmm Tell me you wonderful apologists what was supposed to happen to the protestants in your warped world view? Forcibly removed from their homes?

Before someone with half brain comes out with the term "British occupation of Ireland" please read a history book, one that goes back to the 11th century. At no point in history did "British" troops cross the Irish Sea, fight some Irish natives and take over the country....sheesh!!!

In fact here is the bummer : Irish catholics are descendants of English catholics OMG !

Irrespective of the history of Northern Ireland does this mean planting bombs and blowing up pubs, streets of shops and department stores is ok? (NB not empty! hence dead civilians)

Did we not go to Ireland to find and trial a King? I'm pretty sure we wiped whole villages out that Cromwell's army suspected of aiding the Royalists.

So no, we have never went to Ireland to kill the Irish, but we never exactly left Ireland intact or peaceful either did we or leave at all.

Your right though... At the end of the day nobody has the right to take the life of another, inforce his/her will on them or to purposely make them suffer.

Gadaffi did all three of these, he was no saint. Evidently we "British are guilty of all three also and that could be said for as recent as 1960's Republic of Ireland.

Logically we must way the good with the bad and realise the intent. It IS evident Gadaffi done a lot of good also and when one asks of the intent of those good deeds... I cannot see evil reasoning behind a lot of them.

Muammar Gaddafi, a misunderstood man who was illegally murdered by Western backed terrorists. He was a man who was going to receive a United Nations human rights award for all the actions he took to help the people of Libya, before the award was stripped from him when he was accused by rebels and Western powers of illegal and degrading acts.

Some actions of which the UN were going to congratulate him on included:

- The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed that the promotion and protection of human rights was one of the most important factors for the progress and development of the people. The first declaration of the Great Alfateh Revolution in 1969 had called for equality and non-discrimination, and in 1977 the People’s Authority had been declared. In 1988, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had issued the Great Green Document on Human Rights, which provided that all human beings were born free and equal, with no difference between men and women. In 1991, Law No. 20 on Strengthening Freedoms had also been enacted. The
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was party to most human rights treaties and the protocols thereto, and those instruments took precedence over national laws and could be directly applied by the courts once they had been ratified.

- Protection of human rights was guaranteed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; this included not only political rights, but also economic, social and cultural rights. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya referred to its pioneering experience in the field of wealth distribution and labour rights.

- The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed that human rights education was a duty that should be fulfilled in the school system and the family system and by relevant civil society organizations.

- Regarding measures taken to prevent torture and ill treatment in detention centres or prisons, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya indicated that the practice of torture and ill treatment was forbidden in article 434 of the Penal Code, which stated that public officials who had ordered the torture of a person or had committed
an act of torture were sentenced to 3 to 10 years’ imprisonment. Article 17 of the Promotion of Freedom Act stipulated that society forbade penalties that undermined the dignity of a person and inflicted physical harm or material injury. The legislation adequately addressed this issue; therefore, new measures
were unnecessary in this context.

- In the initiative to distribute wealth to low-income families, those programmes were related to distributing money through investments for every needy family. Over the past four years, 229,595 families had benefited from the programme.

- Regarding services for persons with special needs, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya indicated that such persons received monthly a llowances and were exempt from all fees and taxes, including for electricity, water and tr ansportation. They also had residences and housing units, medical supplies, vehicles especially designed for them, and paid domestic help and home services.

- Concerning human rights training for personnel and law enforcement officials, a formal programme had been organized by the State. Personnel were trained through official curricula in all law schools, colleges and universities, including the armed forces college. In addition, all associations and human rights organizations conducted workshops and training courses and disseminated information and raised awareness regarding human rights issues. Workshops and technical capacity had been provided to two courts, which were being modernized.

- Regarding discrimination against women, the policy of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
was based on equality and non-discrimination.

- In response to questions regarding restrictions on freedom of expression, opinion and the press, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya reaffirmed that any citizen could freely express his or her views. The country had many independent newspapers that had criticized the Administration, and there were other privately owned media. A draft law on this issue was under way but had not yet been enacted, and the 1972 press law would soon be amended to resolve the pending issues.

www2.ohchr.org...

Libya was pretty damn good under Gaddafi, even to the point where it was much more advanced than Western countries in many respects.

Gaddafi's claim that the rebels were not who they said they were was overlooked, despite it being proven later that he was indeed right; that the rebels were terrorists:



What is particularly important though, is that Gaddafi knew that Western backed battles with Arab powers was coming. He pointed to the audience and said "any one of you could be next." Syrian President Bashar Al Assad sat there laughing...look where he is now.

7:05 onwards:



Gaddafi was a man who followed human rights. He was a man who knew of the threat to Arab powers, the Western world...

I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who claim to be conservative or libertarian and still tell me they think Gaddafi was a nice guy who shouldn't have been kicked out of power.

Let's review the facts:

* Gaddafi was an Arab socialist revolutionary who came to power in a coup d'etat
* He then ruled as a dictator for the next 42 years, crushing civil rights and preventing any move towards democracy
* He nationalised the oil industry
* He was a major sponsor of international terrorism
* He had a shocking record for human rights abuses and racial discrimination
* He publicly condemned torture, but didn't prevent authorities from using it
* His Revolutionary Committees maintained constant surveillance on Libyan citizens and executed political activists
* Freedom House (a US NGO which tracks human rights and political freedoms around the world) consistently rated Libya at the lowest end of its freedom scale

This is not a good track record.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Libya was pretty damn good under Gaddafi, even to the point where it was much more advanced than Western countries in many respects.

Bollocks, that is absolutely laughable. The best we can say about Gaddafi is that he raised Libya's rank on the Human Development Index above any other African country. But that's not a huge achievement.

reply to post by Sankari


When you talk about Libya being involved in international terrorism, are you referring to Lockerbie? If you are, you need to do some research.

He accepted responsibility in order to get sanctions lifted. Libya was not responsible. I believe it was the Iranians in retaliation for the US downing one of their planes.

Deny ignorance.

reply to post by Sankari


Your points are rather laughable.

* He nationalised the oil industry

So what if he did? Saudi Arabia has done the same along giving a few of its shares to Britain and America for a price.

He then ruled as a dictator for the next 42 years, crushing civil rights and preventing any move towards democracy

What makes you say that America, Britain are either Democratic countries? just look at whats happening now.

* He was a major sponsor of international terrorism

What About America, Britain and its NGO organizations arming the Jihadists/mujahideen in the 1980s to beat the soviets in afghanistan? and a few years later in Bosnia by tricking the Serbs into srebrenica? or Iraq? by making the American forces stay longer?

Of course in your opinion and view you dont see that as an major sponsor of international terrorism which go far beyond Syria currently.

* He had a shocking record for human rights abuses and racial discrimination

racial discrimination agaisnt whom? jews?

* Freedom House (a US NGO which tracks human rights and political freedoms around the world)

Ah yes the Freedom House an NGO that says it all. Lets see what they say about Turkey and Qatar shall we? or Bahrain maybe?


According to Freedom House Turkey is Partly Free, Internet
Partly Free and Freedom of the press Partly Free?? really?

Not according to people who from the inside. See this website, for further info on the matter.
The Most Jailed Country for Journalists


This is what they are saying about Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia
Not Free and yet they wanted freedom for Libya and Syria.

But we can agree North Korea is a pure dictatorship state.

THE NUBIAN SANDSTONE AQUIFER

The Nubian Aquifer is the real reason he was taken out. It is one of the world's largest sources of untapped fresh water called "fossil water". The aquifer runs under Tsnuisia, Lybia and Egypt and no wonder all three countries had an Arab spring right in a row. The UN and Unesco have been after that water for years but Gadaffi wanted to make Lybia like a golf course. There are technical difficulties in drilling for fossil water because it is capped over with granite ( I think its granite) FYI....Some people think these pockets of fossil water are a few of the" springs of the deep" that DID NOT break open at the food of Noah. Scholars have speculated that these springs burst open and shot up walls of water 20 miles high and that is how the first rain came down

Originally posted by Sankari
He then ruled as a dictator for the next 42 years, crushing civil rights and preventing any move towards democracy

No, just no.

From the UN report:

Protection of human rights was guaranteed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; this included not only political rights, but also economic, social and cultural rights. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya referred to its pioneering experience in the field of wealth distribution and labour rights.

www2.ohchr.org...

Furthermore, Gaddafi had actually 'stepped down' as the leader of Libya in 1977, while still maintaining a symbolic role:

Gadhafi responded to protesters' demands that he step down by saying he has "no authority" that he can relinquish. He said the Libyan people hold power in the country, explaining that he and others gave it to them in 1977.

It's true that in 1977, Qaddafi invented a new system of government called the Jamahiriya, or state of the masses, which Time magazine describes as a system where a country "is supposedly governed by the populace through local councils." But although Qaddafi technically holds no formal office — besides Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution — the Jamahiriya "has been dismissed by several international observers, including the CIA, as a military dictatorship."

nymag.com...

Asked whether Colonel Gaddafi would consider standing down, Mr Kaim replied that the Libyan leader had not held executive power since 1977.

“Gaddafi has said it by himself.,” he said.

“He said that 'I’m just playing a symbolic role here in the country because I was the leader of the revolution’...

“The role of the leader is symbolic and the national dialogue will talk about the constitution and the constitution might deal with all these issues.”

www.telegraph.co.uk... ml

While it is obvious that he and his family had considerable influence on what happened in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi actually held no official power as the leader of the nation-state.

He had a shocking record for human rights abuses and racial discrimination

Again, that is wrong also.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya believed that the promotion and protection of human rights was one of the most important factors for the progress and development of the people. The first declaration of the Great Alfateh Revolution in 1969 had called for equality and non-discrimination, and in 1977 the People’s Authority had been declared. In 1988, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had issued the Great Green Document on Human Rights, which provided that all human beings were born free and equal, with no difference between men and women. In 1991, Law No. 20 on Strengthening Freedoms had also been enacted. The
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was party to most human rights treaties and the protocols thereto, and those instruments took precedence over national laws and could be directly applied by the courts once they had been ratified.

www2.ohchr.org...

He publicly condemned torture, but didn't prevent authorities from using it

Concerning human rights training for personnel and law enforcement officials, a formal programme had been organized by the State. Personnel were trained through official curricula in all law schools, colleges and universities, including the armed forces college. In addition, all associations and human rights organizations conducted workshops and training courses and disseminated information and raised awareness regarding human rights issues. Workshops and technical capacity had been provided to two courts, which were being modernized.

www2.ohchr.org...

Originally posted by daaskapital
Libya was pretty damn good under Gaddafi, even to the point where it was much more advanced than Western countries in many respects.

Bollocks, that is absolutely laughable. The best we can say about Gaddafi is that he raised Libya's rank on the Human Development Index above any other African country. But that's not a huge achievement.

edit on 5/6/13 by Sankari because: added quote...

He done much more than raising the HDI of Libya. Perhaps you need to conduct further, independent research, rather than relying entirely on bull# propaganda.

Most folks wont agree with me on this, but there are facts to base my claims. Muammar Gaddafi was murdered for...




Oil.

Gold.

Period.

According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi's plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars - demanding payment instead in gold-backed "dinars" (a single African currency made from gold) - was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system - based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money - have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing. Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration's "regime change" mission.

Gadhafi’s Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar



You don't have to be a fan of Gaddafi, or even like the man. I never was a fan of his, but EVERY leader has blood on their hands. And Just think, this woman can become the next President. Look at the hypocrisy.

If Libya was a dictatorship, then so be it. Who is anybody else to criticise them? Rest assured any resistance to the Libyan regime was at the hands of the CIA, which in an of itself would lead to internal strife and bloodshed. Imagine trying to run a country under any premise (evil dictator, benevolent dictator, or democratically elected leader) when at every turn you have to worry about what the CIA is going to do to bribe people and make shallow promises to anybody who might appear to be your adversary in attempts to get them to overthrow your regime.

reply to post by mekhanics


It is sad and unfortunate that the western powers special interests are so fragile we have to dispose of decent leaders who happen to stand up to our system and threaten our interests.

I thought he was just looking out for his people as well and trying to create an economy that worked for all its' people and not just a wealthy minority.

What a shame.

reply to post by sonnny1


I partially agree but I would rephrase that he was actually killed for the fiat USD system.

He was a legitimate threat to the system, if other countries joined him in jumping off the fiat standard and going back to gold it could have collapsed the entire fiat system or at least weakened it.

This would have been disastrous for nearly every modernized nation so of course it was stopped.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


People can be more biased in the field of international affairs than sports teams.

I support America but I at least recognize we are doing terrible things across the globe.

But at least we are doing terrible things for a good end. People like Gaddafi were doing good things that would have a terrible end. He was a bit fanatic and short sighted. I think he was even less concerned of how things would turn out for other countries aside from his own than even North Korea is concerned for other countries. But I could be over-estimating North Koreas' concern for the USA.

reply to post by sonnny1


Sonny, you bring up some good points but I don't think you should forget about his role in trying to form an African Union.

Using Libya's great wealth to unite Africa would upset the balance. Africa has many resources, imagine they were no longer able to be controlled and exploited for the 'west's' advantage?

A strong Africa would be a game changer.

Originally posted by deessell
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Sonny, you bring up some good points but I don't think you should forget about his role in trying to form an African Union.

Using Libya's great wealth to unite Africa would upset the balance. Africa has many resources, imagine they were no longer able to be controlled and exploited for the 'west's' advantage?

A strong Africa would be a game changer.

A strong Africa would be a superpower if it were under one union and banner. It has everything in abundance contrary to popular belief, all it needs is a little organisation and no western influence... or eastern for that matter.

You would think after all these years of aid... billions given and still the majority of the continent is suffering.

All the time the fat cats organising Africa are laughing at us, they want a unstable africa and they maintain it's demise. How else will they get cheap resources and hold the cards of power the have held so dear for so long.

I always had respect for Libya and even Gaddafi, what ever it takes for an african to stand up in Africa and say we (africans) made this... despite how you have spited us WE still made it. Libya was once a fine example of african independence.

I always figured americans would have respect for that

All Rulers/dictators seem to start out with grand and noble ideas....
Once in a place of power where they rule supreme for a life time... well things get sour fast.
Power corrupts
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

History shows this time and again....


Win the war and you’re called a Hero
Lost it and you’re a War Criminal